As someone who has spent a fair (an unfair?) amount of time listening to, reading and sometimes even using management jargon (jargon meaning "special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand", per the OED), I think there is further nuance in the statement.
"[N]o ongoing safeguarding concerns" means that no one vulnerable is currently at risk. If (!) you're a bit of a cynic like me, the 'currently', or 'ongoing' in the original, suggests that there was at least one previous occasion that should have raised safeguarding concerns, i.e. someone vulnerable was put at risk.
The second clause is ugly (why is someone engaging with an outcome?) but clearly implies that there was behaviour by the (then) Bishop that should have been different. The "fully engaged" means that the (then) Bishop has agreed to whatever was suggested as an intervention to change his behaviour. Given that the previous behaviour is implied to have put someone vulnerable at risk, you would hope this was a more robust intervention or set of interventions than doing some e-learning, but who knows?
I don't think the intention was necessarily to obscure or be vague - the meaning is quite clear to people who grok the jargon. I think rather it was an attempt to put the issue to bed (as it were) in a way that didn't create any hostages to fortune, particularly any potential legal issues. And, of course, the potential legal issues could be with respect to the person or persons who were deemed to be at risk, or indeed, with respect to the duties of the (then) Bishop's employers.
The jargon problem is a serious one. One of my children's schools recently asked me, in a survey about a parents' evening, "Let us know what went well or even better if ?". Makes perfect sense to someone who works in education and knows the jargon. Tough to understand if you don't.
It was explained to me that an "even better if?" is something that would have improved the outcome. So in plainer English, the question would have been "What went well and what could have gone better?".
My suggestions for improvement were largely centred on the wording of the question.
Sorry, to add further to my already lengthy comment, I think the real problem with the statement was the phrase "[t]his process concluded that...". A process can only conclude in the sense of ending, not in the sense of reaching judgment. We say that "the jury concluded that..." and not "the trial concluded that...".
As someone who has spent a fair (an unfair?) amount of time listening to, reading and sometimes even using management jargon (jargon meaning "special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand", per the OED), I think there is further nuance in the statement.
"[N]o ongoing safeguarding concerns" means that no one vulnerable is currently at risk. If (!) you're a bit of a cynic like me, the 'currently', or 'ongoing' in the original, suggests that there was at least one previous occasion that should have raised safeguarding concerns, i.e. someone vulnerable was put at risk.
The second clause is ugly (why is someone engaging with an outcome?) but clearly implies that there was behaviour by the (then) Bishop that should have been different. The "fully engaged" means that the (then) Bishop has agreed to whatever was suggested as an intervention to change his behaviour. Given that the previous behaviour is implied to have put someone vulnerable at risk, you would hope this was a more robust intervention or set of interventions than doing some e-learning, but who knows?
I don't think the intention was necessarily to obscure or be vague - the meaning is quite clear to people who grok the jargon. I think rather it was an attempt to put the issue to bed (as it were) in a way that didn't create any hostages to fortune, particularly any potential legal issues. And, of course, the potential legal issues could be with respect to the person or persons who were deemed to be at risk, or indeed, with respect to the duties of the (then) Bishop's employers.
The jargon problem is a serious one. One of my children's schools recently asked me, in a survey about a parents' evening, "Let us know what went well or even better if ?". Makes perfect sense to someone who works in education and knows the jargon. Tough to understand if you don't.
OK. The school jargon absolutely defeated me.
It was explained to me that an "even better if?" is something that would have improved the outcome. So in plainer English, the question would have been "What went well and what could have gone better?".
My suggestions for improvement were largely centred on the wording of the question.
An excellent example of the past exonerative tense: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/past_exonerative
Sorry, to add further to my already lengthy comment, I think the real problem with the statement was the phrase "[t]his process concluded that...". A process can only conclude in the sense of ending, not in the sense of reaching judgment. We say that "the jury concluded that..." and not "the trial concluded that...".