It has not been easy writing this blog piece as new information keeps appearing. Thus, the drafts I put together earlier in the week have had to rewritten more than once to keep the piece more or less up to date. The main focus for this blog is a document published on the Church of England official website,122 pages long, entitled Independent Review of Case TT commissioned by the Interim Commissioner for Independent Case Reviews. I hope that this short summary of its contents in this post will encourage many of the Surviving Church followers to read it in full. In summary it contains a frank and detailed critique of the poor treatment of an abuse survivor by individuals and groups acting for the Church of England over several decades. When the document first appeared on July 15th 2026, the survivor’s name was anonymised but, since publication, other published references to the case have revealed her name. I understand that this survivor, Jane Chevous, is happy for her name to be used rather than the TT in the Review. This is in spite of the fact that the Review refers to some quite sensitive information connected with her personal life.
In urging my readers to persevere with a detailed study of the 31.8. Review of Jane’s struggles to be heard by the Church authorities over several decades, I am hoping that, like me, they will feel themselves also much better informed about the traumatic experience involved in being a survivor. They will also become more familiar with the protocols and processes employed by members of the National Safeguarding Team and other professionals doing this work. The detail in the Review helps us to understand how complicated is the task that professionals face in delivering safeguarding. From this current Review we gain a level of familiarity with the processes used by these NST officers, caseworkers and core groups. Attempting to deliver safety protocols to the church institution when there are competing interests and priorities in operation at the same time, can result in confusion. Even if the Review does not answer all the safeguarding queries that many of us continue to hold, this is a document full of good sense and clarity. Asking the right questions of safeguarding experts may eventually produce a system which is easy to understand and does not add to the pain of those who are victims/survivors of a dysfunctional institution. The current 31:8 published Review on the story of Jane’s experiences as a victim of both abuse and insensitive management is an important staging post on the way to a renewed system of safeguarding which will promote justice and healing.
In pursuit of a clear understanding of all that has happened to Jane over the last 40+ years, the Reviewer has consulted numerous document and conducted many interviews. From the documents, from emails to SAR requests, we get remarkable insight into the way that safeguarding is done. No doubt, as the result of this critical glimpse of the operation of core group meetings set up to examine Jane’s story, there will be a call to make changes in safeguarding processes all over the country.
Jane’s story can be told in a few broad strokes. Back in 1979 she was working in church youth work and she was involved with two ordained youth leaders who abused her sexually and spiritually over a number of years. As with many sexual victims, the behaviour of the abusers was not immediately recognised as abusive by the victim. It was only in 2001 that she made a formal approach to the Diocese of Southwark to report the abuse. This was resisted and she herself was subject to victim blaming. She later discovered that her claims of being subject to rape were dismissed in the belief she was a ‘gold-digger’ and also ‘hysterical’. The two bishops in the diocese and the archdeacon involved with her case seemed to have no interest in establishing the facts, all their sympathy and support being extended to the perpetrators. Jane, unsurprisingly, was seriously dismayed by this response and she abandoned her membership of the Church and her roles within it. Her mental health was severely affected, and she made attempts on her life.
The next stage of the narrative begins in 2019 after Jane had heard about the work of IICSA and the setting up of the NST in 2015. From the beginning, her approach to the NST was affected by a serious misunderstanding about what they were able to provide for her. In her words, ‘I entered full of hope and optimism in a place of relative healing and left distressed, broken and with no justice, accountability or healing’. As the 31:8 reviewer has pointed out, the NST had a protocol which was always focussed on the need to manage risk. If an accusation was made, the priority was not to establish responsibility or accountability, but to take steps to remove the potential risk of future abuses or harm. The reviewer gives quite a bit of space to this early misunderstanding that arose because of this protocol embedded in the NST that their task was to manage future threats. It certainty did not meet Jane’s felt need to be believed and to receive some kind of apology for what she had suffered. For the outside observer trying to understand other cases with similar misunderstandings, it is useful to see this discussed in the Review from both perspectives, that of the survivor and that of the church institution.
The following three years of work by the NST with Jane reveal a number of obstacles identified by the 31:8 reviewer which militated against smooth functioning at the NST. Jane herself was spending time abroad and the Covid epidemic was raging. There were also problems and serious mistakes at a practical level with some poor record- keeping. This was compounded by a number of changes of staff which made continuity hard to maintain. Long delays in communication with Jane because of these bureaucratic delays made her often feel disconnected from the NST process.
