“This named priests known to have been guilty of criminal and moral offences, or viewed with ‘grave suspicion’. In fact, there are national and diocesan caution lists, and each diocesan bishop was advised to keep his own up-to-date, to consult it before making any appointment, and to pass any new name directly to Lambeth Palace”. [Source: “George Bell, Bishop of Chichester – Church, State, and Resistance in the Age of Dictatorship” by Andrew Chandler (Eerdmans 2016) – Page 196 & 197 – ‘Postlude: History and Allegation’]
1914
George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – Chichester Cathedral [Picture: Alamy]
1914 – George Bell appointed Chaplain to Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson
“George Bell was very conscientious in keeping this Caution List up-to-date” – Richard W. Symonds
1918
1918 – George Bell marries Henrietta Livingstone
1925
1925 – George Bell appointed Dean of Canterbury
“At this time he was the driving force of the Canterbury Arts Festival, with artists including John Masefield, Gustav Holst, Dorothy Sayers and TS Eliot. Bell later welcomed Mahatma Gandhi to Canterbury”~ Richard W. Symonds
1929
February 1 and October 5 2018 – Church House Westminster
In 1938 Bishop Bell helped many people, including pastors’ families (eg Franz Hildebrandt), to emigrate from Germany to Britain who were in danger from Hitler, and the ‘official’ church, because they had Jewish ancestors or were opponents of the German dictatorship. As one of the leaders of the Ecumenical Movement, he influenced public opinion in supporting those persecuted by the Nazi regime. His public support is said to have contributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller’s survival (“First they came…”) by making his imprisonment in Sachenhausen in February 1938 – and later in Dachau – widely known in the British media, exposing it as an example of the Nazi persecution of the church. Hitler stopped Niemöller’s planned execution in 1938.
“During the war, Bishop Bell was involved in helping not only displaced persons and refugees who had fled the continent to England, but also interned Germans and British conscientious objectors….During World War II Bell repeatedly condemned the Allied practice of ‘area bombing’. As a member of the House of Lords, he was a consistent parliamentary critic of area bombing…In 1941 in a letter to The Times, he called the bombing of unarmed women and children “barbarian” which would destroy the just cause for the war, thus openly criticising the Prime Minister’s [Winston Churchill – Ed] advocacy of such a bombing strategy. On 14 February 1943 – two years ahead of the Dresden raids – he urged the House of Lords to resist the War Cabinet’s decision for area bombing, stating that it called into question all the humane and democratic values for which Britain had gone to war. In 1944, during debate, he again demanded the House of Lords to stop British area bombing of German cities such as Hamburg and Berlin as a disproportionate and illegal “policy of annihilation” and a crime against humanity…” (Source: Wiki)
August 16 1940 – “Principles of Peace” by CEM Joad – The Spectator
Bishop Gavin Ashenden on Oct 5 2018 at Church House:
“Perhaps one of the great gifts of Judaeo-Christian culture has been the presumption of innocence in our legal system...”
C.E.M. Joad on Aug 16 1940 – The Spectator
“There are certain principles which form the heritage of our Western civilisation, principles which are derived partly from ancient Greece, partly from Christianity…”.
Richard W. Symonds is currently (2018) co-writing a biography on CEM Joad, with particular focus on his ‘swansong’ – “The Recovery of Belief – A Restatement of Christian Philosophy” [Faber & Faber 1952]
In 1944 the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, died after only two years in the post. Bell was considered a leading possibility to succeed him,[by whom?] but it was Geoffrey Fisher, Bishop of London, who was appointed. Bishops of the Church of England are chosen, ultimately, by the British prime minister and it is known that Winston Churchill strongly disapproved of Bell’s speeches against bombing.[citation needed] It has often been asserted that Bell would otherwise have been appointed,[by whom?] but this is debatable; there is evidence that Temple had thought Fisher a likely successor anyway. Bell’s high posthumous reputation[9][10] may have coloured later opinion. For example, Archbishop Rowan Williams said in 2008 that he thought Bell would have made a better Archbishop of Canterbury than Fisher.[11]
He advised the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, that he did not consider Michael Ramsey, who had been his pupil at Repton, a suitable successor. Ramsey later relayed to the Reverend Victor Stock the conversation Fisher had with the Prime Minister.
I have come to give you some advice about my successor. Whomever you choose, under no account must it be Michael Ramsey, the Archbishop of York. Dr Ramsey is a theologian, a scholar and a man of prayer. Therefore, he is entirely unsuitable as Archbishop of Canterbury. I have known him all his life. I was his Headmaster at Repton.
“This significant, secret manual of episcopal practice was no ordinary labour, and it required no ordinary editor. A prefatory note by Archbishop Fisher announced, ‘We owe the revision of a record first compiled in 1912 to the industry of the Bishop of Chichester’ [Source: ‘Private Memoranda of certain matters discussed at the Bishops’ Meetings of Bishops of the Three Provinces of Canterbury, York and Wales held at Lambeth Palace (1902-1945), together with certain Resolutions adopted by the Convocations of Canterbury and York (1946)’, Bell Papers, vol. 306]
– Andrew Chandler – “George Bell, Bishop of Chichester – Church, State, and Resistance in the Age of Dictatorship” (Eerdmans 2016) – Page 196 & 197 – ‘Postlude: History and Allegation’]
“By now a working relationship with the Caution List had been a part of almost Bell’s entire career” – Andrew Chandler [Source: As above]
“It is difficult to believe someone responsible for a ‘Caution List’, which listed priests found guilty of ‘moral offences’, was as guilty as those on that List” – RWS
“In 1961, Michael Ramsey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, went to Chichester Cathedral to dedicate the newly-built Arundel Screen, in memory of George Bell…”
This ecumenical conference was first held in Chichester 35 years ago [1984] to celebrate the pioneering international work of Bishop Bell. Having been so successful, regular ‘Coburg Conferences’ have taken place ever since.
The Conferences are held every two years, with four centres hosting them in turn – three in Germany and one in Chichester. This autumn it will be Chichester’s turn. Delegates from the Diocese of Chichester, the Evangelical Kirchenkreis Bayreuth, the Lutheran church in Berlin-Brandenburg, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bamberg meet to share and solve problems together with lectures, discussions and workshops.
Strong bonds of support, fellowship and understanding have developed.
“In 1985, after the Louisiana scandal, Tom Doyle – Secretary Canonist for the Papal Nuncio – co-authored a report warning paedophile priests were a billion dollar liability. He tried to introduce the report at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Cardinal Law of Boston initially helped to co-fund the report, but then he backed out and they shelved it” ~ Richard Sipe [quoted in the ‘Spotlight’ film]
Jan 30 1986 – “Anatomy of a Cover-Up” – Gilbert Gauthe – The Diocese of Lafayette and the moral responsibility for the pedophilia scandal – Jason Berry
1988
1988 – “Rumpole of the Bailey” with Leo McKern – Episode: ‘Rumpole and the Age of Miracles’ [Series 5 Disc 2) – Filmed on location at Chichester Cathedral [‘The Diocese of Lawnchester’ – Ecclesiastical Court]
Rumpole: “I happen to have a good deal of faith”
Ballard: “Yes, in what precisely?”
Rumpole: “The health-giving properties of Claret. The presumption of innocence…that golden thread running through British justice”
1993 – Rev. Peter Ball, Bishop of Lewes, given a Caution by the Police for gross indecency, after abusing a trainee monk.
1995
1995 – First complaint by ‘Carol’ to Bishop of Chichester Eric Kemp, alleging Bishop Bell had sexually abused her in the 1940s and 1950s (not reported to Police). Second complaint in 2013
“I am increasingly of the speculative opinion that ‘Carol’ might have confused Bishop Bell with Bishop Ball. In other words, a simple case of mistaken identity where it is highly likely she was abused by a priest in Chichester as a child, but highly unlikely it was Bishop Bell” ~ Richard W. Symonds
May 3 2001 – “Dean denies cover-up” (page 2) – Chichester Observer (mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital)(Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014)
‘Guilty until proven innocent’ [Source: “Hope Springs Eternal In The Priestly Breast” – ‘A Research Study for Procedural Justice for Priests’ by Fr. James Valladares – iUniverse 2012 – Page 160-161]
In a very interesting article entitled “Guilty until Proven Innocent,” Fr. Austen Ivereigh, MA, DPhil, of Heythorpe College, Oxford, informs us of the Cumberlege Commission review of the Church’s child-protection policy [Nolan Report – Ed]. And this is his initial observation: “While treatment of the abused has improved, disturbing evidence has emerged that priests who have been accused and not charged are left in limbo, suspicion still hanging over them” [Ref 345: Austin Ivereigh, ‘Justice for Priests and Deacons’, Vol. 1, no. 1 – September 2007, 10].
Ever since a dithering Caiaphas [See ‘The Caiaphas Principle’ – June 11 2018 – Ed] succumbed to public pressure and maintained that the destruction of an innocent man was justified to save a nation, the law of Christian countries has consistently upheld the presumption of innocence, and the need for definite and incontrovertible evidence, before an accused can be convicted . In the Church’s legal tradition, this is known as ‘favor rei’ – the accused enjoys the benefit of the law and is deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. Said Pope John Paul II in 1979: “Due process and individual rights should never be sacrificed for the sake of the social order”.
In the wake of the explosive revelations of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy in 2002 (exposed by the Boston Globe and highlighted in the ‘Spotlight’ film – Ed), the bishops of the world reacted with drastic measures to repair the scandal and restore justice through penal sanctions. Quasi-judicial bodies were established and duly authorised to implement their policies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, there was COPCA (the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults), the child-protection agency of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, set up at Lord Nolan’s report on abuse in 2001.
Fr. Austen Ivereigh frankly confesses that Nolan was well aware of the possibility of false or malicious allegations, and the haunting danger of reputations being irreparably destroyed. Yet, continues Fr. Ivereigh, “COPCA’s policies have ridden roughshod over these qualms. ‘Nolan would be turning in his grave,’ more than one canonist has told me.” So there is a pressing need for a level playing field [Ref 348: Paul Bruxby, ‘Justice for Priests and Deacons’, Vol 1, no. 1 – September 2007, 10].
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, the bishop in charge of COPCA, candidly acknowledged last year that an accused priest is unlikely ever to be reinstated. Of the 40 clergy in England and Wales who had been accused by 2005, only two had been restored to ministry; four were dismissed. Of the 41 reports made in 2006, 24 resulted in no further action by the police, while 14 are still being investigated. Ivereigh adds, “And what is the fate of those whose cases have been dropped by the police? Many of them live in limbo, their reputations and vocations cast to the wolves. All too often, they leave the priesthood”. ‘So a priest is guilty until proven innocent – and this is the deplorable stance of the very ones who brazenly preach about justice in season and out of season’.
