I was speaking to a fellow retired clergyman some time ago about the safeguarding culture that appears everywhere in church life today. He responded by telling me about an offer made to him by an insurance company over safeguarding. This company offered to provide access to legal protection if ever he was subject to an accusation of abuse from the past. Because the amount required for this cover was a modest sum, he decided to sign up, even though he knew that there were no genuine stories about him to be told. The possibility of a false accusation remained a real, but thankfully improbable, threat.
False accusations of abuse sadly are not unknown, even in the church. We can remind ourselves of the unsubstantiated rumours and gossip that attached themselves to Father Griffin, which lead to him taking his own life. The accusations against Bishop Perham did an enormous amount of damage to him personally, his family and the whole of his diocese. His untimely death from cancer following his exoneration may or may not be an indicator of the nature of the stress he had been under. Chronic illness does often seem to go hand in hand with the trauma experienced through abuse. So, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the same illness inducing factors are at work from the stress of being accused falsely. Such an accusation places one in a no-man’s land of forced inactivity for months and years. How do bishops and clergy required to step back from their duties spend their time? They are required effectively to disappear, but this is quite hard to do when you have been used to a degree of public exposure through your relationships, writing and preaching.
Those who have studied the issue of false accusations against clergy and Christian leaders mention the statistic that around 5% of these accusations are false. I do not know how this figure was arrived at, but this percentage is sufficient to make it important for those charged with examining abuse cases always to face the possibility that with accusations of abuse, there may sometimes be falsity and malice present in the accusation. The case against John Brassington seemed to achieve its apparent credibility, not from a careful examination of all available evidence, but from a number of prejudices and assumptions that reportedly existed in the minds of members of a core group gathered to deal with the case. Now that most of those originally in this group have moved on in their careers, John will probably never see justice or vindication. Although the substance of the story remains in the voluminous paperwork collected by John’s friends and supporters, it will probably be of interest only to a historian who, in the future, wants to understand how the Church did its work of operating its own version of a justice system.
In this blog I want us to set out some of possible reasons for someone to bring a false accusation against a Christian leader, to accuse them of assault or bullying. While I have the Brassington and Griffin cases at the back of my mind, my observations here are also based on a number of other episodes beyond these two cases alone. If future core groups are to handle these kinds of accusations against individuals, they need to have some insight into the dynamics of a false accusation., even though they are rare events. I am going to suggest that there are, in most cases of false accusation, some common themes. It is to these that we now turn our attention. My aim here is not to go further in discussing actual historical cases, but to indicate some of the distinct dynamics potentially present in the false accusation cases that I have encountered.
Why would anyone seek to accuse another person falsely of a serious offence, thereby breaking one of the Ten Commandments about bearing false witness? Most people have encountered this ‘false witness’ offence at some point during their lives. In the process of administering justice, courts take very seriously the possibility of perjury and lies. For the proper administration of justice, a court expects to hear ‘nothing but the truth’ in the testimonies given in evidence. False accusation and false testimony are also taken very seriously by Scripture. If an individual chooses to break this commandment we need to reflect on possible reasons.
In the Litany of the Book of Common Prayer, God is asked to deliver us from numerous evils that may assault us at the hands of others. The quartet of ‘envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitableness’ is included. My spell-check does not like the final word, but I think we can read the word as a synonym for the other sentiments mentioned, malice and hatred. Before we come back to the idea of false accusation being an outworking of malice and hatred, I want us to think about ‘envy’. The word envy is often replaced by the idea of jealousy and this is a distinct form of malevolence. Such a feeling is going to be common in any environment, particularly one which tolerates or encourages competition. To be jealous of another person is to resent the fact that they have achieved a skill or power that the jealous person thinks desirable. Any institution (think Church or public school) that is organised by a system of promotion and reward will likely be place of festering jealousy. Some will benefit in a race for promotion and status while others languish at the bottom of the pile. This distinct version of hatred and malice felt by one party against another may in some cases lead to violence. If jealousy or envy can provoke violence, how much more can we expect to see on occasion false accusation used as a weapon against the individual who is seen to have achieved success in one of life’s races? The race that has been won, whether for money, power or status, may have cost a great deal in terms of expended energy, but the culture of competing to win always makes such a struggle appear worthwhile. The atmosphere of permanent and intense competition creates, on occasion, a situation of passionate jealousy, and this is something we have all witnessed. False accusations may well appear in this kind of setting, drawing on the considerable energy evoked by the feelings of passionate jealousy. The question in a core-group setting should always consider whether envy and jealousy might possibly be a factor in an accusation. Ever since the struggle between Cain and Abel it has been a factor that infects relationships, even those of the closest.