The misunderstandings that bedevilled the safeguarding process for Jane throughout her interaction with the NST from 2019-2022 should, we might feel, not have been unexpected when they occurred. The reviewer expresses some surprise that a leaflet to explain the meaning of ‘managing risk’ was not made available. My own observation is to express surprise that the leaders of the NST had not met a similar situation before like Jane’s. Her complaint, which any intelligent individual might make, was to question whether it was appropriate to use the word ‘safeguarding’ to describe a process that seemed to have as its main purpose the protection of an institution. This seemed to take precedence over caring for a wronged individual. If we examine the use of the word ‘risk’ in this NST context, we find that the most important thing being protected is the Church itself. Legal advice being given to the NST in its early days seemed to have suggested that any admittance of responsibility might involve the Church in huge financial liabilities. This prevented the NST providing the one thing that might have brought healing and closure for a victim – an apology and some accountability. That legal advice turned out to be completely wrong and, in an earlier blog, I have quoted the relevant legal evidence to refute the liability argument. This was provided by a legally trained relative.
The 31:8 Review consists of 122 tightly typed pages and the fact of its appearance at the beginning of the summer holidays and after a meeting of General Synod might seem to be an attempt to condemn it to a quiet burial. Were this very important Review to be forgotten, it would avoid some frankly embarrassing criticism of the Church’s leadership alongside some challenges to the official protocols for safeguarding practice. I am hoping that many who read this summary will take the trouble to read the full Review. They will learn a lot about the inner workings of the CofE and the way that it sometimes strays from its claimed high standards. The Review is extremely critical of the church leaders in the Southwark diocese who, in 2001, received Jane’s complaint and then treated her with such cruelty and disrespect. The Review records the later efforts by the NST to challenge the earlier behaviour of these church leaders in the 2001/2 period when Jane’s case had been brought to their attention. The leaders concerned, two bishops and an archdeacon are not named, but are clearly identifiable from the information that is revealed about them. The negotiations with these leaders were not concluded satisfactorily even though a great deal of effort and time was expended on meetings and contact with them. Ideally the breakdown in relationships that had occurred in 2001/2002 should have been worked through and somehow resolved. That never seems to have happened and the 31:8 reviewer accepts that this was the case. The DSA in Southwark did however accept, after the conclusion of the NFT process and its 8 (!) core group meetings, how deeply traumatising the original abuse had been for Jane and how the processes would have been far less disruptive for Jane if she had been allowed to tell her story on tape to avoid seemingly endless re-questioning and cross-examination. A further bright spot for Jane came as the result of the current Bishop of Southwark writing to her supportively after the end of the NFT inquiry. He was able to apologise and express his regret at what she had to endure, both in the early days and after she brought the incidents to the attention of the church authorities. Above all the Bishop of Southwark expressed his belief in her account. Seemingly he was unafraid of Jane initiating some massive lawsuit against the Church of England. The Bishops of Oxford and Dorchester also listened to Jane’s story and apologised for the abuse she had suffered. Both dioceses followed this up by agreeing to make financial provision towards the cost of her counselling.
There is much else in the Review in terms of good and bad practice to be mulled over, but I have to say that having reached the end with its descriptions of bullying and power abuse throughout the narrative, I am left feeling myself somewhat traumatised. The assumption that someone making a complaint is automatically a mischief maker and should be frightened off by a solicitor’s letter does not create a trusting mutually supportive Body of Christ in an area. The lack of any pastoral response or insight among church leaders when Jane’s original complaint was made, meant that the suffering that Jane endured continued for decades. Jane’s story and the failures in response are important and the Church of England will become a better place if even some of the lessons are learned from her story.
Thank you Stephen for such a thorough report and evaluation of the review into my case. The reviewer’s forensic approach has laid out the evidence clearly of not just the failures of the past, but where current practice urgently needs significant reform.
A system focused narrowly on current risk can protect a child disclosing current abuse, but offers little or nothing to the majority of victims, who we know from repeated research findings will disclose on average 17-20 years after the abuse.
We’ve just seen too from the Chorleywood report that trauma-informed practice and deep listening are hugely important to survivors. But again like my case there’s no finding of fact, little investigation and no accountability.
