Q: When do you know when the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, is lying?

A: When he is speaking,

When I worked in church communications, I often had to remind clergy that merely holding a special service wasn’t enough to generate news coverage: church holds a service? It’s what they do. Baker bakes bread? It’s what they do. It really had to be a special service to warrant inviting media coverage.

It is a bit like that with the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell. I expect that one day we’ll see the famous red or yellow “Breaking News” graphics on BBC News or Sky News, with the headline: “Archbishop Stephen Cottrell caught telling the truth”.

That is, of course, if it is even possible for Stephen Cottrell to speak without lying.

This week, allegations that the Bishop of Liverpool, Dr John Perumbalath sexually assaulted one woman during his time in the Diocese of Chelmsford, and sexually harassed a female bishop – identified this evening, by herself, as the Bishop of Warrington, Bev Mason – were broadcast on Channel Four News following an investigation by journalist Cathy Newman.

Alongside the allegations – which are serious enough in themselves – are disclosures about the Archbishop of York’s mismanagement of the allegations. Of course, since the first Channel Four News report on Tuesday, statements have been issued. And, once again, they reveal Archbishop Cottrell’s inability to speak the truth.

The first statement was issued by the Archbishops’ Council, which Cottrell chairs. In the “Notes to Editors” at the end of the statement, were these words: “The [Channel Four News] report also claims that Bishop John did not receive the required two-thirds majority on the CNC to be appointed. This is not true – it’s not possible, under the rules, for a CNC to nominate someone as a bishop if they don’t secure the two-thirds majority.”

But that statement didn’t actually dispute the claims made by Channel Four News in their first report on Tuesday. Their report pointed out that there wasn’t the necessary majority and, by implication, a second vote. “It’s claimed that Stephen Cottrell and another bishop”, now known to the Bishop of Oxford, Steve Croft, “put pressure on some committee members to overturn the vote, and that the Archbishop of York insisted on another vote,” Cathy Newman said in her report.

In an interview with the Church Times today, Cottrell doubled down: “As for overruling the CNC”, he said, “I’m afraid that simply isn’t true. I don’t know why someone would suggest that. I chair the CNC in the Northern Province, but I’m one vote in a secret ballot. I think people will know from other CNC processes that the CNC has its own mind.”

And yet tonight, Cathy Newman revealed that a member of the CNC had provided Channel Four News with a detailed written account of the meeting. A vote was taken for John Perumbalath to be chosen as the Bishop of Liverpool, but the vote was nine in favour, and five against – not enough for the two thirds majority to put a name forward.

“Steven Cottrell urged members to keep him in the process”, Cathy Newman said. “Stephen Croft [the Bishop of Oxford] agreed. It was suggested that the diocesan safeguarding team would provide support to the Bishop.”

Channel Four News’ source told them that they were “shocked by this attitude to safeguarding: effectively that a candidate identified as a safeguarding risk is acceptable because Steven Cottrell says so.”

The source said that Cottrell asked the CNC to vote a second time, and the result was the same – nine against five. Another member of the CNC then suggested a third vote “This proposal was supported by Stephen Cottrell and Steven Croft”, the source said, adding: “I was shocked by this proposal that appeared to be bullying tactics to get a result”. They described the process as “evidence of coercion by Stephen Cottrell and Steven Croft”.

The result of the third vote was 10 in favour of John Perumbalath and four against – the two thirds majority vote needed to get Perumbalath through.”

Stephen Cottrell’s response to tonight’s allegations came through an Archbishops’ Council spokesperson, who told Channel Four News that “the Archbishop of York categorically rejects any suggestion of coercion or bullying and says multiple voting rounds are entirely normal”.

Hold on!  “Multiple voting rounds are entirely normal”? How does that square with Cottrell’s earlier denial that he had caused a second vote? It doesn’t. It’s another Cottrell Porky Pie from the Pinocchio Archbishop.

But that isn’t his only lie.

He has repeated said, as he has in today’s Church Times’ interview, that there were no safeguarding concerns about Perumbalath at the time the CNC met. “It is the practice on every CNC that, before somebody is interviewed, there is an interview with the director of safeguarding. And it is actually a ‘pass / fail’ interview. So if you had failed the interview, if there was sufficient concern about your ability to oversee safeguarding, you wouldn’t be interviewed at all.”

