Dear Flintshire and North Wales Police.

Please find below my detailed open letter dated 21st February 2026. It sets out serious safeguarding concerns regarding an evangelical church in Mold. It covers multiple procedural failures in the handling of my complaints. It addresses the ongoing harassment investigation against me.

I have tried emailing the chief constable and raising complaints about these issues.  But I feel ignored and the responses I get do not seem to be inline with official police and college police documentation – which I have cited in my complaints and rebuttals. I feel like I have been sent round in circles. I want someone to address these serious issues in a way that aligns with your own documentation and literature. They concern me and have significant public interest.

Flintshire and North Wales has a significant issue with spiritual abuse.

Especially within private religious groups and churches. I base this opinion on my own experience. I base it on my own research. I spoke to dozens of ex-members of the same evangelical church that I went to. I also spoke to ex-members of several other “high control” groups in the area.

In addition to my own research and my own experience, upon my arrest in August 2025, the first thing my duty solicitor said to me was:

“I see this all the time, there will be someone at the church advising your wife”.

This suggests a known pattern is recognised and likely ignored by the solicitor and therefore probably the Police. Why is this pattern ignored?

I would love an answer – because the churches know how to play the system and set up easy convictions for the police – is one theory Ive thats been put forward to me by an active member of the north wales police force. Which is concerning.

The evangelical church that has torn my own life apart has clearly traumatised my 6-year-old son. It has literally admitted to “brainwashing” my estranged wife. I have a whatsapp transcript between church trustees to prove this. This is an admission of spiritual abuse. I have provided this along with an extensive range of other damning evidence to the police. No meaningful action has been taken.

I also have messages from the co-founder regarding corruption and spiritual abuse. That caused her to leave the church.

I have messages from ex-members regarding abuse in private meetings.

I have a SAR GDPR request showing WhatsApp transcripts between pastors and trustees. They discuss their manipulation of my estranged wife and my children. They call me “the head of the snake”. They call me mentally ill. A troll. They save dozens of documents and screenshots about me on their computer hard drive or Google Drive.

Their safeguarding is managed by the same people carrying out this behaviour. They discuss my family and me in this deeply concerning way.

I tried to help my wife and children. I was arrested for “harassing” my wife’s faith.

I was treated in a hostile and aggressive way the last time I was at a local police HQ. So I am reluctant to attend any of your local meet and greet sessions.

Please read my open letter below.

If you wish to arrest me again. Please let me know and ill hand myself in.

I write as a concerned father. I am currently on bail for a harassment charge. This relates to my attempts to protect my family from a high-control religious group. It is an evangelical church in Mold. At the age of 44, I have never been arrested previously. I have never been in any serious trouble. I have not even had a speeding ticket. My intent has never been to threaten or cause harm.

Rather, it has been to safeguard my family. I reasonably perceive this church as a manipulative environment. It exhibits multiple red flags. They are consistent with coercive and potentially abusive practices.

I raised five formal complaints to a Detective Inspector in your force. But I feel that my concerns have been handled in a dismissive and “Robotic” manner, with no references to counter the complaints and to justify the rebuttals.

The college police literature specifically states that police officers are to use professional judgement at all times and to pro actively prevent crime. I contwcted the police force on 2 occasions to ask if i was at risk of arrest, but was ignored. Again, it appears the force does not want to risk failing to succeed in an attempt to secure an easy arrest and conviction.

Moreover, the arresting over – according to the duty solicitor – himself said i was clearly a dad protecting his family – if this was his professional opinion – why was I even arrested? Where is the professional judgement?

The repeated dismissal of this ans additional concerns compounds my distress. I fear it leaves vulnerable individuals at risk. Including my own family.

Understanding Spiritual Abuse. Definition, Forms and the Digital Dimension.

Before examining the specific evidence in my case, it is essential to understand what spiritual abuse is. How it operates both in person and digitally. And its documented relationship to other forms of abuse.