Jealousy and malice may exist in a situation where there is a history of competition between individuals and needs always to be considered. There is also a further type of false accusation which needs to be assessed. We have all been part of human families as children and we can remember well how we and our siblings sometimes sought to be the centre of attention in the family group. The announcement that ‘my brother hit me’ is one way for a younger child to seek the help of adults and be the focus of attention for a few minutes. Such a situation normally resolves itself, but the complaining child has learnt that such a complaint or accusation provides them with a momentary access to real power. In schools the world over teachers are today wary of the child in a class making accusations against other children. More serious are the accusations made against a teacher. Procedures are instantly activated and there may have to be an immediate ‘stepping back’ by the teacher concerned. Most of us hear only part of the story but it seems clear in many of the stories I have heard, that becoming important and listened to, may be a motivation for a young person to make an accusation against an adult. Such a potential motivation has to be (or should be) examined to assess whether the accusation is real or stems from a desire to be right at the centre of a serious drama.
The possibility of false assumptions, rumour-mongering or simple malice will always be scenarios that have to be considered when cases of alleged abuse are being considered. Careers and relationships can be destroyed on the basis of an accusation made. Those who have to make decisions on these matters for the Church need always to have a clear understanding of the dynamics of prejudice, malice or scapegoating that may exist in schools, churches and other similar organisations. The procedures to avoid such possibilities may normally be robust but, if ever the system gets it wrong and listens to the false accusation, the knock-on effect can last for decades. Institutions are seriously weakened by even a single mistake and the assumption that truth and justice are always a priority can be destroyed in the minds of a watching public. We know that malefactors can be accepted for decades without challenge in some parts of the church. It seems that the same system that failed to spot them to protect their victims is sometimes unable to discern the innocent who are accused of the most appalling crimes. The great loser in all this is the Church itself. Confidence in its integrity remains as a vital part of its ability to survive and serve another generation.
False allegations are becoming increasingly documented. In the case of the Post Office scandal, presided over (amongst others) by Church leader Rev Paula Vennells, the false allegations were of fraud. Despite the scale of the corruption, in particular the number of victims involved, any sort of redress has taken decades. It does illustrate just how difficult it is to defend against false allegations, and the impact on those falsely accused has been catastrophic.
These weren’t safeguarding false allegations of course, but it’s reasonable to infer similarities in the way things map out. With the Fr Griffin false allegations mentioned in the blog, the motivation for making them was, amongst other things, to deflect from the scale of the jailed Church officer’s considerable malfeasance. Back to the PO again and it’s never been made clear to me where the missing money actually went. Someone must know. Basically the money boosted the profits or someone else was pocketing it. Where’s the investigation of this?
Before allegations are accepted as “gospel” those responsible for overall justice must make themselves fully aware of any pattern of activity likely to call into question the veracity of the allegations being made. For example in the notorious “brain dump” from Sargeant, the likely quantity of dubious claims could have been taken into account well before any approach to the unfortunate and innocent priest. Was it?
With the PO case the high numbers of cases would have been a red flag to any reasonable person. No one seemed to have reflected and then acted on this. Presumably, too late, the leaders doubled down on the falsity to protect their own reputations.
False allegations can thus be a deflection away from bad actions of the accusers. This needs to be considered carefully before accusations are glibly accepted as true, particularly when data is available to challenge them. And please do your due diligence carefully.
False allegations can be devastating. I felt barred from ministry for being unmarried, after doing a 2 year new Wine course. I was accused of ‘living in sin’ and told my presence would ‘defile a pulpit’. My partner has health conditions, and we opted for a celibate relationship many years ago. But nobody in my local diocese was ready to ask the right questions, or to listen to and believe our answers. A diocesan vicar, one overseeing ordinands, advised me to try a different diocese for ministry experience as a commissioned evangelist. But when this was fixed up, my local diocese then acted to block it. A local diocesan representative boasted how a “bishop to bishop call” would bar me from getting a placement or experience in any Irish Diocese. It was all incredibly hurtful, and felt like calculated sadism. My local diocese have recently been the subject of a 9.6.26 BBC SPOTLIGHT ‘FAITH AND FEELINGS’ programme. The content of the 37 mins broadcast is not edifying. Irish Anglican Bishops or Archbishops now appear silent, and unable to refute what the BBC have found in Down and Dromore Diocese.