Fr. Paul Bruxby, the Brentwood canonist who defends accused priests, informs us that most of the 20 priests he is defending have been assessed as ‘low risk’; yet, five or six years later, they are unable to return to their parishes. “They feel shunned by their bishops and describe themselves as lepers. They feel hopeless, and sometimes imagine committing suicide” [Ref 348: Paul Bruxby, ‘Justice for Priests and Deacons’, Vol. 1, no. 1 – September 2007, 10]
“Boston Globe identified a pattern of systematic sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston in which known paedophile clergy were moved around parishes and/or sent to ‘treatment centres’ – but not prosecuted or de-frocked. The abuse was ‘covered up’. Any just legal recourse for victims was difficult – and made difficult” – Richard W. Symonds
“There are parallels between what happened in the Church of England’s Diocese of Chichester in 2015 and what had already happened in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in Boston in 2002 – and beyond. The ‘Spotlight’ film brings this out clearly” ~ Richard W. Symonds
2003
2003 – Church of England abolishes “Deposition from Holy Orders” [‘Defrocking’]
2003 – “No Crueler Tyrannies – Accusation, False Witness…” by Dorothy Rabinowitz [Wall Street Journal Books 2003]
May 10 2003 – “Warnings have been going on for 25 years” (page 2) – Chichester Observer (mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital)(Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014)
“Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers)…With careful drafting it should be possible to express them in terms which effectively apologise for what has happened whilst at the same time avoiding any concession of legal liability for it” – Excerpts from House of Bishops confidential document – 2007
In 1961, Michael Ramsey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, went to Chichester Cathedral to dedicate the newly-rebuilt Arundel Screen, in memory of George Bell (1883-1958), one of the most outstanding Bishops of Chichester. (And, in my book, and in that of the 2000+ who signed a Petition to have his name cleared and his greatness reinstated, a Bishop forever to be remembered.)
In 2008, on another equally special occasion, the recently-retired Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, visited Chichester to declare open George Bell House.
Two of Bishop Rowan’s special guests were Mother Angela and Sister Jane, two Anglican Sisters. (see photo to the right)
Why am I telling you this?
Now we go back in time again, to 2003. when a small package arrived in the post. It contained an exercise book crammed with small handwriting, accompanied by pony-camera photographs which had been glued tightly into the book. A note read: ‘Would you like to publish my story ? Sister Jane.’
I went on to read a beautiful, heart-warming account of an Anglican Community’s life and the devoted but joyful way the Sisters lived it. And of course I published it.
SURPRISED BY JOY A History of the Community of the Servants of the Cross This is a beautiful, heart-warming account . On the back cover, I quoted from the Rt Rev’d Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester, 1974-2000, and the Community’s Episcopal Visitor:
…an admirable and encouraging story. I have known the Community since 1974. It has given long years of faithful service to the church, in various ways. The Sisters have been faithful to their calling, through many changes forced upon them by circumstances.
The other Arundel connection? In February, 2014, Rowan Williams, now known more correctly as The Rt Revd Dr and Rt Hon Baron Williams of Oystermouth, made a two-day, unforgettable visit to our Parish and Priory Church of St Nicholas.
He gave the second in the church’s ‘Poetry and Faith’ series, this time on Dylan Thomas, illustrated with readings of his poems. Next day, he celebrated and preached the sermon at the 10 am Eucharist Service.
Needless to say, the church was packed on both days, and a great many people some, we had never seen before, (but hope to see again) had the opportunity to listen, learn, and thoroughly enjoy what the erudite but engaging Bishop said, with such charm and humour. Our Vicar, David Farrer (also a Bishop!) commented to me in an email, after the weekend, that ‘the humble humanity of the man shines through’. That said it exactly!
Sadly, both Mother Angela and Sister Jane are no longer with us. Following Angela’s death, Jane’s Requiem Eucharist took place at The Church of St Mary the Virgin, in the Parish of East Preston and Kingston, on Friday, 13 February, 2015. The Celebrant was Bishop Martin Warner, the last Episcopal Visitor to the Community of the Servants of the Cross. It was a most moving occasion, for all the many of us present.
~ Sandra Saer
Oct 8 2008 – Chichester Cathedral’s 900th Anniversary and Bishop Bell’s 50th Anniversary + George Bell House opened by Archbishop Rowan Williams
Oct 8 2008 – Unveiling of Howard Coster’s ‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph – with Plaque [in storage within the private Cathedral Library]
The Small Plaque reads….
‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral’s Private Library]
“I would welcome anything which means that it doesn’t look as though the Church is controlled by the State”
~ The Rt Rev John Packer, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
2009
2009 – ‘Bishop George Bell – House of Lords Speeches and Correspondence with Rudolf Hess’ by Peter Raina [Publishers: Peter Lang – 2009] – “To The Right Reverend Peter Knight Walker, D.D. Sometime Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and Bishop of Ely. Who has never ceased to love and admire what Bishop George Bell stood for. This book is dedicated in affection by the Editor”. The book was ‘discovered’ by Richard W. Symonds – July/August 1 2023.
“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong” – Judge David Clarke (on the David Jones case)
2010
2010 – “Inspector George Gently” with Martin Shaw [Series 2 – Disc 1 – ‘Gently with the Innocents’] – on the theme of Child Sexual Abuse in a Children’s Home
July 9 2010 – “False Accusations” by John Landry http://www.catholicity.com [Quoted in “Hope Springs Internal in the Priestly Breast – A Research Study on Procedural Justice for Priests” by Fr. James Valladares – Page 200 – “Where is Justice for Falsely Accused Priests?”]
Bishop of Ely and familiar figure at Oxford and Cambridge who was an ardent admirer of the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer ~ The Times
Bishop Peter Walker
With the death of Peter Walker, the Church of England loses its last living link with Bishop George Bell of Chichester. He knew him well, and like him had a great interest in the arts and an appreciation of the theology of Bell’s friend Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor and martyr. Walker had vast contacts in Church and State, especially in Oxford and Cambridge, and was a regular figure at memorial services….
“Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss is critical both of Sussex Police and Chichester Diocese, for not taking complaints against Pritchard and Cotton seriously enough. There was ‘a lack of understanding of the seriousness of historic child abuse’ – Richard W. Symonds
“The victims were effectively denied the opportunity of being believed in a meaningful sense and denied the opportunity of ‘timely’ justice. PJ spent many years trying to get the Church [and Sussex Police] to accept his allegations and respond with timely action and recognition of his abuse” – Roger Meekings
“The problems relating to safeguarding in Chichester have been specific to that diocese rather than a reflection of failures in the legal processes or national policies of the Church of England. Nevertheless…” – Archbishop Rowan Williams
“The inquiry by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office concluded that the West Sussex diocese has ‘an appalling history’ of child protection failures, with ‘fresh and disturbing’ allegations continuing to emerge” – David Batty
2013 – Second complaint by ‘Carol’ to Bishop of Chichester Justin Welby, alleging Bishop Bell had sexually abused her in the 1940s and 1950s (reported to Police). First complaint in 1995
On the October 21, 2015, I had been rung by the then Secretary-General of the Archbishops’ Council and of the General Synod of the Church of England, Sir William Fittall. It was Fittall who told me, over the phone, that a ‘thorough investigation’ had implicated Bishop George Bell in an historic sex-abuse case, and that the Church had ‘paid compensation to the victim’. Fittall added that he was tipping me off, as he knew we had an altar in the Cathedral dedicated to Bell, and that Bell was a distinguished former member of Christ Church. [Fittall was also educated at Christ Church Oxford from 1972 to 1975 – Ed]
Sir William Fittall
Fittall asked what we would do, in the light of the forthcoming media announcements. I explained that Christ Church is an academic institution, and we tend to make decisions based on evidence, having first weighed and considered its quality. Fittall replied that the evidence was ‘compelling and convincing’, and that the investigation into George Bell has been ‘lengthy, professional and robust’. I asked for details, as I said I could not possibly make a judgement without sight of such evidence. I was told that such evidence could not be released. So, Christ Church kept faith with Bell, and the altar, named after him, remains in exactly the same spot it has occupied for over fifteen years, when it was first carved.
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
“In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective, and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties….” – Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Oct 22 2015 – “I would be grateful…if you could refrain from including George Bell in your guided tours and external presentations” – Dean of Chichester Cathedral, The Very Reverend Stephen Waine [to Cathedral Guides]
“The grandson was asked the reason why his school building, dedicated to Bishop George Bell, had been re-named. The answer came straight back, ‘Because he was a paedophile'” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Jan 14 2016 – “This text is intended to give clear guidance on tone and content…if you prefer to leave Bishop Bell out of your conversation or guided tour, this is perfectly acceptable” – Dean of Chichester Cathedral, The Very Reverend Stephen Waine – to Cathedral Guides
“What I find deeply disturbing is that a Bishop’s reputation is destroyed and no-one takes any responsibility for destroying it – least of all the Bishop’s own Church” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“The presence of strident voices in the public arena which have sought to undermine the survivor’s claims has added in this case to the suffering of the survivor and her family. To that extent it is not surprising that she felt it necessary to take the courageous decision to speak out in public and reveal the personal details which the Church could not” – Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Fifty-seven years after George Bell’s death, his own diocese, supported by the national Church authorities, announced that Bell had sexually abused a child between 1949 and 1953. They gave no details, and paid compensation. (The complainant later revealed herself to have been a five-year-old girl when the alleged abuse began.) The Church said it had decided against Bell ‘on the balance of probabilities’. No other such accusations — or even rumours — have ever been heard against Bell. His name was removed from buildings and institutions named after him.
A recent detailed review of the case showed that no effort had been made by the Church to consider the evidence for Bell: his voluminous papers and diaries had not been consulted, nor had living people who worked with him at that time (including one domestic chaplain, Adrian Carey, now aged 94, who spent virtually every waking moment with Bell for more than two of the years in which the abuse supposedly happened). His cause was given no legal advocate. Instead, in a process still kept secret, the ‘victim’ was believed. The normal burden of proof was reversed and so it was considered wicked to doubt her veracity.
As Chandler puts it, ‘We are asked to invest an entire authority in one testimony and to dismiss all the materials by which we have come to know the historical George Bell as mere figments of reputation.’ Of course, if Bell was guilty, his high reputation should not protect him. But we have not been given the chance to establish fairly whether he was. Jesus, of course, also suffered from unjust process. When the Church forgets this, it is not — as it claims — rejecting the dreadful child-abuse cover-ups of the past. It is dishonouring the example of its founder.
