why hasn't the Bishop publicly apologized to the Dean?

Here's a funny thing, the Bishop hasn't publicly apologized to the Dean.
He has repeatedly publicly cleared the Dean without a fair and impartial inquiry, and the Archbishop compounded things by supporting both the Dean and the Bishop, even though someone has to be wrong.
Surely if the Bishop publicly launched on the Dean and Deanery without enough evidence and was proved wrong, he is deserving of serious disciplinary action, as well as owing the Dean a public apology.
And if he publicly launched with enough evidence and yet allowed the matter to be hijacked and excluded me and my evidence, so that he had to clear the Dean, he is still liable for serious disciplinary action.

Basically, the Bishop of Winchester was not fit to be a senior Bishop, having not been a Bishop before, he was even less competent than Michael Scott-Joynt, who was senior enough to be a Bishop but admitted to not being in control of the Diocese of Winchester. Bishop Dakin was not qualified to be Bishop in such a large diocese, having not been a Bishop before, his appointment, after Michael Scott-Joynt's admitted failures, was crazy, and appears to have occured only because Bishop Scott-Joynt wanted someone who would cuddle Africa publicly, which Bishop Dakin is qualified to do. But why should Africa be more important in both Bishops' cases, than the welfare and competent running of the Diocese???

The Bishop and Archbishop cause my life to crash with their public 'apologies' splashed all over the press, and then refused to personally apologize, and the Bishop lied and said he had personally apologized.

They produced a report that omitted my views, falsely claimed to have tried to contact me to include my views, and refused to amend the report to include my views, ignored a year of me begging them to take that incorrect and defamatory report down off their website, and then, surprise surprise, took the report down.

Anyone who wants a copy of the Korris report, please contact me, it is still widely available. It was taken down very recently from the Diocesan website.

What I do not understand is, if the Bishop of Winchester had enough evidence to publicly attack the Dean and Deanery and suspend the Dean, why did he then allow another conflicted report and proceed to let the Dean off on the strength of that contrived report, having again omitted my views and made no attempt to include them - especially as the Bishop is aware of this blog and the evidence on it?!

Why did the Bishop publicly attack his whole Deanery of Jersey? That is not in any way justifiable, and the response he got was not surprising, and he is responsible for the harm to me that it has done.

Basically he claimed to be investigating safeguarding, while he publicly harmed every person in that Deanery as well as me, and including all vulnerable people in the Deanery of Jersey.
He has acheived nothing for safeguarding because the Diocese of Winchester, as proven again and again, and publicly stated, has no power at all to discipline or control clergy and churches in Jersey, which is why Jane Fisher and Michael Scott-Joynt did nothing about my case, or other cases of clergy misconduct to vulnerable people in Jersey, instead they scapegoat and ignore the Victims, to 'make the problem go away', and look what happened to me when I didn't 'go away' as they tried to force me to!

The Diocese of Winchester has a lot to answer for, but no one is making them answer for it.

The Bishop fully intends to publish the conflicted Steel report and destroy me after his bodged public attack on Jersey led to a response where he was powerless to carry out any fair investigation, and had no intention of doing so, by allowing the Steel report and refusing to gather my views and allowing Steel to behave badly and illegally and act on behalf of the wrongdoers in the Jersey Deanery.

Another question remains, why did Dame Steel claim her report was in the final stages and thus my views were irrelevant in October last year, while the Bishop said he had had a legal bid to stop the report being published, and then in May this year he claimed he had just been given the completed report and would be publishing it? Who knew in November last year what was in it in order to bring a legal bid to stop it's publishing???

Basically, in all of this, the Church of England have shown how very very dishonest they are, and how completely lacking in care for a vulnerable person they are, they have and are, inflicting massive damage on me.