I believe that we sought to act in the best interests - not only of the Church, but of the family and of everybody concerned at that time.The Bishop's attitude is completely unacceptable, particularly when he and his colleagues in the Church of England are always telling the rest of us that without their god in our lives we cannot act in a moral fashion.
Bishop Wilcox's failure to act morally, legally, and decently means that either he does not believe in his god - in which case he is '...obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception...', to quote the Fraud Act, since he is being paid handsomely by the Church of England to fulfil the sinecure of a Bishopric - or else he is simply just another hypocrite and charlatan masquerading as a cleric in so-called 'holy orders'.
It is also interesting to compare Bishop Wilcox's spurious excuse for covering up for Halliday's repeated sexual abuse of children in his care with that of the Churches' own Child Protection Advisory Service, who said, according to the BBC, that the bishop's argument was a "red herring" and it was "well known even then" that such cases had to be reported to police.
Just a thought, but since Bishop Wilcox deliberately chose to ignore Halliday's vile sexual abuse of children, and the rules set in place by the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service , perhaps he too shares Halliday's penchant for abusing children entrusted to his care? After all, a man who deliberately lies to children that the Xtain god really exists, despite no credible evidence to support such a claim, may well be capable of anything. I'll bet he even tells credulous folks that 'Jesus' really existed, was born of a virgin, and was resurrected after death so that he could rejoin his father, who is actually himself, in a fairy-tale place called 'heaven' but which isn't half as nice if the stories of priests are to be believed.
But, if you find the the actions of Halliday and Wilcox worthy of your opprobrium, pause for a moment and consider those of the Judge, Ian Pearson, who amazingly saw fit to jail Halliday for only 2.5 years for the 10 specimen charges over some 5 years. Admittedly Judge Pearson added that Halliday should be banned from working with children and said he would be put on the Sex Offenders Register, both for life; additionally was ordered to pay his 3 victims £2,ooo each. Nevertheless, it seems an amazingly light sentence for a serial predatory paedophile, especially when such people are generally considered to be 'incurable' and ever likely to repeat their offences.
Anyone who suggests that Judge Pearson had an ulterior motive for his remarkably lenient sentence on Halliday may well be right, but I couldn't possibly comment.