Independent safeguarding reviews have become one of the Church's favourite forms of institutional theatre: commission a report, express concern, promise change, and carry on much as before. After reading enough of them, scepticism isn't cynicism. It's a rational response to an institution that has become far better at reviewing failure than confronting it.

Some things do not become harmless because they are loved, defended, protected, platformed, rehabilitated, or given another chance. Some vipers simply recover their strength, then bite the hand holding them. This is the part many institutions refuse to confront.

At what point does an “improvement plan” stop looking like progress and start looking like an admission that the system itself has been profoundly dysfunctional for years?