Both the Bishop and Dr Percy have been the subject of contentious allegations. In the case of Matt Ineson, Bishop Croft has avoided being held to account by pleading a technical immunity.  Bishop Croft believes that there are no “unresolved” matters he has to address.

Dr Percy has successfully addressed all the allegations he faced, including those fed by the Bishop’s Diocesan lawyers to Thames Valley Police, a Clergy Discipline Measure, a ‘Statutory” Tribunal of the College and multiple NST, LADO and other “investigations”.

On each occasion Dr Percy has faced experienced professionally represented opponents. Yet no adverse findings have been made in any of these fora.

Placing the Bishop of Oxford’s record in relation to both Mathew Ineson and Dr Percy side-by-side, which does the Bishop consider might merits the description “unresolved” by dispassionate independent fair-minded observers?

If the Dean cannot minister because the Bishop alleges that there are some allegations against Dr Percy that are “unresolved”, what is to be done about the “unresolved” allegations that also still hang over the Bishop?

Does the Bishop expect us to believe that any internally-commissioned review established by him – when he sets up the actual “commission” even for the ISB – can ever qualify as “independent” in the wider world?

These are some of the questions for the Bishop of Oxford to address.  There will be others. The Bishop of Oxford does not have to answer all – or indeed any.  But he may find his reputation suffers if he chooses not to.  Remember: “it may harm your defence if you fail to mention things…when later seeking to rely upon them in Court”.