- Does the Bishop believe that after four years of multiple efforts, originating within Christ Church, to drive Dr Martyn Percy, the Dean of Christ Church Oxford, from Office, involving dozens of complaints against both the Dean and his wife (and all dismissed) there is cogent evidence “capable of belief” that he has been the subject of bullying and “mobbing” within College and Cathedral?
- What grounds does Bishop Croft have for claiming the final allegation was “nothing to do with any of the previous allegations and complaints made against the Dean”? Does he know this as a fact, or is it merely his opinion?
- If it is only his opinion, does it strike the Bishop as only coincidental that the same lawyers and complainants were behind all of the other allegations, including the last one, described by one of the handful of clergy seeking to remove the Dean as “the final blow”? Can the Bishop explain what were the previous blows inflicted, and what he did about his clergy and lawyers inflicting them?
- Does the Bishop accept that because of the enmeshed character of College and Cathedral within Christ Church, inevitably members of clergy under his episcopal authority were ex officio involved in the decision-making processes of which Dr Percy complains?
- Is it the case that all clergy identified by Dr Percy to date as having participated in bullying or ‘mobbing’ are capable of being held to account by the Bishop or other Church of England authority for the decisions complained of, and that he and they may bear responsibility jointly or severally for the health consequences endured by Dr Percy?
- Does the Bishop accept as a fact that Dr Percy suffered a nervous breakdown and serious health consequences to such a degree that he needed the protection of being determined to be “litigation incompetent” to shield him from further adverse consequences and health detriment?
- Is it conceded that in consequence of his medically certified condition, he thereby was entitled to be considered and treated as “a vulnerable person” requiring specific care and protection under the Church Safeguarding structures?
- Following receipt of the news of Dr Percy’s breakdown, what steps (if any) did the Bishop take to secure a wholly independent assessment of the Dean’s complaints of bullying on what was then an ongoing basis? What steps did the Bishop take to prevent his lawyers from making further attacks on the Dean, given that they were criticized directly in Judge Asplin’s determination for attempting to interfere with the CDM process against the Dean?
- Did the Bishop actively consider whether a primary step to abate the effects of the alleged bullying and mobbing might be a review of the alleged causes, with a view to securing an abatement of any unnecessary contributory factors to the stress which the Dean was then enduring?
- With whom did the Bishop consult concerning the Dean’s complaints? Please be specific and identify which of these (if any) were then simultaneously exercising a pre-existing role in the ongoing issues at Christ Church, whether as clergy, office holders, lawyers, communication officers or PR consultants.
- When other clergy trying to help or support the Dean were also pursued by a law firm acting on behalf of the Diocese of Oxford law firm in a menacing and litigious manner, what actions to did Bishop Steven take to halt this, given that he was repeatedly informed of the conduct of his lawyers by these clergy?