Response of the Church of England to these Matters

1. After the Report on Mr Paterson was published, I wrote to Bishop Graham James, who chaired the Inquiry. I drew his attention to similarities between that case and mine and explained secretaries of state for Justice and Health, and the GMC and its Chief Executive had been unconcerned my detention was based on false diagnoses.
2. Bishop James declared me mad but would not say why; he asked me not to write to him again.
3. I wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Justin Welby). I reported my case to him and informed him of Bishop James' response.
4. The Archbishop's response was to file a false report against me with the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC).
(i). I asked the Archbishop to explain why he thought it necessary to report me to the police. He did not respond.
5. Complaints of serious misconduct in the Church are handled through the Clergy Discipline Measure, which is a legal process. Under that process:
(i). the Archbishop of York dismissed the Complaint.
(ii). I filed a complaint with the President of Tribunals. He dismissed the Complaint, in a disingenuous decision.
6. I was forced to file a lawsuit against the Church. In court, the Church did deny Christ. It argued:
(i). it is not the job of the Church to deal with such matters (injustice and persecution of the innocent) and
(ii). the person who thinks it sensible to bring such matters to the Church and the Archbishop is "as reasonable as a person who seeks a cooked breakfast from a barber."
7. In court, the Church denounced me as a convicted lunatic. And yet it could not, and I wager still cannot, show there existed a single valid diagnosis against me. It did in fact have clear proof the diagnoses were not valid.