How Spiritual Abuse Manifests.

The Church of England’s Safeguarding guidance identifies several hallmarks of spiritually abusive environments. These include misusing scripture to coerce behaviour. Biblical messages of submission, sacrifice and obedience are weaponised to manipulate and control. They also include requiring unquestioning obedience. Often with the implicit suggestion that obedience to the abuser equates to obedience to God. And using a sense of “divine position” to exert pressure to conform. While suggesting that this authority is unchallengeable.

The guidance makes clear that spiritual abuse shares hallmarks with bullying and harassment. Including intimidation, manipulation and inducing fear. However, what distinguishes it is the religious context. The coercion through religious position. Membership of the religious community. Scripture. And spiritual threats.

Spiritual Abuse as a Gateway to Further Harm.

It is critical to understand that spiritual abuse is not a standalone concern. It is a recognised gateway to more severe forms of abuse. Including financial exploitation and sexual abuse. As law firm Leigh Day noted in 2025, civil cases have repeatedly shown that spiritual abuse can occur alongside other forms of abuse. Including physical and sexual. In some examples it has acted as a gateway to further abuse involving financial exploitation.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is the UK’s most comprehensive statutory investigation into institutional child abuse. It found in its 2021 report on religious organisations that child sexual abuse has been found across most major UK religions. The Inquiry documented how spiritual authority creates power imbalances that predators exploit. How teachings on submission, obedience and “covering” are weaponised against victims. And how disclosure of abuse is discouraged through teachings about forgiveness, protecting the church’s reputation, and fear of spiritual consequences.

IICSA’s final report (October 2022) stated unequivocally.

“What marks religious organisations out from other institutions is the explicit purpose they have in teaching right from wrong. The moral turpitude of any failing by them in the prevention of, or response to, child sexual abuse is therefore heightened.”
IICSA Final Report, Executive Summary (2022).

The Digital Dimension. Online Surveillance and Control.

Spiritual abuse is no longer confined to church buildings and private meetings. In our digital age, coercive religious groups extend their control through online surveillance. Monitoring of members’ social media activity. Coordinated digital responses to critics. And group messaging platforms such as WhatsApp. Where leadership teams discuss, document and strategise against those who raise concerns. Precisely as evidenced in my own Subject Access Request data (detailed below).

The Church of England itself now recognises digital abuse as an additional category alongside spiritual abuse in its safeguarding framework. The systematic screenshots, surveillance of online activity, and coordinated internal discussions revealed in the SAR data from this evangelical church represent a textbook example of digital coercive control operating within a spiritual abuse context.

A History of Institutional Failure. How Police Have Ignored Spiritual Abuse.

My experience is not isolated. There is a well-documented history. It spans decades. Of UK police forces failing to act on concerns raised about religious organisations. And in some cases being actively manipulated by them.

IICSA Findings on Police Failures.

The IICSA Final Report documented systemic police failures in relation to abuse in religious settings. The Inquiry found that when cases were reported to the police, investigative mistakes were made. On the rare occasions allegations were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, the analysis of evidence was sometimes deficient. In some cases, deference towards individuals or institutions believed to have social importance kept perpetrators from being brought to justice. To the detriment of victims.

The Inquiry identified specific barriers. Including religious organisations discouraging external reporting to protect reputations. The desire to manage allegations internally rather than refer to statutory authorities. And the manipulation of police responses by portraying complaints from ex-members or concerned individuals as personal vendettas. Exactly the pattern I have experienced.

Case Studies. A Pattern of Manipulation.

Bishop Peter Ball. Church of England. In one of the most notorious cases of institutional cover-up, establishment ties led to police dropping initial investigations after complaints from victims. The paedophile bishop was allowed to continue abusing for decades. The IICSA Anglican Church Investigation found that the Church’s close relationship with police contributed to a catastrophic failure of safeguarding.

Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (Exclusive Brethren). This group has repeatedly reported innocent ex-members to police for alleged harassment in retaliation for speaking out against coercive practices. In a 2023 Leeds case, former member Lance Christie, an innocent whistleblower, was charged with harassing eight church members. Including his own sons. After public criticism. The court heard claims that the complaints were vindictive efforts to silence him.

The Jesus Army (Jesus Fellowship Church). A 2025 BBC documentary, Inside the Cult of the Jesus Army revealed decades of coercive control, physical abuse, and the systematic suppression of whistleblowers. The National Working Group into Spiritual and Ritual Abuse is now lobbying for legislation to outlaw forms of coercive control exerted by cult-like organisations. Partly in response to this case.

Jehovah’s Witnesses. IICSA reported that internal policies label whistleblowers as “apostates”. And have led to the use of harassment claims against ex-members who publicise child abuse cover-ups. The organisation’s rule requiring two witnesses to abuse before reporting to police was criticised as a fundamental safeguarding failure.

The Church of Scientology. Has aggressively used UK libel laws and police complaints to pursue ex-members and critics. Aiming to bankrupt and intimidate innocent whistleblowers into silence through prolonged legal battles.

The “Brainwashing” Confession. Evidence of Spiritual Abuse.

I must draw your attention to the most serious piece of evidence I have obtained. A literal written confession of spiritual abuse within the evangelical church’s own internal communications.

Through a Subject Access Request under the UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018, I obtained WhatsApp transcripts from the church leadership. These internal communications contain an explicit reference to “our brainwashing of his wife”. Referring to my estranged wife. The mother of my two young children.

This is not my interpretation. This is not hyperbole. This is their own language. In their own written communications.

Whether this statement was a literal admission of systematic psychological manipulation. Or an inappropriate “boast” demonstrating a concerning organisational culture. Either interpretation represents a serious safeguarding incident. It should have triggered immediate multi-agency investigation.

The SAR Data. A Window Into Coordinated Control.

The WhatsApp transcripts obtained through the Subject Access Request reveal a deeply concerning pattern of behaviour by church leadership. Below are key excerpts demonstrating surveillance, dehumanisation, and coordinated action against me and my family.

The Spiritual Abuse Gateway to Further Harm.

It is critical that North Wales Police understands that spiritual abuse is not a standalone concern. It is a recognised gateway to more severe forms of abuse. Including financial exploitation and sexual abuse.

Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023) recognises spiritual abuse as a distinct category of harm. Academic research and safeguarding experts have documented how spiritual abuse creates conditions that enable and conceal other forms of abuse.

Financial Abuse and Exploitation.

Spiritual authority is used to justify demands for money through tithing, building funds and “offerings.” Questioning financial transparency is reframed as “lack of faith” or “rebellion against God.” Vulnerable individuals, particularly women in difficult circumstances are targeted for free labour disguised as “ministry” or “service.” Fear of spiritual consequences prevents victims from questioning financial demands.

In my case, I have evidence suggesting potential financial exploitation of my wife (a teacher) through expectations of unpaid labour and financial contributions.

Sexual Abuse.

The IICSA report on religious organisations (2021) extensively documented how spiritual abuse creates conditions enabling sexual abuse. Spiritual authority creates power imbalances that predators exploit. Teachings on submission, obedience and “covering” are weaponised against victims. Disclosure is actively discouraged. Victims who speak out face isolation, shunning, or being accused of being “influenced by Satan.”

The Pattern.

Spiritual abuse establishes control over a person’s thoughts, beliefs and decision-making. Once this control is established, financial and sexual exploitation become significantly easier. The victim’s ability to recognise abuse, seek help or leave is severely compromised. The organisation’s claims of moral authority deter external scrutiny.

Given this well-documented pattern, North Wales Police’s dismissal of my concerns without proper investigation is deeply troubling.

Procedural and Legal Failures.

