Two questions at this week’s General Synod expose a deeper problem: the Archbishops’ Council says it is still “identifying” what the Charity Commission expects of trustees. But those duties are long-established in law — and delay is no longer credible.
A new briefing exposes how the Church of England’s latest safeguarding proposals delay true independence, keep control in-house, and fail to meet the needs of victims, Synod, and regulators.
When a senior leader declares “no case to answer” while a safeguarding review is still live, it doesn’t just shape headlines — it risks shaping outcomes. Why narrative control is no substitute for accountability.
Invoking a judge’s Court of Appeal title doesn’t make a closed, opaque process equivalent to open justice. Authority comes from safeguards, transparency and accountability — not from who signs the decision.
If safeguarding was “managed well”, where are the records? In his own words, Stephen Cottrell relies on memory over evidence, convenience over process, and reassurance over accountability. Safeguarding doesn’t work like that.
“No case to answer” sounds final — but this decision rewrote the rules, excused serious safeguarding failures, and ignored conflicts of interest. It exposes a system not fit for purpose, and a leadership crisis that cannot be shrugged off.
This testimony raises uncomfortable questions about power, truth and who really controls safeguarding responses.
When given a clear opportunity to apologise, show lessons had been learned and provide moral leadership, Stephen Cottrell and Sarah Mullally chose to walk by on the other side. Read how safeguarding rhetoric collapses when Church leaders are confronted with real accountability.
The Archbishops’ Council publishes a safeguarding report “as if nothing has happened”.
After regulatory rebukes, reopened survivor complaints, and Parliament rejecting Church legislation — this is not ignorance. It is contempt.
⬇️ Read why
Parliament approves Church of England legislation with the force of an Act — but cannot amend it, correct it, or always even publish its concerns.
That is not scrutiny.
It’s a constitutional defect.
Why the 1919 Act matters ⬇️