1. The President of Tribunals said he had to answer the question: "whether or not the Archbishop of York was plainly wrong in his decision to dismiss this complaint against the Archbishop of Canterbury."
(i). He said: "That would only be the case if the decision he took was considered by me not to be within the range of reasonable decisions which he could have made."
(ii). He said the Archbishop of Canterbury: "did not have a duty to deal with the very wide ranging complaints made against a number of bodies and individuals by the complainant, nor did any failure to respond to or engage with the complainant in respect of his very many contentious issues amount to neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office."
2. But:
(i). If he denies that the Church has a duty to address such injustices, so that the Archbishop may not be censured for doing so, which is what would have happened had they found in my favour, we should wonder what the Church stands for. This must mean it has rejected Christ and his teachings.
(ii). If he did not have a duty to at, he certainly was wrong to file a false report against me and unreasonably to have my name entered in a database of dangerous people, simply because I approached the Church with my troubles.