In my specific experience, North Wales Police appears to have failed to adhere to statutory guidance. Best practices. And ethical obligations.

Failure to Escalate or Refer to Oversight Bodies.

The Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020, reinforced by IOPC statutory guidance, require referral of safeguarding concerns. Despite the high-risk nature of my complaints. Including a written admission of “brainwashing”. No independent review has been initiated.

Rigid Application of Process, Ignoring Professional Judgement.

The College of Policing Code of Ethics requires officers to exercise professional judgement and assess risk. Particularly in complex, vulnerable or high-control environments. In my case, concerns about the evangelical church’s coercive structure have been dismissed as routine complaints. Without evaluation of systemic risk or protective action.

The evidence well exceeds the threshold for investigation outlined in your own documentation. This should have occured at once. Not procedural dismissal.

Insufficient Record-Keeping and Communication.

I have received some updates regarding the handling of my complaints. But there have been no responses to my appeals about not knowing what to do to protect my children from this group. The safeguarding issues, including the explicit admission of “brainwashing”, have been completely ignored. As someone who is a survivor of child sexual abuse myself, I find this approach particularly worrying. When so many red flags are present. In breach of IOPC guidance.

Possible Procedural Breach. MASH Meeting.

A multi-agency safeguarding meeting (potentially under MASH protocols) involving Social Services, North Wales Police, and my children’s school (Ysgol Estyn) was held with representatives from the evangelical church present. Concluding “no further action.” This has left the group free to contact and potentially manipulate my children and my estranged wife.

Inviting the accused party to such a meeting appears to be a major procedural breach. As MASH or Section 47 strategy discussions typically exclude alleged perpetrators to avoid compromising the investigation or tipping them off. Per guidance under the Children Act 1989 and Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

It is particularly concerning that representatives of an organisation that has admitted in writing to “brainwashing” a vulnerable adult were invited to participate in a safeguarding assessment. This is akin to inviting an alleged domestic abuser to the strategy meeting about their victim.

Despite my three requests for copies of any minutes taken, I have received no reply or explanation for this invitation.

Specific Concerns About Current Treatment.

4A. Evidence of Serious Safeguarding Risk to My Children and Estranged Wife.

I have gathered substantial and credible evidence. Taken together, it far exceeds the threshold for a proper multi-agency safeguarding investigation under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 and Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance.

As detailed above, the church’s own WhatsApp communications contain the phrase “our brainwashing of his wife.” This constitutes a potential admission of a criminal offence under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (coercive or controlling behaviour). Evidence of spiritual abuse as defined in Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023). And a safeguarding concern requiring immediate investigation under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. A parent subject to “brainwashing” cannot be presumed capable of making independent decisions about children’s welfare free from external coercive influence.

Undisputed Proof of Stalking and Surveillance. The SAR data shows undisputed proof of systematic monitoring of me across multiple platforms. With screenshots stored on church leaders’ Google Drives and WhatsApp discussions about my mental health, my online activity, and strategic coordination against me.

Characterisation as “The Head of the Snake”. Internal communications label me in dehumanising terms suggesting systematic character assassination that may be communicated to my wife and children. Constituting parental alienation and emotional abuse.

Suspicious Leadership Changes. The abrupt relocation of long-serving pastors (after more than 15 years) immediately following my raising safeguarding concerns. A pattern often seen in high-control groups seeking to suppress dissent and avoid accountability.

Grooming-Style Behaviour Toward Children. Provision of branded gifts (trophies marked “church-name Kids 2025”). Organised outings to evangelical events (such as United Beach Missions). And instructions to children “don’t tell Daddy” raising serious concerns about secrecy, loyalty-building techniques that undermine parental authority, creation of inappropriate bonds between children and organisation, and teaching children to keep secrets from parents (a recognised grooming indicator as documented in Ann Craft Trust guidance).

4B. My Own Harassment Charge.