TYPO-‘FAITH AND FAILINGS’-is the broadcast name.
Thanks, Stephen, for this important contribution to the world of safeguarding.
I think there’s another motive operating in cases of false accusation: a person who feels insignificant sees making a false allegation as a way of exercising power over a person with perceived power and status. It’s a very effective way too, but devastating to the accused person and all their supporters. Devastating also to the whole community in which they exercise leadership. It’s an evil thing to do. But the more seriously safeguarding is taken (and rightly so), the more likely it is that false accusations will be made, because they’re seen to be so effective.
As a survivor myself, I can see that the mantra ‘all people claiming to have been abused must be believed’ can do a lot of damage. It takes real skill and expertise and – most important – a genuine concern for truth and justice, to separate the true from the false. Unfortunately these qualities are sometimes missing in the C of E.
Stephen writes with perception on the damage done by false accusations and there being, for whatever reason, no justice for those who form the 5% of the falsely accused. John Brassington is one of these and for six years I have supported him in his false safeguarding case. Stephen accurately describes the background of his injustice.
In all this time I had never thought of the injustices as practised by safeguarding groups, clergy and lay, as the breaking of the ninth Commandment. Do you think they know?
Again and again people and organisations which purport to be there to help and advise in such cases refused to do so for us, their sole reason being that John was not ordained. Just that apparently. That does not explain why there are falsely accused clergy suffering from not receiving justice.
Stephen rightly speaks of Father Alan Griffin whose case and that of John have nine parallels which I compiled into a chart and distributed widely. There was no acknowledgement. I should be very surprised if there were no such similarities in other cases.
Throughout 2025, in the fifth year of John’s allegation, we found unexpected support in his MP. She was very surprised that there was no appeals system and was the first person to see the injustice of John’s case. She was willing to help and tried to arrange a meeting with the DSO, who refused. Then the MP’s very probing and perceptive questions were sent to the DSO in advance of any meeting but one was still refused. Subsequently in December 2025, after a meeting between the DSO, the Dean, and the (newly appointed) canon for safeguarding, it was announced to the MP that the Diocese had closed the case.
No-one thought to inform John.
The MP’s response to me was: ‘An MP cannot overturn or influence safeguarding decisions, direct these organisations to reconsider their findings, or require them to meet with us. These bodies are independent, and there is no further route within Parliament that can change their position’.
So, it would seem there is no way the falsely accused within the Church of England can receive justice, not even through Parliament. Do you think the Head of the C/E knows?
I think it’s worth remembering that in some of the above cases, there was blatant homophobia from religious power holders. Fr Griffin was subjected to hideous smear and whispering campaigns by religious power holders. I don’t remember there being a particular complainent insisting on justice (who would have been the “false accusation” discussed here) – it was fabricated lies and smear campaigning and evil gossiping by people with religious power that caused his death. That’s a systemic issue of misuse of safeguarding to bully and harm from the institution itself. The church needs holding to account for what happened
I’m so sorry to read your experiences James
I would like to know where the 5% (of accusations being false) statistic is referenced
Two very competent and experienced abuse lawyers I know have given the 5% statistic. I think I also recall it from my research on sexual abuse. ‘False’ may include mistakes and confusion (e.g. the Bishop Bell case), psychiatric illness, or deliberate malice. I suspect false allegations may increase now that they are more likely to be believed; when they were routinely disbelieved there was nothing to be gained from them. But now making an allegation puts power into the hands of someone who is out for revenge or who just wants to cause trouble.
It remains true that 95% of allegations are true and all allegations must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly by experts without an interest in the case. Unfortunately in some cases church leaders have decided to prove their safeguarding zeal by assuming the truth of an allegation without proper unbiased investigation. There are several notorious cases of this, including John Brassington.
The 5% of false allegations do serious harm to genuine complainants, and as a survivor they make me angry.