The present preoccupation with sex crime and victims of crime has given rise to a new type of victim: the falsely accused…I believe that victims of false accusations now deserve more consideration…Various victims of false accusations, of whom the most high profile and outspoken is the well-known BBC radio presenter Paul Gambaccini (& Sir Cliff Richard – Ed) have voiced dismay at the authorities’ willingness to entertain complaints that in the past would have been seen as outlandish, even vexatious…It star witness is an anonymous accuser, whose multiple personalities include ‘Nick’, ‘Carl Survivor’ and ‘Stephen’…It’s time for a much more rigorous and open discussion about why some people…make false accusations. But first I should clarify what is meant by ‘false’. The word is ambiguous, covering a spectrum of claims that are simply unfounded, to those that are mistakes, to those that are dishonest.
In their 2012 paper, Jessica Engle and William O’Donoghue proposed 11 pathways to false accusations of sexual assault. These are: 1. Lying 2. Implied consent 3. False memories 4. Intoxication 5. Antisocial personality disorder 6. Borderline personality disorder 7. Histrionic personality disorder 8. Delirium 9. Psychotic disorder 10. Disassociation 11. Intellectual disability.
Crucially, they omit ‘the honest but mistaken person’: Pathway 12. A classic example of this is the rape victim who misidentifies her assailant in an identity parade (or the elderly ‘Carol’ who mistakenly identified Bishop Bell when she was very young? – Ed)…
People can also develop false memories of abuse, for example as a result of contact with therapists, pressure from peers or from significant others (such as partners or parents), or even from reading stories in the media. There is no space here to discuss this important topic in detail.
It is a sad fact that those with mental disorders or learning disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to sexual assault. But it should also be recognised that third parties – such as care providers – may stand to benefit from a false allegation.
That mental problems could potentially lead to false allegations is rarely discussed. But it is a very serious issue, which would benefit from wider debate. Those with personality disorders may be motivated to make false accusations out of motives of revenge, ot attention-seeking. Some may misperceive non-sexual events as sexual. Those who are delusional may also make false accusations of sexual misconduct….”Testifiers do not inevitably speak the truth, as virtuous as they may perceive themselves to be” [Professor Janice Haaken]
Vigil outside Chichester Cathedral – Sunday April 3 2016 [from right to left: Tim Hudson, Charlotte Evans, Unknown, Richard Symonds, Peter Billingham, Marilyn Billingham, Meriel Wilmot-Wright, Unknown, Unknown]
We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the full story.
We are now publishing our analysis of the way in which the allegation against Bishop Bell has been handled by the authorities of the Church.
We note that the public has been consistently assured that the process by which the Church of England reached a view on Bishop Bell was ‘thorough’ and ‘objective’, and that it commissioned ‘experts’ whose ‘independent reports’ found ‘no reason to doubt the veracity of the claim[s]’ of sexual abuse made by the complainant.
However, although the nature of this process has never been publicly disclosed, we have discovered enough to establish its severe limitations which render it quite inadequate as a basis for assessing the probability of Bishop Bell’s guilt. The scope of the independent experts’ inquiries was limited to a degree that made a proper analysis of the complainant’s allegations virtually impossible. Our criticisms of the investigation are highlighted in paragraphs 15 to 17 of the enclosed Review. What is more, little or no respect seems to have been paid to the unheard interests of Bishop Bell or his surviving family – a serious breach of natural justice.
In view of the evidence that we have gathered and examined we have concluded that the allegation made against Bishop Bell cannot be upheld in terms of actual evidence or historical probability.
May 2016 – A survivor of child sex abuse made a formal complaint under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure procedure against Burrows and five other bishops (Steven Croft, Martyn Snow, Glyn Webster, Roy Williamson, John Sentamu) for failing to act on his allegations. The survivor said he first told Burrows in 2012 about his abuse by a serving priest. All five bishops dismissed the complaint owing to the one-year time limit imposed by the CDM process.[4][5] The priest against whom the allegation was made went on to commit suicide the day he was due in court in June 2017 [See Sept 30 2016 – Protest]
“A small team of investigative journalists at the Boston Globe (US) – known as ‘Spotlight’ – investigate allegations of sex abuse within the Catholic Church, and expose the scandal that the Archdiocese of Boston knew of the abuse, but did nothing – or not enough – to stop it. Disturbing parallels with the Church of England’s Diocese of Chichester” – RWS
Sept 30 2016 – Protest by Matt Ineson [and others] outside the Inauguration of Bishop Croft (formerly Bishop of Sheffield) as Bishop of Oxford. Leaflet distributed of 6 Bishops (incl. Croft) accused of misconduct – failing to report abuse – via a formal complaint under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure – CDM [See May 2016]. The abuser committed suicide in June 2017.
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
Dec 30 2016 – “2016 really was a year to talk about” – The Argus – Spotlight Argus – Reporter Joel Adams’ ‘favourite quote’ on Week 5’s Front Page (Feb 3): “He said it was our little secret, because God loved me” [The word “allegedly” is inserted in the write-up – which was missing in the Dec 27 write-up]
“After the Poetry Reading at the Quaker Meeting House, there was a retiring collection for the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture [MFVT] – raising £210” ~ Richard W. Symonds
‘Responding to, Assessing and Managing Safeguarding concerns or Allegations against Church Officers’ [published October 13 2017] – Disclosures or allegations of abuse – Section 2 – First Response (Page 25) – “a person receiving a safeguarding concern or allegation against a church officer should ‘respond well to the victim/survivor to ensure they feel heard and taken seriously.’
Bishop George Bell’s reputation lies in tatters following revelations in October 2015 that the Diocese of Chichester has issued a formal apology and paid an out-of-court settlement after an allegation that the bishop sexually abused a young child in the 1950s. The establishment has rushed to distance itself from Bell. His name has hastily been deleted from associated institutions, like the Bishop Bell School in Eastbourne, and there have even been suggestions that his memorial in Chichester Cathedral might be removed. The manner in which the Church of England has dealt with the allegation has itself caused a furor among Bell’s supporters, who accuse the authorities of throwing the deceased bishop overboard in a panic, instead of defending his innocence until proven…
Justin Welby has asked a former Archbishop of Canterbury to step down from his current role after a report found that he and other senior figures in the Church of England “colluded” with a disgraced paedophile bishop to prevent him facing criminal charges. George Carey, currently an honorary Assistant Bishop in the diocese of Oxford, has been urged to “carefully consider his position” by Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
“Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers)…With careful drafting it should be possible to express them in terms which effectively apologise for what has happened whilst at the same time avoiding any concession of legal liability for it” – Excerpts from House of Bishops confidential document – 2007
“Yes, the inquiry was about child care, but at its heart is the Jersey Way in its sinister, controlling manifestation: ‘protection of powerful interests and resistance to change, even when change is patently needed’”
~ Richard Digard [Jersey Evening Post – “Complacency over Inquiry’s report has been astonishing” – July 21 2017]
Oct 8 2017 – “Child abuse in the Church of England: Justin Welby must either accelerate the change or carry the can” – ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ Blog – Guest writer: Martin Sewell [Deleted on Request]
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
‘Responding to, Assessing and Managing Safeguarding concerns or Allegations against Church Officers’ [published October 13 2017] – Disclosures or allegations of abuse – Section 2 – First Response (Page 25) – “a person receiving a safeguarding concern or allegation against a church officer should ‘respond well to the victim/survivor to ensure they feel heard and taken seriously.’
Oct 15 2017 – “Bishops damn church insurers Ecclesiastical Insurance Group [EIG] over ‘horse-trading’ with child abuse survivors” – ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ Blog [Deleted on Request]
“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong” – Judge David Clarke (on the David Jones case)
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Oct 20 2017 – “Let the Chronology speak” ~ Richard W. Symonds – The Bell Society [adapted from Page 167 of “George Bell, Bishop of Chichester – Church, State, and Resistance in the Age of Dictatorship” by Andrew Chandler: “it is as well to let chronology speak for itself” and Dennis Potter: “Let The Past Speak”]
Oct 22 2017 – ‘”I need a friendly bishop”, said the child abuse survivor, as the prelate passed by on the other side’ – ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ Blog – Guest Writer: Martin Sewell [Deleted on Request]
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral’s Private Library]
The Portrait is, at present, in storage within the Cathedral Library
The Plaque below the Portrait reads:
“Bishop Bell has a worldwide reputation for his tireless work for international reconciliation, the arts, education, and church unity. The House that bears his name provides a place where work in these areas can continue and prosper. The generosity of an Anglican Order, the Community of the Servants of the Cross (CSC) has enabled the purchase of the House. Canon Peter Kefford (Treasurer of Chichester Cathedral 2003-2009) was the prime initiator in establishing George Bell House as a centre for Education, Vocation and Reconciliation”
“Bishop Bell, who served the diocese for 30 years until his death in 1958, is regarded by some as one of the great peacemakers of the 20th Century and had been granted the closest thing Anglicanism has to a saint’s day, an annual commemoration” – John Bingham – Telegraph Religious Affairs Editor
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Nov 1 2017 – “What matters is the Conclusion to Lord Carlile’s Review – and that is already known. The rest are just ‘footnotes'” ~ Richard W. Symonds [The Bell Society]
“Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers)…With careful drafting it should be possible to express them in terms which effectively apologise for what has happened whilst at the same time avoiding any concession of legal liability for it” – Excerpts from House of Bishops confidential document – 2007
When raised with two trustees of ATL last year after the Elliott Review, an irritated retort from one senior cleric was “We don’t own our own insurer”. This senior cleric sits on the board of Trustees that owns the insurer, and also on the Archbishops’ Independent Safeguarding Panel. If that’s not a conflict of interest – I don’t know what is. It’s not surprising that many survivors feel the CofE National Safeguarding is in place to safeguard institution and hierarchy! – ‘Sea of Complicity’
“Yes, the inquiry was about child care, but at its heart is the Jersey Way in its sinister, controlling manifestation: ‘protection [‘safeguarding’ – Ed] of powerful interests and resistance to change, even when change is patently needed’”
~ Richard Digard [Jersey Evening Post – “Complacency over Inquiry’s report has been astonishing” – July 21 2017]
Nov 6 2017 – ‘Archbishop Cranmer’. Deleted on request.
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
‘Responding to, Assessing and Managing Safeguarding concerns or Allegations against Church Officers’ [published October 13 2017] – Disclosures or allegations of abuse – Section 2 – First Response (Page 25) – “a person receiving a safeguarding concern or allegation against a church officer should ‘respond well to the victim/survivor to ensure they feel heard and taken seriously.’