Separately, and quite distinctly from the safeguarding concerns above, I am currently on police bail for alleged harassment arising from a number of messages I sent to my estranged wife.

I wish to make absolutely clear the nature and frequency of these messages. They were infrequent (not a campaign of constant contact). Calm and concerned in tone. Never aggressive or threatening. And sent following professional advice from the Action Against Spiritual Abuse / Stop Spiritual Abuse Now charity.

I had in fact deleted and blocked my wife on WhatsApp. As it was obvious she was trying to create a record that could be used against me by refusing to discuss anything verbally. Including the reason for our separation. Forcing me to use WhatsApp where everything would be documented. After several emails from her, I agreed to add her on a co-parenting app after speaking to the spiritual abuse charity.

Complete Transparency. Publication of All Messages.

To demonstrate the non-threatening, sincere nature of my communications, I intend to publish the complete message thread between myself and my estranged wife.

I am confident that when the public, the media and independent observers see the actual content of these messages, it will be immediately apparent that they constitute legitimate attempts to maintain contact with the mother of my children. Following expert advice on how to support someone in a high-control group.

I sent these messages acting on direct advice from the recognised charity Action Against Spiritual Abuse. Which advised that the only safe way to support someone trapped in a high-control religious group is to keep a gentle line of communication open. Remind them of life before the group. Reassure them that they have not burnt bridges. And avoid aggressive confrontation that will be used to validate the group’s characterisation of you as “dangerous” or “of the devil.”

Despite this context, the complaint has been pursued without apparent consideration of intent, proportionality, or the wider safeguarding picture. Exactly the pattern seen in other cases where high-control groups weaponise police action against non-believing spouses or whistleblowers.

Ironically, my estranged wife went through my phone. Plus emotionally and physically abused me. I recorded all her abusive behaviour. She admits to going through my phone and attempting to hit me on the WhatsApp transcripts she submitted in evidence against me. North Wales Police ignore this and do nothing despite me reporting it.

Media Interest and Public Accountability.

I wish to inform you that there is significant media interest in this case. The Times, The Guardian, and ITV Wales have all expressed interest in running my story. Which includes the written “brainwashing” confession obtained through Subject Access Request. The complete message thread showing my polite, infrequent attempts to support my wife. Evidence of North Wales Police’s failure to investigate serious safeguarding concerns. The pattern of high-control religious groups weaponising police against whistleblowers. And my arrest for “harassment” while trying to protect my family from an organisation that admits to “brainwashing.”

I also intend to promote this story across all channels I own and operate.

My motivation for going public is not revenge or malice. It is to protect other families from similar manipulation. To raise awareness about how high-control religious groups weaponise police and social services. To demonstrate the complete disconnect between the serious evidence I have provided (including a written confession of “brainwashing”) and North Wales Police’s dismissive response. To hold institutions accountable for safeguarding failures. To prevent the pattern documented in IICSA from continuing. Where institutional protection of religious organisations takes precedence over child protection.

I believe the public has a right to know that an evangelical church in Wales has admitted in writing to “brainwashing” a vulnerable adult. That North Wales Police was informed of this and took no action. That instead of investigating the church, police arrested the father trying to protect his children. The complete context of my “harassment”. Including the actual messages, which demonstrate genuine concern, not abuse.

I hope that media scrutiny will prompt the independent review and multi-agency safeguarding assessment that should have occurred when I first reported the safeguarding issues.

Suggested Actions.

In line with statutory obligations, professional ethics, and safeguarding best practices, I request the following.

Independent Review.

All complaints I have raised should be independently assessed by the IOPC or another impartial body to determine whether procedural, safeguarding, or ethical obligations were breached. This review must specifically address why the written confession was not treated as a serious safeguarding incident. Why representatives of the accused organisation were invited to the safeguarding meeting. Why my concerns were characterised as “harassment” rather than legitimate safeguarding.

Safeguarding Assessment of the Evangelical Church.

