The 2008 Charity Commission work was more on them having something resembling a child protection policy and to write down what they were meant to do clearly. (If that sounds familiar, this issue is the same the Aussie Royal Commission have hammered them for too). There was no threat to charitable status at the time. It was about having procedures in place, oh and also making sure that trustees of a charity (typically elders) who were aware of serious crimes informed relevant authorities. If that seems familiar... yeah.
Struggling with the story's link between Tuesday book study and the Mill Hill inquiry to be honest. Seems someone may be making much of this. Sorry. Hate to be sceptical. Can certainly believe aspects and parts of the story though. Just not that direct link between things from here in the UK. An overall realisation of liability and consequences does chime though.