Tonight’s Channel Four News repeated the allegations that the CNC’s reluctance to endorse Perumbalath was safeguarding concerns.

How did the Archbishops’ Council respond tonight? “The National Safeguarding Team found no concerns about John Perumbalath’s operational safeguarding experience, but recommended some development work.”

Let’s unpick that. What on earth is meant by “operational safeguarding experience” in the context of a “pass / fail” safeguarding interview? And if it was “pass / fail”, why are they now saying that there was a need for “development work”? Surely, if Cottrell is to be believed (spoiler alert – he shouldn’t be) either Perumbalath failed or passed.

From a purely practical perspective – everybody involved in safeguarding needs development work. Training has to be ongoing to ensure that “lessons” from experience are learned. But that is not what they are saying here. They are saying that there was something specific to Perumbalath that needed “development work”.

That backs up Channel Four News’ source’s claims that they were aware of safeguarding issues and that they were told that “the diocesan safeguarding team would provide support to the Bishop.”

Take another bite from that Porky Pie, Archbishop Pinocchio.

Cottrell blames “the processes” for the safeguarding problems facing the Church. In the Church Times’ interview, he described “a gap between safeguarding practice, disciplinary practice, and what in most other organisations you’d think of as HR practice.

“I’ve heard some people say recently that there are huge safeguarding challenges [in the Church of England], but there’s also a big HR challenge, and we don’t have the processes that can deal with these things adequately, transparently, with our current processes.”

In a couple of weeks the General Synod will gather in Westminster. Safeguarding will dominate the agenda, with various proposals to “improve” the process. Cottrell told the Church Timesthat he was “very committed” to renewing and changing those processes.

Okay, Archbishop Cottrell – which of the changes coming to Synod in February will have made a difference in the way the Church of England responded in this case? Or in the case of Canon Andrew Hindley? Or in the case of Canon David Tudor?

The answer is that none of them will make a difference, except that Bishop Bev Mason wouldn’t need to ask the approval of a judge in order to bring a complaint against Bishop John Perumbalath – that is the only change coming to the Synod in February that has any bearing on these recent three cases.

But amidst the fresh lies that Cottrell has come out with this week, we shouldn’t lose sight of something else: Cottrell’s victim blaming.

“As we speak, the first complainant has not made a formal complaint, which is their prerogative, but it does make it very difficult to act when those things don’t happen”, Cottrell told the Church Times.

Ah, so this week’s scandal isn’t the fault of the Church of England’s processes after all. It’s the fault of the victim.

Under the Church of England’s processes, victims do not need to make “formal complaints”. It is usual – but not compulsory – for the formal complaints to be made by archdeacons. The victim reported the sexual assaults to her priest and it was passed to the National Safeguarding Team.

In response to Tuesday’s Channel Four News report, the Archbishops’ Council said that: “The NST concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a safeguarding-related complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) itself but offered the woman support if she wished to do so.”

I’m not sure what “support” the NST would give a victim to bring a complaint under the CDM, especially if they do not believe that such a complaint should be made – the NST, don’t forget, are employees of the Archbishops’ Council. And it is the Archbishops’ Council who employs the Designated Officer – the person charged with carrying out an investigation and subsequent “prosecution” of a complaint at a tribunal.

And don’t forget, that victims who bring a complaint under the CDM receive no legal aid or funded legal advice – but deacons, priests and bishops answering allegations, do receive such support. There is no equality of arms.

So on what basis did the NST find that there “was not sufficient evidence”? It is the job of the Designated Officer to carry out the investigation.

Let’s go back to Cottrel’s gaslighting in the Church Times: “My own personal view is that the complainant should make a formal complaint, and that that would be the right thing to do.”

Archbishop Cottrell, “the right thing to do” would be for you to step down.

It is time for you to stop causing irreparable harm to the Church of England’s mission and ministry to this country.

It is time for you to stop blaming victims for your own failings and the failings of the processes.

It is time for you to stop pretending that February’s General Synod will do anything to bring about proper safeguarding reform.

Do the right thing, Archbishop Pinocchio, and close the door on your way out. You can take your porky pie with you.