Nov 9 2017 – “Victim Must Be Believed” versus “Victim Must Be Taken Seriously” [See Nov 6 2017]
”Must Be Believed” vs. “Must Be Taken Seriously”
The key passages seem to be this – an Oct 13 2017 re-draft of the House of Bishops Policy & Practice Guidance: [a re-draft which appears to have been made less than a week after the Church received the Carlile Review – Oct 7 2017 – a Review which has yet to be released ‘in the public domain’ (although its “flawed and unfair” conclusion has been ‘leaked’)
Page 30 – 2.2 Responding to an adult a safeguarding concern or allegation
In a Preface, +Peter Hancock says “This guidance substantially updates and replaces the ‘Responsibilities of Church Organisations’ section in ‘Protecting all God’s Children 2010’. It is in line with ‘Promoting a Safer Church’ : The Church of England policy statement for the children, young people and adults.
I was hoping to find the phrase “must be believed” in these old policy statements but, alas, no – unless I’ve missed it. These old policy statements are very generalised, so make for wide and open interpretation. I think this is what has happened, and the phrase “must be believed” has crept into the unwritten language of Safeguarding.
It would appear the phrase “To ensure they feel…taken seriously” is the new post-Carlile guideline, introduced on Oct 13 2017 – thus erasing the unwritten pre-Carlile “must be believed” idea which somehow crept into proceedings.
“Many people claim to have been abused. but you cannot know for sure if these claims are true. I’m not suggesting that people in making these claims are lying or being malicious. Their stories may be true, but equally they may be mentally ill and delusional. You simply cannot know without proof. The point is that people – who may be innocent – are defamed and have their lives destroyed by these claims” ~ Anonymous
“The treatment by the Church of England of the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, and that of the late former Bishop George Bell, needs further scrutiny and reflection…” ~ James Macintyre
The Bishop of Bath & Wells [Safeguarding Bishop Peter Hancock]: At the meeting on Thursday of the National Safeguarding Steering Group, we will already be giving consideration as to how and when we might consider the report when it is made available to us in order that there may not be any delay once the report is published.
Nov 17 2017 – Richard W. Symonds. The Bell Society
Is the Church of England, as an institution, capable of a public ‘we were wrong & we are sorry’ apology, genuine repentance and humility- especially in the case of Bishop Bell and George Bell House ?
Martin Sewell has noted the “extraordinary lack of curiosity as to whether there was a case for the defence”.
There was also an extraordinary lack of concern and care for basic justice regarding both Bishop Bell and ‘Carol’.
Carl Jacobs has said: “The Church of England deliberately threw George Bell under the bus because he was dead. It sacrificed his reputation to protect the institutional reputation of the CoE. It wanted the story buried, and George Bell’s grave was a convenient place to bury it….the CoE knew an investigation would produce no conclusive result. An unresolvable accusation that remained in the public domain was the worst possible outcome – especially given the current climate where an accusation against a church is sufficient to establish guilt. Pursuing an investigation would guarantee the problem would never go away. So to make the problem go away, they decided to presume George Bell was guilty. You can’t libel the dead. Only his family would be affected, and they wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. That beyond any reasonable doubt is what I think happened”
“The report concerns one issue, one case and its message that the secret trial of George Bell was wholly unfair is quite clear. There is no real reason for any further delay. There has been quite enough delay in the Church acknowledging that it made a grave and severe mistake by treating allegations against George Bell as proven facts back in October 2015. They then sought to claim, falsely, that critics of their action were attacking the complainant. It really is time they grew up and owned up. If the Church had spent as much time thinking about whether to publish the smears against George Bell as it is about publishing the Carlile report, we could have been saved a lot of trouble” ~ Peter Hitchens
“For what I care, those responsible for this nasty episode can remain anonymous with their shame, and be left to seek forgiveness in private, through contrition. All I want to see is an admission that the procedure was (as it was) quite unjust, and immediate steps taken to re-establish the good name of George Bell, including the restoration of his name where it has been expunged from buildings, schools and guidebooks. And the recognition by several media organisations that they treated an allegation as a proven charge and were wrong to do so. It took quite long enough to persuade a reluctant church even to admit there was anything to worry about. But if they are so keen on delay and caution, why did they not pause for a little longer before publicising the original claims, as they so energetically did?” ~ Peter Hitchens
“It is now eight weeks since the eminent QC Lord Carlile delivered to Archbishop Justin Welby the report of his investigations into the unproven allegations against the late Bishop George Bell. Eight weeks – and the report is still unpublished. This delay is intolerable and there is now a large body of people nationwide calling for its immediate publication – one hopes, without redactions” ~ Meriel Wilmot-Wright
“Just over two years ago, the Church of England authorities hurriedly condemned George Bell because of claims that he had abused a child nearly 70 years ago. They paid money to the alleged victim. Bell, Bishop of Chichester and the leading British supporter of Christian resistance to Hitler, died in 1958. Many protested at the process by which Bell had been condemned. No contemporary documents seemed to have been studied and no surviving witnesses, such as his domestic chaplain, had been asked for their testimony. The mere accusation carried all before it. So great was the anger that the Archbishop of Canterbury courageously decided to review the decision to which he had been party and called in Lord Carlile QC to review the process which damned Bell. Lord Carlile reported in early October, and the steer was that the church would release his report roughly now. On Monday, however, a C of E press release said that the authorities ‘are at the stage of responding with feedback from those who contributed’. ‘This is the process with all independent reviews, there is a period of a few months between receiving the first draft and final publication,’ it explained. A few months! Obviously those criticised should be allowed to comment privately on what the report says, but there was only one accuser and only one supposed perpetrator. This is not the Chilcot report. Two thoughts occur. The first is that the delay strongly suggests that Lord Carlile has found the process to have been severely wanting. The second is that the ‘safeguarding’ team at the heart of the process are being much better safeguarded than ever poor Bell was” – Charles Moore
“What good is a church without justice? As Mrs Merton might have asked: ‘So, Archbishop Welby, why have you now sat for 50 whole days on a report which says the Church of England did a wrong and unjust thing?’ I am repeatedly disgusted by the way in which our country has forgotten the basic rules of English justice. And I have written before here about the case of George Bell, the saintly and brave Bishop of Chichester who repeatedly risked unpopularity rather than remain silent about wrongdoing. If only there were more like him. He died in 1958, much mourned. Yet two years ago, on the basis of a single uncorroborated accusation made many decades after the alleged crime, the Church of England publicly denounced him as a child abuser. Somehow, the allegation became a conviction and was blazed abroad on the BBC and in several newspapers which should have known better. Despite huge publicity nationally and locally, no other accusation has been made in the years since. I had long revered Bell’s memory, and, with several allies, sought to get justice for him. We found that he had been convicted by a slapdash and inconsiderate kangaroo court. They made no serious effort to consult Bell’s huge archive (or his biographer, who knew his way around it) to check the claims against it. They never found or warned Bell’s living niece, Barbara Whitley, who was astonished and appalled to see her uncle suddenly smeared in public, and is still livid. They never looked for or consulted Adrian Carey, Bell’s personal chaplain, who lived in the Bishop’s Palace at the time of the supposed crimes. We did. Until the day he died, Canon Carey rejected the charges as baseless and impossible. The Church’s main response was to accuse us, quite falsely, of attacking the complainant, which we never did. Then, very grudgingly, it announced a review. Then, with glacial slowness, it appointed a QC, Lord Carlile, to undertake it. Lord Carlile delivered his report on October 7. You can imagine what it says. The C of E is still making excuses for not publishing it. How quick they were to condemn another. How slow they are to admit their own fault. Publish it now” ~ Peter Hitchens
George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – Chichester Cathedral – before the name change [Picture: Alamy]
It’s naive to imagine that good people can’t do bad things, of course, but there has to be evidence. In cases like this, it seems impossible to even obtain evidence, let alone determine guilt or innocence. And yes, it’s a very dangerous situation if we get to the stage where people are assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent.
Posted by: Persephone | 30 November 2017 at 12:02 PM
I have signed the petition. The C of E’s horrible statement irritated me because it referred to ‘Carol’ as ‘the survivor’, and did so over ten times. This is deeply wrong, and isn’t much different from a barrister referring to a defendant as ‘the murderer’. If such a thing happened, the judge would have something to say about that kind of language. The problem with it is obvious. I suggest that everyone now refers to Bell’s reputation ‘as if’ it has been restored. The damage to his reputation should be written and spoken about in the past tense. Can’t we should just assume this, as if it’s a given, as in ‘Now that Bell’s reputation is restored we can relax until the next attack on the presumption of innocence comes along…’ or something like that…. Posted by: John Aspinall | 30 November 2017 at 08:53 AM
It’s very important that when an organisation decides that someone is guilty without a fair hearing they are held to account for that decision. Posted by: Jacob Chase | 29 November 2017 at 05:43 PM
14. Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) asked the Chair of the House of Bishops: The Terms of Reference of the Carlile Review provide that: “The Church of England will determine whether the full report can be sufficiently redacted or otherwise anonymised to enable its publication without risking disclosure of the complainant’s identity.” So that there may be complete confidence in our transparency, how will it be ensured that those whose original judgements may be criticised are suitably distanced from the redaction of the report, and will Lord Carlile be free (should he so choose) to indicate whether he agrees or disagrees with the redacted format when published?
The Bishop of Bath & Wells (Rt Revd Peter Hancock) replied on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: The redaction of the Carlile Review will be undertaken solely by reference to the normal principles, including where appropriate the need to honour assurances of confidentiality and to comply with the Data Protection Act.The redaction will be overseen by the Secretary General to the Archbishops’ Council [William Nye – Ed] who was not involved in the decisions being evaluated by the Carlile Review. It will of course be 62 entirely up to Lord Carlile to state whether he agrees or disagrees with the format upon publication.
Mr Martin Sewell: The Carlile Review arose partly because the Church allegedly used victim confidentiality to shield its own self from criticism. The answer that you have given refers to confidentiality assurances having been given in the plural. Is that intended to imply that the complainant to the Bishop Bell case will not be alone in the witness protection programme?
The Bishop of Bath & Wells: By now General Synod is aware that Martin Sewell knows a lot more about the Lord Carlile Review process than I do. It is right that I do not know that level of detail. Where there is an independent review, it is very important that I stand – and others stand – back from it. I am here to help the archbishops and the House of Bishops respond to those reviews. So the answer, Martin, is that I do not know the answer to that very detailed question, but I will get a written reply for you.
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich): In the light of the answer referring to the redaction of the report being overseen by the Secretary General to the Archbishops’ Council [William Nye – Ed], are you able to give Synod a timetable as to when that is going to happen and when the report is to be published, particularly bearing in mind your answer to the last question that it is to be considered at the next full meeting of the House of Bishops?
