by Anon
Readers of this blogsite won’t be at all surprised that the Charity Commission are once again breathing down the neck of the Church of England on safeguarding. The Charity Commission press release issued on 14th November 2025 stated that ‘the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England must rapidly accelerate the delivery of safeguarding improvements and close gaps in its approach to handling complaints’. The Charity Commission, as the regulator, has therefore issued the following (extremely severe) warning: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/church-of-england-charity-must-rapidly-accelerate-safeguarding-reforms
That warning is long overdue. But why is the Archbishops’ Council dragging its feet? Why do the bishops resist independent oversight and scrutiny in this sphere? The answer lies in three main areas of concern, each of which comprises a triplet of issues. In highlighting each triplet, these matters must now be passed on to the Charity Commission as matters that need their proper regulatory action
The first of triplet concerns the deliberate weaponization of safeguarding by bishops in order to persecute their own clergy. We are aware of multiple instances where bishops wishing to bully, discipline, silence or subdue their clergy deliberately subject those same clergy to unspecified, vague or false allegations of ‘safeguarding concerns’. There are numerous examples of bishops doing so, and here we pick three.
First, clergy complaining about bishops failing in their safeguarding duties will have the allegations turned against them. We have found many examples of clergy being threatened with allegations of ‘safeguarding concerns’ for simply whistleblowing on poor safeguarding practice. This is pure bullying and malevolence, with Archbishops and Bishops all engaged in this misconduct.
Second, we are well aware of deliberately false evidence, forged risk assessments and other malfeasance in several cases where diocesan bishops have sought, intentionally, to discredit, destroy or humiliate their own clergy. None of these cases ever gets to a CDM proceeding, as the church courts are regarded as creatures of the episcopacy, and justice to ordinary clergy will invariably and frequently be denied.
Third, it has become commonplace for bishops to threaten their clergy with the potential for ‘safeguarding concerns’ in order to secure their compliance or exit. When this fails, bishops have resorted to issuing public statements airing their concerns, only later withdrawing the defamatory statement after the clergy have suffered much personal damage and subsequent reputational harm.
The second triplet of issues concerns the Church of England’s repeated dishonesty using the term ‘independent’. The Bishops and Archbishops deliberately mislead the public in deploying the term at all, and the Charity Commission needs to intervene to prevent further ongoing abusive misconduct. Here, we cite three examples.
First, the Northern Irish safeguarding consultants, Ineqe, are paid for by the Church of England to benchmark its safeguarding work. Ineqe are not ‘independent’ of their client. Ineqe are not subject to any professional regulatory body, and there is prima facie evidence of this firm scheming to cover up shameful malpractice in the Church of England’s safeguarding work.
Second, despite public protestations that the Church of England cannot be seen continuing to ‘mark its own homework’ in safeguarding, it has taken no steps whatsoever to change this culture of self-serving conceit. The suspicion is that this sick culture will continue to mislead and abuse until the Charity Commission strips the Church of England of its self-validating deceptions.
Third, the standard of jurisprudence at work in Church of England safeguarding has all the safety and robustness of medieval witch trials. Unaccountable officers subject to zero external professional regulatory scrutiny remain free and at large to accuse and abuse at will, or, decide not to act if that protects those in power. The potential to be dangerously corrupt is baked into this structure, and we are aware of bishops who use this unfettered power with malicious intent.
The third triplet of issues concerns the vested interests of the parties who stand to lose the most if safeguarding compliance and regulation is posited with a genuinely independent third party.
First, the unregulated, largely unprofessional and certainly unaccountable Church of England safeguarding staff will be exposed as inconsistent, with shockingly variable standards of compliance, definitions, practices and policies. Their incompetence will also be exposed, and there is a colossal caseload of examples. The officers in the dioceses and at NST level have much to fear and a huge amount to lose from proper independent regulation.
Second, the self-interest and financial gains of the ecclesiastical lawyers will be severely impacted by proper professional independent regulation of Church of England safeguarding. The present arrangements are a proverbial gravy train for ecclesiastical law firms, and they will be first in the queue to advise General Synod that ‘independent regulation and delivery of safeguarding will not work…’ and then provide multiple reasons for maintaining the status quo. Bluntly, the church lawyers make a great deal of money out the malfeasance and incompetence at work in the present arrangements. Naturally, they will advise Synod to maintain the status quo.
Third, there is a substantial corpus of prima facie evidence for seriously corrupt practices in Church of England safeguarding. False allegations weaponised, forged evidence, falsified documents, bishops deliberately contriving to use safeguarding as leverage to abuse or remove clergy all adds up to a very unsavoury and unhealthy culture. The Archbishops’ Council are fully aware of much of this evidence, yet will (of course), deny such evidence exists. But there is a substantial body of such evidence, and it is now high time that the Charity Commission acted to strip the Church of England of its roles and responsibilities in this domain.
So, we call on the Charity Commission to engage with the evidence it already has in its possession. The Charity Commission well knows that the Archbishops’ Council is not to be trusted, and that the word of any Bishop or Archbishop on safeguarding these days has absolutely no value whatsoever. Indeed, the Church of England’s bank balance on morality and integrity is in a frightful state of crippling negative equity. It is literally bankrupt. And it is high time that the Charity Commission accepted that the word of the Archbishops’ Council carries no weight with victims of abuse, or the wider church.
The Archbishops’ Council has become a byword for moral indolence and serpentine dishonesty. They bring the Church of England into disrepute. The Archbishops’ Council is a charity that has failed, and it will continue to fail the Church of England if left to its own devices.
For all the reasons stated above, and for the sake of all the victims who continue to suffer under the lamentable, incompetent and corrupt Church of England safeguarding practices and culture, we request the Charity Commission, to intervene and prevent further harm. The Church of England cannot and will not reform itself. It has too much to lose. So, the Charity Commission must step in to end this farcical and harmful situation. Enough is enough.