I have long thought there are some false accusations of priests and bishops (among true ones relating to often terrible and tragic incidents) – indeed I am certain. I know that some false testimony was accepted by a major Royal Commission here respite evidence from those actually present at the particular institution. I also think that some cases, the motive must clearly be gaining some the massive payments being required of Churches and institutions (leading to the sale of some important churches in at least two of our dioceses in order to make those payments, and with dire results in the R.C. church here in Australia and overseas. (Of course, I cannot give details here but I can add my own name !)
Both Newcastle and Sydney were epicentres of abuse. Newcastle especially. There is absolutely no evidence of all the 50 Case studies in the Australian Royal Commission of false testimony.
Currently the Diocese of Tasmania and North Queensland are facing receivership and bankruptcy.
To conflate an undefined “false allegation” argument to the defestation of tens of thousands of victims and their families is a misleading and rotten thing for a retired cleric with PTO to publish.
During the RC hearings ginger groups and some institutional insiders used the false allegations accusation constantly.
Which Anglican Bishops named and shamed in the RC are you trying to state are subject to False allegations?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Sadly due to the febrile nature of some traditionalist hold outs within the Institution unlike your crazy brave statements I cannot add my name in refuting your comment.
During the RC victims were
I don’t know the Australian situation, but I think what Stephen is addressing is the situation in the Church of England. Here we have had both cases where complainants couldn’t get a hearing for their case, and also where false allegations have been handled badly. The two most prominent of these were the Bishop Bell case, where a review found that Bp Bell was most likely innocent and the complainant may have mistaken the identity of her assailant; and the Fr Griffin case. In the latter there was no actual allegation, just gossip – but the ensuing investigation and disciplinary proceedings resulted in the priest’s suicide. In that case the coroner took the unusual step of issuing a ‘prevention of future deaths’ verdict against the Diocese of London, because their procedures were so appalling. There are other cases that I know of.
If 5% of cases are incorrect, or unfounded, or whatever term you prefer to use, that still means that 95% of allegations are true. And all allegations must be investigated without bias (which the C of E avowedly doesn’t do), and complainants treated with respect and compassion. Which the C of E also fails to do, quite often.
Hi Janet,
My comments were in reply to John Bunyan . I agree there have been false allegations but the 5% statistic in Australia and possibly ISCA UK when related to Childs abuse or vulnerable adults is I think misleading.
Rev Bunyans comment specifically linked to Anglican cases was concerning.
I agree that the cases you mention likely fit into a contested category.
Does the 5% approximation refer to cases where criminal charges are pressed against an innocent party, or else where a formal diocesan inquiry is instigated in response to allegations of serious abuse which are wrong? This low figure could be deceptive if cited out of context. An impression arises of false gossip or innuendo being a weapon very often used against victims, witnesses or whistleblowers. These people are not charged with any crime, or even threatened with a formal diocesan inquiry against them, but they quietly get sidelined and ostracised. The bullying is often done by word of mouth, and can be profoundly harmful.
Cont.
During the RC victims faced strong defences from institutional legal teams and incredible pressure from institutional insiders bent on protecting their Churches reputation.
Investigators and witnesses were intimidated in Newcastle.
Sadly 10 years later these same stale arguments are resurrected by the usual suspects.
Perhaps sticking to poetry and hymn writing is better than casting shade on thousands of victims in Canberra Sydney and Newcastle who may stumble on your comment.
Final.
The common defense that “5% of allegations are false” is a profound bureaucratic distortion. In criminology, a “false” claim requires definitive proof of a deliberate, malicious fabrication. The Church routinely misuses this statistic by folding “unsubstantiated” or “disputed” cases into it. Claims are dismissed simply because archives are missing, or because trauma has fragmented a survivor’s chronological memory. A narrative fractured by severe trauma is the primary psychological signature of genuine abuse, not a lie. Using rigid legalistic metrics to classify these vulnerable, complex testimonies as “false” is an act of institutional self-preservation, not a pursuit of truth.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) exposed this exact architecture of denial, concluding that for decades the Church of England prioritised its own reputation over the protection of children and victims. By weaponising the high burden of proof required by internal tribunals, diocesan structures have historically transformed a lack of administrative evidence into an active weapon against survivor credibility. This legalistic framework creates a closed loop where the institution acts as investigator, judge, and jury, ensuring that its own liabilities remain concealed behind a wall of manufactured skepticism.
