The Charity Commission’s Official Warnings to the dioceses of Liverpool and Chelmsford are unprecedented. For the first time, the statutory regulator has formally concluded that diocesan trustees committed mismanagement in their handling of safeguarding allegations. The findings are stark: trustees failed to investigate, failed to report, failed to ensure oversight, and failed to protect people who came into contact with their charities.
Given the seriousness of these conclusions, one might expect the diocesan responses to reflect a moment of reckoning. Instead, the statements issued by Liverpool and Chelmsford follow a familiar pattern – one that victims, survivors, advocates, and independent reviewers have been pointing out for decades. The words change slightly, the tone softens or hardens depending on the moment, but the underlying message remains the same: we are sorry, we disagree, we are learning, we are improving, trust us.
The Charity Commission has now said plainly what survivors have been saying for years: the Church’s safeguarding structures are inadequate. Yet the diocesan responses show that the institution still cannot hear it.
Chelmsford: “We respectfully disagree”
The Diocese of Chelmsford’s statement acknowledges the Commission’s warning but immediately distances itself from the findings. The diocese says it “respectfully disagrees with some of the conclusions,” particularly around trustee oversight. This is striking, because the Commission’s warning is explicit: trustees failed to consider or investigate a safeguarding complaint, failed to follow guidance, and failed to report a serious incident for two years.
Chelmsford’s response mirrors a long‑standing Church of England reflex: when confronted with external scrutiny, the instinct is to defend the institution rather than confront the failure. Survivors have heard this before – from the Elliott Review, the Gibb Report, the Makin Review, IICSA, and countless diocesan reviews. Each time, the Church expresses sorrow, but then qualifies, reframes, or disputes the findings.
The Commission is not a hostile campaigner. It is the statutory regulator. If even now the Church cannot accept its conclusions without caveat, what hope is there for genuine reform?
Liverpool: “We have already made changes” – but where?
Liverpool’s response, delivered through a written statement and a video message from the Interim Bishop and Diocesan Secretary, is more apologetic in tone. They “accept the findings,” they are “really sorry,” and they speak of “continuous learning” and “greater accountability.”
But then comes the familiar pivot: reassurance that “many changes have already been made.”
This is where the words and the reality diverge.
The Charity Commission’s findings in relation to relate to events in 2023 and 2025 – not ancient history, not decades‑old cases, but failures that occurred last year. If Liverpool had made significant safeguarding changes in the past 12 months, they would be visible in their public communications.
Yet a review of the diocese’s own website tells a different story:
- No major safeguarding reforms have been announced in the past year.
- The only safeguarding‑related posts are routine updates: staff changes, annual reports, and general reminders about best practice.
- There is no evidence of structural reform, new reporting mechanisms, trustee training initiatives, or governance changes that would address the Commission’s concerns.
- The diocese’s Synod reports focus on national debates, not local safeguarding improvements.
In other words, the “changes” Liverpool claims to have made are not visible in the public record. This is not to say nothing has happened internally – but when a regulator finds mismanagement, transparency is not optional. If the diocese wants to rebuild trust, it must show – not merely assert – that reform is underway.
The familiar pattern: Apologies without accountability
Both diocesan responses follow a script the Church of England has used for years:
- Express sorrow
- Acknowledge the seriousness
- Disagree with or contextualise the findings
- Assure the public that improvements are underway
- Reaffirm commitment to safeguarding
What is missing – every time – is accountability.
No trustee resignations.
No structural overhaul.
No acceptance that the system itself is broken.
No recognition that survivors have been right all along.
The Charity Commission has now said what survivors have been saying for decades: the Church’s safeguarding processes are inadequate, its governance structures are flawed, and its culture prevents proper oversight.
Yet the diocesan responses still treat safeguarding failures as unfortunate lapses rather than symptoms of a system that cannot be fixed from within.
Why this matters: Trustees cannot hide behind bishops and the NST
One of the most important elements of the Charity Commission’s warnings is the clear statement that trustees are legally responsible for safeguarding. They cannot delegate that responsibility to bishops, archbishops, the Archbishops’ Council, or the National Safeguarding Team.
For years, diocesan trustees have been told – implicitly or explicitly – that safeguarding is “handled elsewhere.” The Commission has now made it clear that this is not acceptable. Trustees who fail to demand information, fail to challenge bishops, or fail to ensure proper reporting may face personal regulatory consequences.
The diocesan responses do not grapple with this reality. They speak of learning and improvement, but not of the profound shift in governance that the Commission’s findings require.
The unavoidable conclusion: Safeguarding must be independent
The Charity Commission’s warnings confirm what survivors, campaigners, and independent reviewers have been saying for years: the Church of England cannot police itself. Its safeguarding structures are too fragmented, too hierarchical, too secretive, and too compromised by conflicts of interest.
The diocesan responses – carefully worded, defensive in places, and lacking evidence of real change – only reinforce this point.
If safeguarding is to be credible, it must be independent, statutory, and external to the Church.
Fine words are no longer enough. The regulator has spoken. The Church must now act.
REV CANON DR WILLIAM GEORGE NEELY died in 2009 and is buried by an entrance to Armagh’s Anglican Cathedral .
A Dec 21 2025 newspaper report showed the deceased paedophile’s flat tombstone which ends with three words [PRIEST SHEPHERD FRIEND] in block capitals . Why can our Irish national Primate, Archbishop John McDowell, not come clean and finally name Neely as a paedophile, so that a sinister 50 year cover up of child abuse ends?
At the time of the Rt Revd McDowell’s 2020 enthronement, the new Irish Primate featured as the subject of a ‘New Primate’ report (see online version ‘Church of Ireland Notes’ from ‘Irish Times 27 April 2020’). One line says: ‘The new Primate is a native of East Belfast where his faith was nurtured in Mount Merrion parish where the rector was the late Canon Billy Neely’.
Is this the same deceased Canon Neely, who was exposed as a child abuser by media and courts in 2023? A distinguished senior Irish Anglican cleric contacted me, to-‘in confidence’-express their belief and anger, how a paedophile priest (Neely) is being posthumously protected by senior Church leaders.
Should Archbishop John McDowell be making a formal statement clarifying his own connection to the late Canon W G Neely, at longest formally naming Neely, and amending or adjusting the ‘New Primate’ report statement sentence, which possibly appears to paint Canon Neely in a positive light?