The NST took no action to suspend PTO from Rev B during investigation, even while he was being interviewed under caution for rape by the police. That Oxford Diocese ensured he relinquished by mutual agreement, after the NST closed the case, is to their credit; but only happened because of my repeated and costly advocacy to them. As Helen King points out in her blog about the review, this enabled Rev B to make a point of asking them to tell me it was on health grounds.
I’m glad you’ve highlighted that saying you believe a survivor, or offering an apology, does not in law admit liability. Such moral and pastoral responses to a survivor should never be withheld for financial reasons.
I’m also glad to be able to bring to wider attention the plight of adult women, who global research suggest are the majority of victims (we don’t have accurate evidence in the UK). I was able to help highlights in the Women’s Hour interview how the way I was treated reflects the misogyny still embedded in church culture and practice. I hope my experience and choice to waive anonymity will help other women victims to know their experience is validated, holds no shame and needs to be heard.
The national church has committed to implement most of the recommendations in 1 year, and Oxford Diocese is working closer with the Oxford Survivor Group to ensure recommendations to dioceses are too. The Bishop of Southwark has affirmed their commitment to learn lessons.
There’s been no statement from Leeds Diocese and they’ve never contacted me, so I don’t know what if anything they will do. The Bishop who treated me so badly still has PTO there, has admitted no wrong-doing, refused to meet me, and as the review exposes, was never risk assessed, despite this being a recommendation of the PCR2 reviewer as well as the core group. I hope the new bishop of Leeds will address this.
Until there there is accountability for past failures, and survivors are treated with humanity and compassion, we can say we have effective safeguarding. I hope this review will lead to some changes, but I am very conscious there’s a long way to go.
The advocacy of readers and writers of this blog is important in that work, so I am grateful to Stephen for bringing it to your attention.
Thank you for all your work Jane and your intentions to make things safer for others.
I don’t attend church due to abusive behaviour from clergy I’ve experienced.
I have a question about how you practise faith safely now, how you hold these abusive behaviours of priests in the balance with God’s love for humans? I’m asking as I’m going through this wrestling myself and wondered if you can shed any light. No worries at all if you don’t want to answer this
Thank you for all your work Jane and your intentions to make things safer for others.
I don’t attend church due to abusive behaviour from clergy I’ve experienced.
I have a question about how you practise faith safely now, how you hold these abusive behaviours of priests in the balance with God’s love for humans? I’m asking as I’m going through this wrestling myself and wondered if you can shed any light. No worries at all if you don’t want to answer this.
I’m so sorry you’ve also experienced abuse. I did lose my faith for a while, because the abusers said God wanted this to happen to me, and for me that turned God into my abuser.
But I studied and met with other Christians, locally and at festivals like Greenbelt, and experienced God’s love in community. Just like it can be here. And I understood that the God of love doesn’t commit or condone abuse, and I refuse to let the abusers take my faith away from me.
I don’t attend a local church anymore as I mostly don’t feel safe there. I meet with fellow survivors in our faith and abuse group, and I occasionally sing in a special service with my choir. I’m fortunate that a local priest does offer a safer space with services for survivors and supporters, United in Solace and Grace, check out their website.
Thanks so much x
Radio 4 (24 Jul 2026) Didi Conn: Frenchy from Grease, Church of England abuse review.
A really inspiring interview and feature. Thanks!
Until we have fully independent safeguarding protections, for every church member (male, female, adult, child, lay person or cleric), Anglicanism’s decline will continue.
People risk getting drowned and pay people smugglers to get into the UK. The tolerance and values of our society are a magnet.
Yet is Anglicanism one curious place, where the biblical principles of justice which so inform our wider law and institutions often get ignored?
Thank you James, yes I agree independence is the way to go and cannot come soon enough!
I must admit I have not read your review in full Jane because I came to one almighty stumbling block and that was how differently the Bishop of Southwark, and presumably the current diocesan staff, have treated you to my own experience of appalling treatment by them.
When the independent reviewer made sweeping statements of good practice from Southwark I could find no professional examination of that assertion or understanding of whether your case was an exception to the rule.
Reviews are a huge privilege, many people want them, few get them, so for me any findings have to avoid polarising positions and making sweeping unverified statements that can leave others hurt and triggered. I am genuinely glad that in your case you had a good response from the current leadership of Southwark but this was an individual finding of fact not a common denominator which I feel the IR should have highlighted.