The Bishop of Bath & Wells: You are talking about the Lord Carlile Review? Mr David Lamming: Yes.
The Bishop of Bath & Wells: My understanding is that the work of the review itself will be completed by the end of this month. It will then be down to Lord Carlile when he publishes the report. At the meeting on Thursday of the National Safeguarding Steering Group, we will already be giving consideration as to how and when we might consider the report when it is made available to us in order that there may not be any delay once the report is published.
Dec 2 2017 [Postponed until Church releases Carlile Review] – “Bishop Bell and Re-Building Bridges” – Venue: Dresden and Bonhoeffer Rooms – 4 Canon Lane – George Bell House – Chichester – Keynote Speaker: Martin Sewell [General Synod Member and Child Protection Lawyer – Retd]
The Portrait is, at present, in storage within the Cathedral Library
The Plaque below the Portrait reads:
“Bishop Bell has a worldwide reputation for his tireless work for international reconciliation, the arts, education, and church unity. The House that bears his name provides a place where work in these areas can continue and prosper. The generosity of an Anglican Order, the Community of the Servants of the Cross (CSC) has enabled the purchase of the House. Canon Peter Kefford (Treasurer of Chichester Cathedral 2003-2009) was the prime initiator in establishing George Bell House as a centre for Education, Vocation and Reconciliation”
Signed it just now and glad to be able to do so and would like to say thank you for your own hard work in making this case known to more and more people who should be very concerned by what has been done here. ***PH writes: Thank you. It is quite hard to get most people interested, as George bell doesn’t have the profile other wronged figures such as Lord Bramall have. Yet the principle is the same. I was rather moved last night at the annual Anglo-German Advent Carol service in the Church of St Mary the Virgin (where Anglicans and Lutherans join in singing Advent hymns from both countries, and the Bible is read in English and German, a result of the arrival, 80 years ago, of a group of German Lutheran refugees in Oxford). There were German Christians there who revere George Bell because of his links with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and who were appalled by what had happened, but as yet did not know that there was a group acting in George Bell’s defence. Now they do.***
Thank you and I’m very heartened to hear that. Whilst I feel heart broken over the Bell case for him and his surviving relative, it is as you say, the heart of the issue which is the same wherever it happens to strike. It’s very telling of the times in which we live, to see the media behave in the way it has done in this case, along with the church. The sheer arrogance of the papers that printed these headlines without even a nod to fact and when caught out, not properly apologise,is not only disgusting but highly alarming and dangerous, given the sway they now hold over people. And the church is somehow..smaller, for its part in this unworthy case.
It’s naive to imagine that good people can’t do bad things, of course, but there has to be evidence. In cases like this, it seems impossible to even obtain evidence, let alone determine guilt or innocence. And yes, it’s a very dangerous situation if we get to the stage where people are assumed to be guilty unless proven innocent.
Posted by: Persephone | 30 November 2017 at 12:02 PM
I have signed the petition. The C of E’s horrible statement irritated me because it referred to ‘Carol’ as ‘the survivor’, and did so over ten times. This is deeply wrong, and isn’t much different from a barrister referring to a defendant as ‘the murderer’. If such a thing happened, the judge would have something to say about that kind of language. The problem with it is obvious. I suggest that everyone now refers to Bell’s reputation ‘as if’ it has been restored. The damage to his reputation should be written and spoken about in the past tense. Can’t we should just assume this, as if it’s a given, as in ‘Now that Bell’s reputation is restored we can relax until the next attack on the presumption of innocence comes along…’ or something like that….
Posted by: John Aspinall | 30 November 2017 at 08:53 AM
“Yes, the inquiry was about child care, but at its heart is the Jersey Way in its sinister, controlling manifestation: ‘protection [‘safeguarding’ – Ed] of powerful interests and resistance to change, even when change is patently needed’”
~ Richard Digard [Jersey Evening Post – “Complacency over Inquiry’s report has been astonishing” – July 21 2017]
“The Church of England is expected to publish tomorrow a long-awaited report into the handling of a sex abuse case involving a former Bishop of Chichester. The Church accepts the late Bishop George Bell abused a girl during the 1940’s and 50’s and has paid her compensation, but he never faced criminal charges. Today, a 1000 signature petition was delivered to Lambeth Palace, calling on the Church to publish its review, of the way the case was handled, as soon as possible”
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
“For Bishop Bell’s reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way that occurred was just wrong” ~ Lord Carlile
“I am appalled by the Church’s behaviour, particularly by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement ‘there is still a cloud over George Bell’s name’. They should admit entirely what they did was wrong. They dragged his reputation through the dirt, and they should now ‘make of penitential efforts’ – to use a term they will be familiar with – to put right what they have done” ~ Peter Hitchens
Dr Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson, the daughter of Bishop Bell’s friend Franz Hildebrandt, said Bishop Bell’s family deserved a personal apology from the Archbishop and the Bishop of Chichester.
“The Church can’t have its cake and eat it. Either he is innocent, in which case they must apologise, or he is guilty, which they can’t prove, and the report makes clear that they have not proved,” she told this newspaper.
Professor Andrew Chandler, Bell’s biographer, said the Archbishop’s statement was “wrong” and “illogical”.
“It fails a basic test of rational justice,”he said. “It lacks an understanding of all kinds of dimensions which require compassion, not least in Chichester, where people feel deeply upset by this.”
“Hung out to dry,” those are the words of Lord Carlile in his judgment on how the Church of England authorities treated Bishop George Bell
The Church operated a kangaroo court. Here are the facts…
Bishop George Bell (1883-1958), Bishop of Chichester, has been judged and condemned without any case brought for his defence. An elderly woman came forward in 1995 and claimed that Bishop Bell had sexually abused her fifty years earlier. The authorities took no action. The woman complained again in 2013, by which time Bishop Bell had been dead for fifty-five years. The police concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify their questioning Bishop Bell, had he been still alive. Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester, discussed the matter with Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and in 2015 the Church of England offered a formal apology to Bishop Bell’s accuser, paid her an undisclosed sum in compensation – now revealed to have been £31,000 – and allowed her to remain anonymous. Memorials to Bishop Bell were removed and institutions – such as the Bishop Bell School, Eastbourne – changed their names.
Unsurprisingly, there was outrage. On 13th November 2015, Judge Alan Pardoe QC described the way the allegations against Bishop Bell had been handled as “slipshod and muddled.” Judge Pardoe’s criticisms were followed by further censure from a group of historians and theologians led by Jeremy Morris, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
The Bishop of Chichester replied with insouciance and a volley of jargon to these criticisms: “The Church is seeking to move on from a culture in which manipulation of power meant that victims were too afraid to make allegations, or allegations were easily dismissed. We must provide safeguards of truth and justice for all, victim and accused alike.”
But there were no “safeguards of truth and justice” for Bishop Bell who was condemned without a hearing.
The outrage did not subside and a committee of senior church people, distinguished lawyers and members of both the Lords and the Commons calling itself The George Bell Group was formed. On 20thMarch 2016, this group published a review in which they challenged the Church’s evidence against Bishop Bell and attacked it for failing to find or interview a key witness or examine Bell’s own extensive personal archive.
On 30th June 2016, the case formed a large part of a debate in the House of Lords on historical child sex abuse.
On 28th June 2016, the Church of England announced that it would hold an independent review of the procedure used. On 22nd November 2016 it announced that Lord Carlile QC would chair this review
Meanwhile, the George Bell Group declared that they had discovered in the Church’s initial case against Bishop Bell “…enough to establish its severe limitations which render it quite inadequate as a basis for assessing the probability of Bishop Bell’s guilt. The scope of the independent experts’ inquiries was limited to a degree that made a proper analysis of the complainant’s allegations virtually impossible. What is more, little or no respect seems to have been paid to the unheard interests of Bishop Bell or his surviving family – a serious breach of natural justice.”
“In view of the evidence that we have gathered and examined, we have concluded that the allegation made against Bishop Bell cannot be upheld in terms of actual evidence or historical probability.”
Lord Carlile’s report was handed to the Church authorities two months ago and they kicked it into the long grass until last Friday.
So much for Bishop Martin Warner’s vaunted “…safeguards of truth and justice for all, victim and accused alike.” All along, the only interests being safeguarded here were those of the Church’s highest authorities in Chichester and Canterbury. We know very well why these authorities leapt so precipitately to condemn Bishop Bell out of hand: it was because they had previously had to admit to the existence of so many perpetrators of sexual abuse among the senior clergy they wanted desperately to appear to be doing something.
Thus the reputation of Bishop George Bell was tarnished because the Church’s highest authorities are seeking to cover their own backs.
Let us be in no doubt as to the seriousness of the Church’s conduct so eloquently set out in Lord Carlile’s report. To that phrase “hung out to dry,” he adds that the Church’s procedures were “deficient, inappropriate and impermissible”; “obvious lines of enquiry were not followed” and there was “a rush to judgement.”
In the light of this scandalously incompetent behaviour, the least that might be expected from the Archbishop of Canterbury is a profuse apology to Bishop Bell’s descendants, family, friends and numerous supporters for the distress his decisions have caused them. Is such an apology forthcoming? It is not. Instead Justin Welby persists in his mood of arrogant vindictiveness, saying, “……..A significant cloud is left over George Bell’s name. No human being is entirely good or bad. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. Good acts do not diminish evil ones…”
This is outrageous. True, Bishop Bell was “accused of great wickedness” – but he was not found guilty of any wrongdoing. And there is no “significant cloud” over his name. There is, however, certainly a very dark cloud over Welby’s name after his lamentable performance in this matter.
Well, there is still time: a whole week in which Justin Welby has opportunity to make his Confession before he celebrates Christmas Holy Communion.
“I see the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has been complaining about ‘fake news’. As well he might, since ‘fake news’ is a good description of the statement which Archbishop Welby’s church put out to the media, insinuating incorrectly that the late George Bell was a child molester. Lord Carlile has now produced a devastating report which shows that statement was full of false claims. It said Bishop Bell would have been arrested if he’d still been alive, when he wouldn’t have been. It said there had been a thorough investigation, when there hadn’t been. It said experts had found no reason to doubt the charges, when one expert most definitely had found such a reason and clearly said so. Yet despite this total demolition of a case that any court would have thrown out, Archbishop Welby continues to claim (more fake news?) that there is a ‘cloud’ over George Bell’s name, like some dim wiseacre in a pub, utterly defeated in an argument by facts and logic, intoning doggedly that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’. The only cloud over Bishop Bell’s name hangs there because Justin Welby’s pride prevents him from admitting he got it wrong. He knows what he needs to do”– Peter Hitchens
“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong” – Judge David Clarke (on the David Jones case)
From Mr David Lamming – Lay Member of General Synod
Sir, — Lord Carlile’s report of his review of the handling by the Church of England of the claim by “Carol” that she was sexually abused by the late Bishop George Bell (News, 15 December) is devastating in its criticisms of the Core Group that agreed the settlement with the claimant (involving the payment of £16,800 damages plus £15,000 costs). Utterly demolishing the claim (made in the statement announcing the settlement on 22 October 2015) that “the settlement followed a thorough pre-litigation process,” he shows that it was anything but “thorough”. Moreover, the statement disingenuously claimed that this included the commissioning of expert independent reports “none of [which] found any reason to doubt the veracity of the claim”.