Theologically, this institutional shield is pure idolatry, sacrificing the Imago Dei (Genesis 1:27) to protect the prestige of the hierarchy. When the Church uses bureaucratic metrics to mask violence, it aligns itself with the religious and political establishment that crucified Christ (Luke 23:1-5), rather than the Crucified Lord Himself. As the prophet Jeremiah warned, “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14). True holiness requires dismantling these defensive walls through radical transparency, repentance, and fully independent oversight.
It is not only clergy who are falsely accused. Some clergy weaponise the Safeguarding accusation to rid themselves of parishioners whom they dislike or, indeed, are jealous of. The clergy are in a powerful position as they can dictate the accusation and the outcome by manipulating the DSO. I have experienced this kind of bullying behaviour in recent years where the vicar appeared to have a narcissistic personality and be incapable of rational discussion and prayerful reconciliation. Withdrawal from the church community was the only recourse, as the atmosphere of secrecy and suspicion (under the guise of “confidentiality”) was unbearable.
Recovery is possible, one day at a time, with the support of loyal friends and family and the knowledge that Jesus was despised and rejected so He understands and has overcome the evil.
NR, your comment reflects the experiences and reasons of my (non clergy), friend being falsely accused.
In his case the phrase used by the DSO was ‘on the balance of probabilities’, meaning that as he had been accused he probably was guilty. She used this phrase as an excuse not to investigate the allegation.
Susan, if an allegation is of a severe character, then it must surely make sense for the accused to invariably receive a full written statement of the charges or accusations against them. Also, for a serious offence, then one would inevitably anticipate there being a formal inquiry of some shape or form, with experienced and senior professionals involved, who have declared themselves to have zero conflict of interest or connection to any parties. Can you please remind us, once again, of your friend’s situation, and summarise what the issue was to blog readers in just two or three sentences?
James, you are right, that’s what ought to happen. But it’s not what the C of E does.
Susan, so sorry, but unsurprised, to hear of another similar situation. The DSO did not even operate “on the balance of probabilities” which is the Civil Court’s burden of proof, but the “assumption of guilt because there was an accusation by a member of the clergy”. No investigation or natural justice at all and more than a whiff of the Gestapo/Stasi/any-other-authoritarian-regime-you-can-think-of about it. Recovering trust has been difficult and until the CofE admits and owns the problem then I want nothing to do with the institutional church, made in mankind’s image.
Susan, checked back to older posts. A bit baffled. Was there a full formal inquiry for your friend, with a written statement around exact accusations, and all parties represented legally?
Jameshardy, thank you for your interest in the case.
There was not a full formal inquiry. Instead there was an ‘independent’ enquiry by an ‘independent’ investigator. However, he had to work within the limits set down by the Core Group and the Heads of Terms were not followed.
Neither was there a written statement around exact accusations, nor were all parties represented legally.
Brief resume of the case:
1. Telephone call, March 2020: John banned from the cathedral because of an unspecified allegation.
2. Police described the allegation as patting the bottom of a chorister. It was ‘low level and unsubstantiated’; they would not pursue the case.
3. July 2020: DSO arranged a zoom meeting. John was told there were three incidents recorded, a second one being physically impossible, and no details for the third incident.
At no time were these accusations written down for John to read.
If you want any other information I am happy you should contact me personally even by phone. Stephen has my details.
Thanks, Susan, the really interesting thing is what qualifications or credentials diocesan officers have. Do they have a legal degree, senior police experience, a social work degree, or other vocational qualifications. The Shipman fiasco forced a very radical change in UK death reporting. Are diocesan systems a liability in some regards? Would a person with a legal degree, or on a vocational register, be much more likely to challenge bishops (or others) if they felt matters were amiss? The ‘Kenneth’ story sounds so odd.
James thank you for your further questions. I cannot answer them because we were not given any background information about the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer or any members of the Core Group.
It is not just ‘Kenneth’ (now he is known in his own name of John Brassington) whose story is odd but that of many others wrongly accused and prey to lamentable safeguarding procedures.
I think you would find answers to your questions in a letter known as ‘Micah 6:8’ which was published 11 August 2020, coincidentally some months after the allegation had been made against John. I distributed it widely in my search for justice for John but it was never acknowledged by anyone.
The letter was written to The Rt Hon Baroness Stowell of Beeston MBE by Martin Sewell Member of General Synod; Child Protection Solicitor (retired) and signed by seventy four people from a wide range of backgrounds involved with righting the injustices of safeguarding.
