PR is the enemy of safeguarding. Safeguarding tells the truth about harm. PR buries it under “statements,” “process,” and “lessons learned.” The moment a PR firm enters a safeguarding crisis, victims stop being people and start being reputational liabilities. #guardingtheflock #churchofengland #safeguarding guardingtheflock.com/post/i-…

I joined the Diocesan Safeguarding Team in 2022 as a Safeguarding Adviser and valued my role. My departure in 2025 was not by mutual agreement; I did not wish to leave my post. I ultimately left following an ACAS-mediated process, which was pursued as a last resort due to the escalating legal costs I was incurring. During my employment, I raised formal safeguarding concerns through appropriate internal channels. These included discrepancies in workload allocation, concerns regarding the welfare of a clergyperson who was not receiving adequate support, and my own experiences of victimisation. The clergyperson concerned has since confirmed to me directly that he was receiving no support, contrary to assurances given at the time. Rather than addressing these concerns through constructive problem-solving or systemic improvement, the organisational response focused on managing and containing the issue, including the marginalisation of those raising concerns. Following my hospitalisation, I was offered no meaningful pastoral or managerial support. Despite my ongoing employment, professional responsibilities, and vulnerability, my line manager and the Head of Safeguarding refused to communicate with me. My Occupational Health report explicitly identified a toxic working environment and systemic culture as contributing factors to my ill health. Contrary to statements made by the Diocese, at no point did the Diocese work alongside, liaise with, or speak to NHS practitioners involved in my care. By contrast, NHS staff were exemplary, and I am deeply grateful for the professionalism, care, and support they provided in helping to rebuild my health and wellbeing. As matters progressed, the working environment became unsafe. Members of the safeguarding team refused to engage with me or respond to emails, including correspondence relating to live safeguarding cases. Emails concerning active safeguarding matters were left unanswered. On my departure, there was no handover of my cases, and no arrangements were put in place to ensure continuity of safeguarding oversight. This created unacceptable safeguarding risk and represents a serious failure of safeguarding governance and duty of care, both to service users and to me as a safeguarding professional. I reject the assertion that concerns were adequately addressed or that appropriate support was offered or provided. I have raised these matters with the Charity Commission, where they remain under review. @Rgt71Robert @TheOutsider40 @BishopNewcastle @cathynewman @ChurchTimes @ChtyCommission