Although, as he is careful to point out, Lord Carlile’s terms of reference did not include making a finding as to the truth or otherwise of Carol’s claim, the extracts that he publishes from the report of Professor Maden (commissioned by the Core Group), far from showing no reason to doubt Carol’s claim, give every reason to doubt it.
The obvious conclusion (or it should have been obvious to the bishops who commented publicly on the Carlile report) ought to be that if the investigative process was so fundamentally flawed, any finding, explicit or implicit, that Bell committed the alleged abuse cannot stand, with the consequence that the important presumption of innocence (for some reason, pejoratively described as “emotive” by the Bishop of Chichester in his public statement) applies, in the same way as it would apply to a defendant whose criminal conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on the basis of a finding that he had not had a fair trial.
According to the General Synod timetable issued on 14 December (the day before publication of the Carlile report), “Safeguarding” is to be the subject of a “Presentation under SO 107 — with Q&A” on the morning of Saturday 10 February. In the light of Lord Carlile’s report, that is not good enough. Time must be found for a proper debate when the issues arising from the report, and its implications for the Church and the National Safeguarding Team, can be properly discussed.
From the Revd Alan F. Jesson
Sir, — Shakespeare had Mark Antony say of Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interrèd with their bones.” Comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Bishop of Chichester ensure that this is also shamefully applied to Bishop Bell.
It also raises another important point, which seems to have been overlooked.
I have read Lord Carlile’s report, and the Annexes thereto, and, in the light of the botched inquiries of the Core Group (I cannot call them incomplete), it seems that, if Bishop Bell is innocent, as circumstances suggest, and if “Carol” is truthful, as the Core Group assume them to be, then clearly there must be somebody who has escaped any consequence of his actions.
The comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Bishop of Chichester render it imperative that a full independent investigation is urgently but thoroughly undertaken.
That tired cliché “Lessons learned” is too often an excuse for little further action. In justice to Bishop Bell, this must not happen.
1. Archbishop Justin Welby to apologise for his “significant cloud” comment concerning Bishop Bell. Any effective ‘rebuilding of bridges’ is almost impossible without this Apology.
2. Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner to invite Barbara Whitley, Bishop Bell’s niece, for a “face-to-face” meeting [she has already requested such a meeting]. The Bishop of Chichester has already met ‘Carol’.
3. Chichester Cathedral’s Dean and Chapter to restore 4 Canon Lane back to George Bell House – and to invite Lord Rowan Williams to re-dedicate the new plaque at George Bell House.
4. Chichester Cathedral’s Chancellor and Canon Librarian, Revd Dr Anthony Cane, to permit the display of Bishop Bell’s Portrait (in storage within the Cathedral Library) at Church House on Feb 1.
5. Chichester Cathedral’s Dean, The Very Reverend Stephen Waine, to correct Page 37 of the Cathedral Guide “Society and Faith”:
6. General Synod to undertake a Full Debate at the earliest opportunity, regarding the serious implications arising from Lord Carlile’s report.
“Both Archbishop Welby and Bishop Hancock just don’t seem to get it, do they? There seems to be a moral blindspot in their ecclesiastical eyes. Is it a simple case of Matthew 7 v 5 about removing that mighty plank out of one’s own eye before taking that speck out of someone else’s? Can’t believe it’s just a simple case of a wilful ‘hardness of heart’. I’m all too aware about the dangers of pointing a finger when three are pointing back at me, but I’m really left scratching my head. Elton John was right: ‘Sorry seems to be the hardest word'” – Richard W. Symonds
“It was a real pleasure meeting you as I was making my way to Gatwick. I have registered on your forum although unsure of what I can do to help, but after listening to you and the carriage of injustice which befalls a man, George Bell who cannot defend himself and voice his innocence is a worthy and just cause…Very little the Archbishop of Canterbury can do now with the enormity of what has been released aside from perhaps do the right thing which is resign!“ – David to Richard
I have been angered this week to see the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, to the George Bell case. Mr. Welby has long made it known that he does not wish to uphold the presumption of innocence and this mealy-mouthed statement to a group of leading historians and theologians only confirms this.
He seeks to right the wrongs of the past by digging in his heels against the finding of a report that he commissioned. Rather than do that which Our Lord commands of us, to repent of our sins, he has plunged his fingers into his ears and proceeded to shout over these seekers of justice.
I’ve written before about the anarchic state of justice in Britain and how this is failing to serve our society. But it should be a given that the leaders of the Established Church will do all in their power to uphold that which is right. Instead, his pride and arrogance have gotten in the way and Mr. Welby is unfit to sit on that ancient and hallowed throne.
The excellent Peter Hitchens has proved to be a great advocate for the George Bell Group, as has the wonderful Archbishop Cranmer. You should read their accounts of this disgraceful event. I urge you to do what you can to support this vital campaign, for one day it could be your memory that is trashed to provide an easy get-out for a cowardly, lifeless bureaucracy.
Mr. Welby can save what is left of his reputation if he does the right thing now and then resign, because in the end “people care more about the late, great George Bell than they probably ever will about Justin Welby.”
Why is that? Because Bell did good and was good. I’m sure that Welby is a decent and kind man, but he seems to be proud and unwilling to do what all of us must. His grey administration of the dying Church of England is leaving it mired in scandal. It should not end this way, but it might.
Bishop George Bell (1883 – 1958) is famed for being one of the first to speak out against the dangers Hitler posed in the 1930s and for saving many lives during these years by guaranteeing refugees from Germany. He was one of the few to condemn our government’s obliteration bombing of German cities during the Second World War. He has been, and is, a revered and respected figure.
In 1995 (37 years after he had died) a complaint was made that Bell had abused a child in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The complaint was not passed to the police at the time but was passed to them when the complaint was repeated in 2013. The Church paid compensation to the complainant in 2015 and in 2016 the Church of England commissioned Lord Carlile to review their procedures concerning the investigation into the case. The resulting review was scathing in its criticism of the Church’s handling of the allegations against Bell. Lord Carlile concludes “The Core Group was set up in an unmethodical and unplanned way, with neither terms of reference nor any clear direction as to how it would operate. As a result, it became a confused and unstructured process, as several members confirmed” and “There was no organised or valuable inquiry or investigation into the merits of the allegations, and the standpoint of Bishop Bell was never given parity or proportionality.”
In spite of Carlile’s criticisms the Church remains undeterred in holding Bell responsible. Bell’s name stays removed from buildings, colleges and institutions and his reputation traduced. The problems inherent in a system, like the Church, concerning safeguarding and issues of justice affect all who work or are involved in a church. The case concerning Bishop George Bell has highlighted the flaws and gives no assurance that justice will be done for the accused as well as for the complainant.
As the George Bell Group writes, “Lord Carlile’s report has now left the Church with many searching questions, including how best to remedy the many defects in the current Practice Guidance so as to ensure that such an injustice can never recur.” Unfortunately this injustice is already happening to innocent people in the Church.
The Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes is an outspoken defender of Bishop Bell, who was posthumously accused of child abuse but exonerated by the Lord Carlile Review, which found that the Church of England’s processes were deficient and failed to give proper consideration to the rights of the accused.
However, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, went on to claim that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’ and refused to apologise even after seven distinguished British historians wrote an open letter affirming there was no evidence that Bishop Bell had ever committed such an act.
One of Dr Gomes’ qualifications for defending George Bell is his own experience of the corruption of the Church of England’s operation of trial by tribunal.
In 2015, a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) was brought against Dr Gomes, a hugely successful preacher and pastor on the Isle of Man, after he filed a Petition of Doleance in Tynwald, the island’s national parliament. The petition called for greater protection from bullying and harassment for clergy, who are not regarded as ‘employees’ by law in the British Isles.
The Archdeacon of Man, Andie Brown, accused Dr Gomes of misconduct by bringing up a wide range of allegations against him. One of these accusations was made by Bishop Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark, who claimed that Dr Gomes was ‘excessively opposed to Freemasonry’ during his tenure as Chaplain to the Old Royal Naval College…
“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong” – Judge David Clarke (on the David Jones case)
“We have to…be genuinely transparent and honest, and we have to be repentant”
– Archbishop Justin Welby
“I’m afraid this makes me reach for my ecclesiastical sick bowl – especially after reading Matthew 7 v 5 this morning…all about taking the log out of one’s own eye before taking the speck out of someone else’s. I am acutely aware when I point a finger there are three pointing back at me – but this is beyond hypocrisy”
Chair Alexis Jay (leaning forward) – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – IICSA
Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Page 154 – Paras 1-25 – Roger Meekings: There are one or two things I would like to say, chair. I think there have been a number of crises and difficulties that the Church of England have experienced, and I think it probably is time for some fairly radical action to be taken by the church, and I know they are thinking carefully about that, but I think my problem is the amount of time it does seem to be taking. I would like to ask a question, really, about whether they should be stripped of their exemption under the Equality Act to help stamp out a culture of abuse and homophobia and sexism, because under the 2010 Act, the church, as a religious institution, has special permission to insist that those it appoints are Christians, but it can also discriminate over sex, sexuality, marital history and gender identity if they conflict with strongly held religious convictions. Secondly, I would probably support the development now of an independent safeguarding body. Operationally, I’m surprised that the church has not already set up a national database to record cases of concern and to upload case notes and allow a proper audit trail. I think I said in my witness statement I think that the Clergy Discipline Measure does require a complete overhaul to be able to hold people to account.