North Wales Police should coordinate with Social Services to conduct a comprehensive safeguarding assessment of the evangelical church in Mold. Specifically examining the “brainwashing” confession and what it reveals about organisational culture and practices. Coercive control tactics and spiritual abuse patterns. Financial exploitation of vulnerable members. Safeguarding governance and whether proper procedures exist to prevent abuse. The “don’t tell Daddy” instruction to children and other concerning practices with minors. Whether the church poses ongoing risk to my children and estranged wife.

This assessment should include review of all evidence I have gathered. Including the complete WhatsApp transcripts obtained through Subject Access Request.

Training and Policy Review.

Officers should receive specific guidance on recognising spiritual abuse and its role as a gateway to financial and sexual abuse. Handling complaints related to coercive religious environments and high-control groups. Understanding how these groups weaponise police against whistleblowers. Proper application of professional judgement rather than rigid proceduralism. The heightened safeguarding risks in religious settings (as extensively documented in IICSA).

Raising awareness could be relatively easy to implement. And could go a long way to protecting children from cultic and abusive groups.

Transparent Communication.

I request written confirmation of all steps taken in response to my complaints. Including records of escalation and decision-making, in accordance with IOPC statutory guidance. Copies of any minutes from the safeguarding meeting. Full explanation for inviting representatives from the evangelical church to the safeguarding meeting. Explanation for why the “brainwashing” confession was not treated as a serious safeguarding incident requiring immediate action.

Contextual Evaluation of Harassment Charge.

My current bail and the associated harassment charge should be evaluated with full consideration of intent (protecting family from organisation that admits to “brainwashing”). Proportionality (infrequent, polite messages following expert charity advice). Context (pattern of high-control groups weaponising police against dissenting spouses). My safeguarding actions and the evidence I have provided.

I invite the Chief Constable or a designated officer to review the full message thread I sent to my estranged wife. Which I am prepared to publish in full to demonstrate the non-threatening, sincere nature of my communications.

Closing Statement.

I make these requests not as a matter of opinion. But in accordance with documented UK laws, oversight mechanisms, and professional standards.

The IOPC’s Statutory Guidance on the Police Complaints System (2020) mandates that “an effective police complaints system is vital”. And requires escalation of safeguarding matters to prevent harm.

The College of Policing’s Code of Ethics (2023) emphasises that officers must exercise professional judgement in complex cases involving vulnerability. Rather than rigid proceduralism.

Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023) requires multi-agency responses to safeguarding concerns. And recognises spiritual abuse as a distinct category of harm.

The Serious Crime Act 2015, Section 76 criminalises coercive or controlling behaviour.

If North Wales Police continues to treat serious safeguarding concerns. Including a written confession of “brainwashing”. As routine procedural matters. Vulnerable individuals remain at risk.

As evidenced by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), institutional failures in duty of care “failed to protect children from sexual abuse”. The IICSA report specifically documented how religious institutions manipulated police responses. And how spiritual abuse created conditions enabling sexual abuse.

As I can attest to myself. And as the IICSA audit/report has stated.

“The devastation and harm caused by sexual abuse cannot be overstated. The impact of child sexual abuse, often lifelong, is such that everyone should do all they can to protect children.”

I urge the force to take my concerns seriously rather than dismissing them procedurally. Apply professional judgement in line with ethical obligations and statutory guidance. Initiate the multi-agency safeguarding assessment that should have occurred when I first reported the “brainwashing” admission. Review my harassment charge in the context of all available evidence.

I remain deeply concerned that the evangelical church is still able to contact my children and estranged wife. Despite multiple reports of various forms of abuse. Solid, first-hand evidence of unethical pastoral care and practice. A written confession of “brainwashing” a vulnerable adult. Evidence of grooming-style behaviour toward children.

The protection of children must take precedence over the protection of religious institutions.

I await your response and the independent review I have requested.