As I say I stopped reading at that point so maybe I am wrong about the lack of professional curiosity of constancy but I am sure Southwark will be lapping it up making the voices of distress at how they have been treated by the diocese just a little harder to hear.
DS, I’m so sorry about your terrible and ongoing experience. You’re right that the inconsistency in responding to complainants – including who gets a review – only makes things worse for survivors. Standing with you.
DS I’m so sorry you have had such a bad experience and that this meant the review was triggering to you.
It’s so important what you highlight that one case is not sufficient to make claims about a whole diocese. I’m sure the reviewer was only trying to describe the evidence in my case, without making assumptions about wider practice, but that could have been clearer. I hope the recent INEQUE audit will assess the wider evidence accurately.
She’s also critical about all aspects of Southwark’s response when I first reported, and some aspects more recently, including months of delays to the review. That may be of some small comfort, but is not the same as having your experience recognised and validated.
If you later are able to just read the recommendations at the end of the report I would welcome your thoughts, but understand if this is too triggering.
The current review policy is restricted in when reviews can happen; although all survivors can request one, I’m in touch with a few who are battling to have that agreed, or with acceptable terms of reference. I haven’t seen the latest version of the new complaints policy, so I don’t know how much that will help.
We urgently need the new independent scrutiny body and a survivor ombudsman, in my view
The comments on Southwark are all too true. I was falsely accused, the “independent review” was done by someone who had a severe conflict of interest and refused to hear my many witnesses and said that those who broke the ninth commandment were “credible”. The bishop removed my reader’s PTO on the basis of this corrupt and vile system of “safeguarding”. All later attempts to put things right were met with a repy from the bishop’s chaplain to the effect that “the case was closed and there would be no further correspondence”. Does this ring any bells for anyone?
MESH SIZE is a hidden Church problem. We look in horror at the Smyth-Fletcher-Pilavachi cases. Lots of Church members, and more particularly our anglican bishops, have every good reason to see these high profile cases as being “freak”.
But the reality could be very different. When major fish slip the net so often, then we should ask how much everyday bullying-abuse-harassment is getting missed on a much grander scale. A corrupt leadership system, which allows major bullies to run wild, also allows innocent people to get stitched up on false charges.
Julia Duin, Religion Editor of Washington Times, wrote ‘Quitting Church-why the faithful are fleeing and what to do about it’. It is a 2008 book, and looks at USA trends. But what she says about convinced believers leaving churches is very interesting. Cafe or home churches can be a lot more relaxed, and much less toxic, with far fewer power hungry clerical wolves about.
Biblical principles of natural justice shape our justice system and values. But what a rotten paradox exists, where the Anglican Church has so often disregarded those core principles of justice. Two or three witnesses suffice according to the Bible, but x200-300 might not be enough in anglican bullying cases.
Yes indeed, Dr Watts it most certainly does ring bells.
In 2023 a canon from a different diocese who was a forceful safeguarding influence in a case similar to your own was promoted to Southwark. This, significantly, was whilst she was under investigation for a well evidenced Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). The case involved was that of a friend whom I have been supporting in a provable false allegation since March 2020. The Canon was on the Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group where she displayed unprofessionalism and untruthfulness.
Our experience of an ‘independent Review’ was exactly the same as yours being done, “by someone who had a severe conflict of interest and refused to hear my many witnesses and said that those who broke the ninth commandment were “credible”. It was not until Stephen’s blog that we realised they had been breaking the ninth commandment otherwise we would have challenged them.
It was the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer (DSO) who said on several occasions “The case is closed”. We ignored that and kept sending her evidence to prove the complainant’s unsound and contradictory statements and their own mismanagement.
After six full years of this , in December 2025, the Dean eventually supported the DSO in saying “The case is closed”. Reading your account this seems to be the standard phrase to close mismanaged safeguarding cases and to hide the truth. The MP who was supporting us at the time told us the Diocese had made it clear that they would not reopen their decision or agree to a meeting so none of us were able to take the case any further.
That our two cases are so similar must be more than mere coincidence. I would suggest possibly these are processes instigated by the hierarchy of the C/E and undoubtedly there will be others, but who and where are they?
What can we do about it? What next, Dr Watts?