March 9 2018 – From The Archives – May 23 2016 – “Spotlight” DVD Film release in the UK [Boston Globe investigation of Child Sexual Abuse in Roman Catholic Church]
“A small team of investigative journalists at the Boston Globe (US) – known as ‘Spotlight’ – investigate allegations of sex abuse within the Catholic Church, and expose the scandal that the Archdiocese of Boston knew of the abuse, but did nothing – or not enough – to stop it. Disturbing parallels with the Church of England’s Diocese of Chichester” – Richard W. Symonds
March 10 2018 – Psychotherapist Anthony Stadlen on Bishop Bell and ‘Carol’: “It is not at all easy to find the right words to respect both the presumption of the Bishop’s innocence until proven guilty, and the presumption of Carol’s integrity of character and memory until proven otherwise”
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) to move:
That this Synod,
(a) express its appreciation to Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC for his thorough review of the way the Church of England dealt with a complaint of sexual abuse made by a woman known as ‘Carol’ against the late Bishop George Bell;
(b) acknowledge and accept unreservedly the serious criticisms of the investigation carried out by the Core Group charged with investigating the complaint, as set out by Lord Carlile in his conclusions at paragraph 254 of his report, dated 15 December 2017 [GS Misc 1173];
(c) note that the effect of those conclusions can only be that the process was so fundamentally flawed that any finding, explicit or implicit, that Bishop Bell committed the alleged acts of sexual abuse, cannot stand or be sustained, regardless of the fact that determining the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell was excluded from Lord Carlile’s terms of reference;
(d) accordingly, acknowledge that Bishop Bell’s reputation as one of the great bishops of the Church of England is restored untarnished;
(e) regret the distress caused both to Bishop Bell’s surviving relative and to ‘Carol’ by the Core Group’s inadequate investigation;
(f) regret that the statement made by the Church of England on 22 October 2015, announcing the settlement of a civil claim by Carol against the current Bishop of Chichester was, as is now revealed to be the case by Lord Carlile, both inaccurate (in stating that the settlement followed a “thorough” pre-litigation process) and disingenuous (in stating that none of the expert independent reports commissioned “found any reason to doubt the veracity of [Carol’s] claim”);
(g) regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his public statement on 15 December 2017 following the publication of the Carlile report,
(i) failed to acknowledge expressly that the process was so fundamentally flawed;
(ii) failed to accept Lord Carlile’s recommendation that where, as in the case of Bishop Bell, a settlement is made without admission of liability, it should generally be with a confidentiality provision, and
(iii) stated that “a significant cloud” was left over Bishop Bell’s name, when the only basis for such statement was a single uncorroborated allegation, first made over 40 years after the alleged events, when Professor Anthony Maden (the expert instructed by the Core Group) had said that “memory is not reliable over such long periods of time” and that “after so many years there is no way of determining without reference to corroborating information whether or not recall is accurate”;
(h) accordingly, call upon the Archbishop to retract that particular statement; and
(i) call upon those institutions that responded to the Church’s statement of 22 October 2015 by writing Bishop Bell out of their history, to reinstate Bell’s name and restore him to their historical narrative.
“…the damning extent of dysfunctionality and chaos in the diocese of Chichester was laid bare at the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse today” – Harry Farley
“The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong…” ~ The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 14 March 2018 – Page 21 Paras 14-18
Fiona Scolding QC and Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Q. Can I turn now to the allegations made against 3 George Bell. An independent review was published 4 in December by Lord Carlile of Berriew. Paul, would you 5 mind getting that up? It is not in your bundle, chair 6 and panel, so we will get it up on screen. ANG000152, 7 Paul. Then we need page 64, which should be section K. 8 This is some conclusions that I am going to ask you 9 to comment upon that Lord Carlile made in respect of 10 the core group. 11 Maybe if I explain, what happened in respect of 12 the George Bell case is that something called a core 13 group was set up, which was a group of individuals. Did 14 that include you? I can’t actually remember? 15 A. I was present at some meetings, but not at others. 16 Q. So there were a number of people — so Colin Perkins was 17 involved, and we will hear some quite detailed evidence 18 from him about his view about the Carlile Report. So 19 I am not going to take you through it in any detail. 20 I just want to deal with this bit, as you were a member 21 of the core group at some point in time. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. They met regularly in order to, firstly, investigate, 24 and, secondly, to reach conclusions. 25 There is criticism of the core group. It is Page 20 1 described by Lord Carlile as “unmethodical and 2 unplanned” and “it was a confused and unstructured 3 process at which members had no coherent notion of their 4 roles and what was expected of them”. Would you like to 5 comment upon that? Is that your understanding? 6 A. These are stringent and harsh observations which largely 7 we accept. We were in a situation here of breaking new 8 ground. The formation of a core group was something 9 which we were unfamiliar with, which has subsequently 10 been regulated for us, and we were also, of course, very 11 aware of working in the context of a serious criminal 12 allegation against a person of a massive international 13 and national reputation. 14 So I think the failures of consistency, of sense of 15 purpose and how we were to function, those 16 allegations — those criticisms are valid against us. 17 I don’t think, however, that that means we were 18 cavalier or unaware of the seriousness of 19 the responsibilities that we were trying to carry out. 20 Q. Paul, could we turn to the next page, because that’s in 21 fact where my quotation comes from. Yes. So we have 22 254(i). The other matter I want to put to you is, it 23 further comments down at (v): 24 “There was no organised or valuable enquiry or 25 investigation into the merits of the allegations, and Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 14 March 2018 6 (Pages 21 to 24) Page 21 1 the standpoint of Bishop Bell was never given parity or 2 proportionality.” 3 What is your response to that? 4 A. The question of an organised or valuable inquiry is 5 something of a value judgment, I think, and we certainly 6 didn’t feel that there was no serious inquiry into that 7 which was undertaken through our insurers and their 8 legal representative in whom we had considerable trust 9 and regard and who Lord Carlile also recognises as 10 a responsible and able person. 11 I see him to say that the standpoint of Bishop Bell 12 was never given parity or proportionality. It was 13 certainly given proportionality. We understood 14 absolutely that was the case. I think the area which 15 he’s rightly also identified is that there was nobody 16 there to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again, with 17 the benefit of hindsight, is something that I think was 18 wrong and we have welcomed — 19 Q. That’s (ix), chair and panel, just so that you know. 20 A. We would recognise it would represent best practice now 21 in the ways in which we have outlined our procedures. 22 Q. Can I ask, why was the decision taken to issue a public 23 statement about the George Bell case, because that’s 24 something that Lord Carlile does also critique? 25 A. Yes. Page 22 1 Q. Perhaps you would like to explain? 2 A. We were very aware of working in the light of 3 the recommendations in the interim report of 4 the archbishop’s commissaries, which had been very clear 5 that no settlement with a survivor should include 6 a gagging clause. Of course you could say there’s 7 a difference between a gagging clause and making 8 a public statement, but it was very strongly felt that 9 to settle and to write a letter of apology and to make 10 no public statement, with no indication as to whether or 11 not those actions would become public, would look very 12 quickly like coverup. Therefore, we felt that there was 13 an obligation on us to be open about what it was that we 14 were proposing to do. 15 Q. If I can just identify that Lord Carlile at 16 paragraphs 267 and 268 of his report — ANG000152, Paul, 17 at page 68, says: 18 “I am sure that the archbishop does not think it 19 appropriate to support the publication of what may be an 20 unjustified and probably irreparable criticism of 21 anyone, whether a celebrated bishop or not.” 22 And at 268: 23 “I regard this as a case, perhaps a relatively rare 24 one, in which steps should and could have been taken to 25 retain full confidentiality, with a clear underlying Page 23 1 basis for explaining why it was done. For Bishop Bell’s 2 reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way 3 that occurred was just wrong.” 4 Do you have any comment you wish to make about that? 5 A. The first comment I would want to make is that, I think 6 we have learnt a painful lesson about the difficulty of 7 communicating through the media a very fine legal 8 nuance, and it’s recognised by Lord Carlile that we 9 never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell, but to 10 communicate that in terms that the general public are 11 going to understand through the media is a very 12 difficult thing to do. Therefore, I think he does raise 13 an important question here about dealing with posthumous 14 cases, but also about being fair, I think, and 15 recognising the legitimacy and substance to an 16 allegation which we certainly felt was necessary with 17 Carol, the name that’s used for the person who brought 18 the case. 19 Q. Can we turn now, if we may, to another topic
Q. Can I ask you now — I think begin to ask you — about 25 the situation in respect of Bishop George Bell. You Page 184 1 have provided a — you provided some details about it 2 within your first witness statement. But you also have 3 a supplementary statement in which you comment upon your 4 views about the report of Lord Carlile of Berriew. 5 I want to mainly take you, because I will say again, as 6 I have said several times, we are not interested in the 7 truth or otherwise of the allegations concerning 8 George Bell. I also understand from information which 9 has been — which is in the public domain that there is 10 another allegation. I will not be asking you about 11 that. 12 So if I can just identify, what happened in respect 13 of the George Bell case is that there was a core group, 14 you were part of that core group, consistently, which 15 was set up. What was your understanding of the purpose 16 of the core group?
17 A. If I may, I should say that the core group first met 18 13 months after the first email from Carol came in. She 19 emailed initially to Lambeth Palace April 2013. That 20 was forwarded to me.
21 Q. I think you set out — I don’t think we need to turn it 22 up, but paragraphs 392 to 398, chair and panel, of 23 the statement deal with what steps were taken.
24 A. Exactly. So the steps were essentially to offer support 25 and Gemma Wordsworth was the person who was doing all of Day 9 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 15 March 2018 Page 185 1 that throughout the rest of 2013, and actually 2 throughout. 3 A civil claim was entered in I believe it was early 4 2014 and the core group was essentially — I think it 5 met in early — in May 2014, essentially to respond to 6 the matters arising from that. I don’t think we 7 initially called it a core group, because practice 8 guidance was still emerging at the time. So it was 9 effectively a meeting between key diocesan and national 10 personnel. It became called the core group because that 11 was the term in the emerging guidance. But I don’t 12 think it was initially called one.
13 Q. At paragraph 6 of your supplementary witness statement, 14 which is, just for the record, ACE0262843_003, chair and 15 panel, of that document, you refer to three documents: 16 a briefing note; a George Bell review timeline of key 17 decisions; and a safeguarding timeline overview. 18 Now, if we could get the first one of those up, 19 ACE026290. So this is the briefing note that took place 20 prior to the first core group meeting, which, as you 21 have said, wasn’t actually called that, in May 2014, and 22 this was just to inform everybody about the nature of 23 the case?
24 A. Yeah, myself and Gemma wrote this to make sure that 25 everyone in the meeting had an appraisal of where Page 186 1 things — where we were at.
2 Q. Just to — I mean, I think everyone is familiar probably 3 in this room with the allegations in respect of 4 George Bell, but there was an allegation made by Carol 5 of inappropriate touching in the late 1950s. It would 6 appear that the complainant wrote to Eric Kemp in 1995. 7 That letter was on a file. That was then not 8 discovered. Then she then wrote again in 2013 to 9 Lambeth Palace and it was then discovered that the 10 letter had taken place in 1995 and that matters then 11 progressed from there. But it does appear that the file 12 had not been subject to the 2008/2009 past cases review.