On March 2022 Stephen published a blog about the letter. This blog includes a link to the Micah letter.
https://survivingchurch.org/2022/03/14/the-2020-micah-letter-to-the-charity-commission-questioning-cofe-safeguarding-procedures/#comment-20016
http://survivingchurch.org/2020/08/12/letter-to-charity-commissioners-over-concerns-about-church-of-england-safeguarding/
I strongly urge you and others to read the blog and the letter. It will soon be six years since the letter was published and nothing has changed. I think, if at all possible the letter should be resurrected and actioned by those who have any influence.
I fervently hope your questions will now make a difference.
So Kenneth was age 79 when the alleged issue arose? Was there ever any previous concern, in Church or any other context?
The allegation was made in March 2020 when John was 74. He had a Birthday in April when he became 75.
He started going to the Cathedral in 1962 and continued going after his graduation three years later.
In the following years he worked in various capacities as a volunteer. He was always appropriately DBS checked. At the time of the allegation he held a current valid DBS certificate.
From Subject Access Request (SAR) information we read that at the beginning of the case the DSO and Core Group had a meeting to discuss his age and whether or not he held a DBS certificate. They decided he must be about 64 and was not DBS checked. No-one thought to ask John these two questions.
On his own initiative, without knowing this (it was later we requested SAR), he offered the certificate as one of five pieces of evidence to try to prove his innocence but it was all refused.
The DSO always claimed the boy must be believed and “any evidence to the contrary is inadmissible”. This was challenged many times but ignored.
There have been no other allegations or concerns from any other source. John is now 81 years old.
Was there much delay time, after March 2020, before John was made aware of concern? Was this done verbally or in writing?
Yes, there was considerable delay in communication after the initial contact 5 March 2020
1. On 18 March 2020 a DI From West Midlands Police phoned John to ask him questions about the allegation. She was most surprised he did not know what the allegation was.
2. John composed six questions asking about his case which he sent to senior clergy in the Cathedral and the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer but these were not responded to.
3.On 13 May 2020 he eventually received an email from the DSO apologising for poor communication. She explained that it was not the role of the safeguarding core group to make judgements or investigate the allegation. Its primary role is to ensure the right processes are in place.
There were still no written details of the allegation or any opportunity for John to answer questions.
4. The next communication was a zoom meeting July 2020 which I described in my comment above, 7July 2026 8.56 am
I hope these answers are what you are looking for. Do please let me know if you require anything further.
P.S.
Apologies, Jameshardy I omitted that in January 2021 in Core Group meeting the DSO designated John as a ‘High Risk Sexual Predator’ with no evidence. However despite his denials he was treated as such. He was not told of this until October of that year.
This turns out to be remarkably similar to what I had guessed. By far the worst culprits are the tyrannical bunglers in officialdom mis-categorising John and consequently the second incident.
I am far nearer to John in age than to the boy, but the hordes of senior volunteers I encounter in all denominations when I am a stray attender (and nothing like choir regular) who maul, prod, and rub my arms, waist and thighs, who have obviously read their Selwyn Hughes who advocated this, are abhorrent! (Door blocking another heinous trick.)
I understand fully a boy not unsaying his actual evidence. Moreover a boy is not there to critique and direct diocesan staff nor publicly break rank with his mother about potential degrees which wouldn’t invalidate him. Proceedings and attitudes lacking in integrity, of “core groups” and associated personnel have been documented in Stephen’s blog and elsewhere. It’s abhorrent that officialdom deflect blame onto this family for the severity of their own acts against John.
How about a one-person-at-a-time new enlightenment about allowing us all our space and not “marshalling” us, now that it’s not 1956 any more. Many others at different denominations, and in not much less prominent position than John, are far further behind this curve than probably him. I would have hoped an apology and reshuffle of duties could have been negotiated.
Stephen and others are obviously right to smell the same predatory attitude on the part of bureaucrats in the Griffin case, as they have shown in this one against John and this family alike.
As regards “five percent” that is not a usable figure when dealing with any case.
Thank you Stephen for this excellent report on the subject of false accusations. I would think that to be fair each party in the accusation should be listened to carefully by a discerning and experienced judge. Of course time and money is against this I expect. The quick response will be chosen. As you say the church is always the loser. As are the referees in football matches!