Susan
Look forward to, and hope for a response from Trevor Watts. But one or two other ideas spring to mind.
We have gigantic ‘historical’ scandals which capture headlines, or even feature in TV broadcasts. Then we have relatively commonplace cover ups of savage bullying-harassment of smaller clusters of victims, witnesses and whistleblowers. That’s what a lot of SC contributors reference.
But is there a huge problem with the wider Anglican Church leadership culture, which has quietly driven people away over decades in a more subtle fashion? Also, in many larger congregations, are relationships so shallow that innocent members can be driven out by repeated minor bullying or harassment without anyone ever noticing?
The article above is very good, and the inset report is worth skim reading. But the way the report conclusion is written up really catches my eye. Can a church member really be sexually attacked, yet can it take many years before anyone formally documents this? And more shockingly, in the official report’s short conclusion, is the central thing to be disclosed buried several sentences or a few paragraphs into the document?
Would be interested to hear what Jane makes of the way the report conclusion is written. Why did the main discovery not introduce the conclusion?
Dear Jane,
I am so very sorry to learn of your sufferings made worse by the so called safeguarding processes. I admire your courage in speaking out so honestly and frankly. I hope the thirtyone:eight review of your case goes a long way to making known to the wider public the hypocrisy and sham of the hierarchy in the Church of England.
As you know I have been supporting a friend for six years where the safeguarding processes have been seriously flawed in an effort to preserve the reputations of senior clergy in the Cathedral and Diocese. Not just my friend but others in that Diocese; John is merely an example. So much of your story reflects the way we have been treated. As Stephen says in his blog, it questions ‘whether it was appropriate to use the word ‘safeguarding’ to describe a process that seems to have as its main purpose the protection of an institution’.
By coincidence I have been compiling the whole of our six years’ worth of information on a memory stick. I have formatted it in an accessible way so, although there is a great deal of information, it is clear and easy to read. Everything is substantiated with documented evidence much of that being from Subject Access Request (SAR). The existence of this stick has already become known and there has been quite some interest.
I realise, Jane, that your experiences are much greater in depth than ours but the safeguarding processes have followed the same pattern. I really do hope that our experiences help expose the hypocrisy and sham of safeguarding we both have experienced. Perhaps if people in a similar situation wrote about their experiences it would reach the media and become more widely known. Anyone reading this to whom it may apply, grasp the nettle, speak out and help the cause for justice in safeguarding.
The hierarchy of the Church of England cannot continue condoning abuses in safeguarding in this way. It must change. It must return to Christian values again; the way it is now people’s lives are being damaged, their well being and their souls.
Dear Susan, thank you for your kind words and support. I have of course read your accounts here about your battles to support your friend. Above all safeguarding processes need to be fair, transparent and accountable (Nolan principles). Sounds like your memory stick of evidence can make an important contribution to that, and I hope you find the right place for it to be shared.
The page 85-91 section is worthy of a single post here, and a discussion. There are some positive points, but I would question the way material is presented. Also, why are the persons referred to at the start of the report not given a basic profiling for readers?
I was so angry on Jane’s behalf when I read the report. I am disgusted that the Archdeacon who spoke about her in such a repulsive way, refused to meet with Jane to apologise. To make it worse, he pretended it was in her interests.
I was horrified that one of the Bishops was deemed too frail to be disciplined (but then wrote a lengthy piece in the Church Times), another was thought to not be likely to receive anymore safeguarding referrals so other than “bespoke safeguarding training” nothing else was done.
The NST involvement displays little concern to address dreadful moral error from a number of members of the clergy.
There should be a sign on every Church of England gate, stating, “Enter at your own risk, you are as likely to be abused here as in any other institution (if not more likely). When that happens we will deny all liability, responsibility or requirement to care for you.”
Could the write up or structure of the conclusion have been much better, very much better?
I am left asking why these later lines did not open the conclusion: ‘The Reviewer has heard and read graphic accounts of what TT alleged took place during her younger life
and during the encounters with Rev A and Rev B, which are not detailed in this report. Whilst both these
clergy denied the allegations, Rev A admitted he ‘had been stupid’ and Rev B admitted sexual impropriety.
The opinion of the Reviewer resonates with that of the Bishops, the DSA at Southwark, and the Head of
Safeguarding at Oxford, namely that there is every reason to believe TT’s account of what happened to her
as a child, a teenager and as a young and vulnerable adult within the Church of England’.
Thank you Gill for your righteous anger and support!
I’m also upset that the bishops were never disciplined. The one who just had a (much delayed) training session also refused to apologise or meet me, and denied that he did anything wrong. He still has PTO and is described as ‘honorary bishop’ in his diocese. Zero accountability!
Hi Jane, I’m glad that you have been so thoroughly vindicated by the review – but appalled that it has taken so long and entailed such suffering on your part. My experience of the NST was also dire, as I think you know.
I’m puzzled that the guilty parties, of both the original abuses and the ongoing mistreatment by church officials, have not been identified in the review. Some other reviews have named and attributed responsibility. These inconsistencies in treatment really are not helpful.
Our mistreatment by the NST was also appalling. They said they only dealt with ordained clergy which John was not. It seems that although you are ordained Janet, you received similar treatment.
You are puzzled that the guilty parties have not been identified in the review. On my memory stick they are named throughout and responsibility attributed to them in a clear and defined way.
Would Jane be much more empowered if the conclusion began as follows below?
‘The Reviewer has heard and read graphic accounts of what TT alleged took place during her younger life
and during the encounters with Rev A and Rev B, which are not detailed in this report. Whilst both these
clergy denied the allegations, Rev A admitted he ‘had been stupid’ and Rev B admitted sexual impropriety.
The opinion of the Reviewer resonates with that of the Bishops, the DSA at Southwark, and the Head of
Safeguarding at Oxford, namely that there is every reason to believe TT’s account of what happened to her
as a child, a teenager and as a young and vulnerable adult within the Church of England’.
That might also draw emphasis to the key issue, and encourage Jane ( or someone acting by proxy on her behalf) to name one or more figures.
Lots of victims of bullying-abuse-harassment, plus witnesses and whistleblowers, are empowered by the naming of an abusive cleric. I saw this happen in a smaller town locally, where a celebrated cleric was named, and existing public suspicions (or observations) flowed in a positive fashion.
Loneliness can have a gigantic stranglehold on victims-witnesses-whistleblowers. They all too often get no apology at all from churches, or a limp expression of regret which is not appropriate to the severity of their maltreatment. Naming, where feasible, should surely happen.
Thank you James, yes, please see my reply to Janet.
I’m interested in hearing the thoughts from this community on when and how to name people, and what needs to be thought of before naming. I’m mindful that I’ve been named by people annoyed about church safeguarding who defamed me in what they wrote, and it was a distressing and scary experience. I feel a responsibility to do this right, and in a way that is fair and that I wouldn’t object to if I was on the other side.
Janet
You might wish to look up FAITH AND FAILINGS BBC1 SPOTLIGHT 9.6.26. The 37 mins documentary discusses a now notorious Anglican Church cover up. One person has asked if ‘Rev Canon Dr William George Neely’ might be Irish Anglicanism’s equivalent of John Smyth QC. But Bishops and Archbishops still refuse to formally name Neely as a serial child beating predator. Neely is now buried in a prime grave site by a national cathedral, with his grave ending in block capitals: PRIEST SHEPHERD FRIEND. The BBC have done a wonderful job here. So why do bishops and archbishops not confess to a 50 year cover up of savage child beatings? One victim, referred to by the BBC, is Francis Bostrom. Mr Bostrom wants the Irish House of Bishops to finally come clean and formally name Neely. That seems like a totally reasonable request. You are quite right. Naming abusers, even deceased ones, is important for a whole range of reasons.
Thank you Janet, yes I am aware you’ve also been treated shockingly and am sorry you were let down so badly.
I wrote an angry poem in response to having the word ‘alleged’ put in front of all my reports of abuse. Unfortunately this was for legal reasons, as neither made it to court so there’s never been a legal finding of fact.
The review terms of reference offered anonymity and this is usual practice to ensure co-operation and prevent witch hunts. I agree that it makes it more difficult to achieve accountability.
My own legal counsel advised me not to name Rev B, but I am happy to name the others. I just have to work out the most appropriate way to do that.
Thank you Gill for your righteous anger and support!
I’m also upset that the bishops were never disciplined. The one who just had a (much delayed) training session also refused to apologise or meet me, and denied that he did anything wrong. He still has PTO and is described as ‘honorary bishop’ in his diocese. Zero accountability!