13 A. That’s so.
14 Q. I understand there is some reference in one of 15 the documents — and I’m afraid I couldn’t find it — 16 that somebody called it — it was found in the “naughty 17 boys’ cabinet” or something like that. What is that?
18 A. Gosh, that’s an unfortunate phrase, isn’t it?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. In the corridor in Bishop’s Palace, there is a cabinet 21 to the right which is effectively closed disciplinary 22 cases, so that’s — someone has called it the “naughty 23 boys’ cabinet”. So that’s what’s in there.
24 Q. I understand the reference, if we want to see it, is 25 ANG000030_017 to 018. Thank you, Mr Greenwood. Page 187
1 A. Opposite that is a cabinet of largely administrative 2 files that are nothing to do with personnel; maybe to do 3 with a particular trust or a particular building. Upon 4 receiving Carol’s letter, Gemma and I went to the palace 5 to see if we could find, well, anything on George Bell, 6 and so we happened to look in that cabinet, not really 7 expecting —
8 Q. Is that the “naughty boys’ cabinet” or the trust deed 9 cabinet, so to speak?
10 A. No, I would have already seen it if it was in the 11 disciplinary cabinet, because I’d gone through that when 12 I first arrived —
13 Q. Right.
14 A. — for obvious reasons. The administrative cabinet, we 15 found just a loose manila folder of — that contained 16 almost all correspondence about George Bell. It was 17 things to do with the 50th anniversary of his death. It 18 was largely people writing in, “I was visiting the 19 cathedral. I was thinking about George Bell and his 20 work in World War II”, et cetera, et cetera. It was 21 that kind of material. We really therefore had no 22 expectation of finding anything, and then we did find 23 this letter from 1995 and the associated material.
24 Q. So this briefing note was given to everyone. Could we 25 just look briefly through the briefing note. Can you Page 188 1 just talk us through it. I don’t think you need to talk 2 us through — could we go to — is it just one page or 3 does it go over to the next page? It goes over to the 4 next page. Right. It sets out basically the 5 chronology, what’s happened when and the fact that there 6 have been some difficulties. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. There is then a timeline of key decisions. So this was 9 prepared in advance of a review meeting held 10 in June 2016. This is ACE026297, tab 50. 11 I’m assuming that this is prepared for 12 Lord Carlile’s benefit?
13 A. Not — sorry, not at that point, no. This was the 14 meeting at Lambeth Palace, as far as I remember, this 15 was the meeting at which it was decided to commission 16 a review which then was the review that Lord Carlile was 17 asked to do. So this was that meeting. He hadn’t been 18 asked.
19 Q. Do you mind, Paul, if we just switch forward slightly on 20 this. There is more than one page. In other words, 21 it’s a chronology which says what happened when. So 22 you’ve got “Email” and then “Detail and comment” and 23 then where it comes from; is that right?
24 A. Exactly.
25 Q. Thank you very much. The third document is Page 189 1 “Safeguarding timeline overview”, which is, again, 2 another summary also produced for the June 2016 meeting. 3 That’s ACE026288, please, Paul. Again, what’s this?
4 A. I think it — I believe it was a summary of the previous 5 documents.
6 Q. So this is kind of, “We know that some people are not 7 going to read the entire document, so I’m going to give 8 you the headlines”?
9 A. Essentially.
10 Q. An executive summary, I believe is the word that’s 11 usually used?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That’s fine. Can you describe the approach that you 14 considered what then became known as the core group were 15 taking when they were looking at the situation in 16 respect of Carol? I mean, you detail this in your 17 submission to Lord Carlile in July 2017, but it would be 18 useful to have that precised, really?
19 A. Yes, I’m trying to think how to precis it. The approach 20 of the core group was — it was effectively to — or the 21 approach of the meeting that became the core group was 22 effectively to decide how to respond to the perhaps 23 fairly unique situation we were presented with. As 24 I said, by that point, support to Carol had been offered 25 for over a year. She’d spoken to the police. There’d Page 190 1 been some counselling provided, and so on and so forth. 2 But I suppose it was the situation that really arose 3 from the receipt of the civil claim, and it was — we 4 were very mindful of —
5 Q. Can I just check. In fact, the civil claim — one of 6 the difficulties with the Carol situation is the fact 7 that the church is not insured in claims against 8 bishops — well, I think it probably is now but it 9 wouldn’t have been at the relevant time that the 10 insurance arose?
11 A. Yes, and that was, I think, one of the prompts for that 12 meeting. I think that for me that is an essential part 13 of understanding what happened here, that we were in 14 a very unusual situation of a civil claim coming in that 15 was uninsured, and, therefore, it wasn’t clear to whom 16 that effectively — to whom the liability belonged. 17 I should say, as I think I allude to in my 18 supplementary statement, there was a backdrop here, and 19 the backdrop was that we would also — well, the church, 20 that any civil claim with regards to Peter Ball would 21 have been in that same position. 22 I wasn’t involved in any of the discussions around 23 this, but I was aware that discussions were taking 24 place, that there could have been a very — 25 a potentially large number of civil claims coming in Page 191 1 from around Peter Ball that would have also been 2 uninsured. So I think — as I said, I wasn’t involved 3 in any of those conversations, but there was an 4 awareness that any decision made around the George Bell 5 claim, there was a wider context.
6 Q. The approach that you have taken may — some people may 7 perceive it as a “believe anyone” approach. What were 8 you trying to do, or what do you think the core group 9 was trying to do? Because obviously Lord Carlile 10 thought that you were approaching it in the same way as 11 you would approach any other civil claim, so you were 12 trying to make a decision, you know, “Should this 13 individual be believed on the balance of probabilities 14 or shouldn’t they?” Was that the aim and objective of 15 the core group?
16 A. If I could just take those points in order?
17 Q. Of course.
18 A. In terms of the “believe anyone” approach, that’s 19 actually never been the approach that — I can only 20 speak for my team, but that — said in those terms, it 21 sounds quite pejorative. It sounds quite —
22 Q. That’s —
23 A. No, no —
24 Q. I’m saying it to challenge you.
25 A. I understand. Page 192
1 Q. Because that’s what critics of it would say?
2 A. Exactly. So I understand the caricaturing of that kind 3 of approach is a sort of naive, believing anyone no 4 matter how fantastical the allegation, that has never 5 been the approach of my team. But the approach of my 6 team has very much been a willingness to take very 7 seriously anyone making an allegation and to offer the 8 support that would be offered essentially if the 9 allegation is true. So it’s not assessing the 10 allegation before support is offered, but it’s 11 essentially offering the support on the assumption that 12 it could be true. I’m probably articulating that quite 13 badly, but that’s the approach of my team. 14 In terms of, by the time the core group met, we were 15 aware that the civil claim would have to be assessed, so 16 almost by definition, the core group didn’t meet with 17 that kind of “believe anyone” approach because it was 18 meeting to start thinking about how were we going to 19 assess that claim.
20 Q. But was it meant to be an investigative process, kind of 21 a way of saying — or was it — I mean, please explain?
22 A. Yes. The first meeting, May 2014, was essentially, how 23 are we going to proceed? The second meeting, I believe 24 it was in July 2014, was — the advice received from the 25 lawyer who — the lawyer who was acting in the civil Page 193 1 claim, although by that point it wasn’t entirely clear 2 who was instructing her because of this concern about 3 with whom did liability rest, but the lawyer acting in 4 that situation effectively — we were quite soon getting 5 into conversations about, should there be some kind of 6 publicity, should there be some kind of, you know, 7 acknowledgement that this claim or this allegation has 8 been made against this huge historical figure, and her 9 advice was very clear: you don’t have much ability to 10 test the claim, because it’s so old, but you do have — 11 sorry, to test the allegation, but you do have a civil 12 claim, so if you were to go public in any way before you 13 have tested that claim, before that claim is settled or 14 resolved, then you will be open to, you know, exactly 15 the kind of allegation of, “Well, you just — you know, 16 you jumped the gun”. So her advice was, allow this 17 claim to run, effectively; let’s do all of the things we 18 normally do in civil claims, instruct psychiatrists and 19 verify what can be verified and so on and so forth. 20 Once that is done, if the claim is settled, then 21 consider what to do about publicity. 22 So that’s what happened.
Really, looking back, we’d 23 all acknowledge that I think this was where the problem 24 arose, that at that point, very unusually indeed, the 25 core group became quite intricately involved with the 1 civil claim and the response to the civil claim — 2 perhaps not quite that they became synonymous, but it 3 was getting there. I think we’d all look back and say 4 that should have been held much more separately.
Page 94
5 MS SCOLDING: I don’t know whether, chair, this might be an 6 appropriate moment to break, because I’m about to start 7 on the response to the Carlile Report which I think will 8 take us past a reasonable hour. So I don’t know whether 9 now might be an appropriate moment?
10 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, 11 Mr Perkins.
12 MS SCOLDING: Don’t forget, Mr Perkins, you are under oath. 13 Thank you. 14 (4.24 pm) 15 (The hearing was adjourned until 16 Friday, 16 March 2018 at 10.00 am)
March 15 2018 – Letter submission to the Daily Telegraph from Richard W. Symonds of the Bell Society
Dear Editor Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner states (IICSA hearing, March 14): “The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the C of E Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong” Then right the wrong which was unthinkable at the time. This is the time to ensure the long-dead Bishop of Chichester George Bell is represented by a lawyer in the new Core Group – such as Desmond Browne QC – and someone known to Bishop Bell’s long-living niece. Richard W. Symonds – The Bell Society
Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer – Slater & Gordon “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Fiona Scolding QC – Q. He [Lord Carlile] identifies that one of the other issues is that 24 there wasn’t adequate engagement and involvement of 25 Bishop Bell’s family or people speaking on Bishop Bell’s Page 31 1 behalf. I think you accept that critique, don’t you?
Perkins – 2 A. I accept that critique,
Page 24
15 Q. Was it the situation that there was scant, if any, 16 regard to Bishop Bell’s good character? Because that 17 comes out of this at various other points in his 18 conclusions? Paragraph 56 of Lord Carlile’s conclusion, 19 he says: 20 “… scant, if any, regard to … Bishop Bell’s good 21 character [was paid].” 22 Again, he also argued that there was deliberate 23 destruction of the reputation of George Bell. What do 24 you say to those two things? 25 A. In terms of the regard given to his good character, the Page 25 1 esteem, he also talks about that — 2 Q. You deal with this at paragraph 70 and onwards of your 3 witness statement. Maybe if you would like to turn that 4 up for your own benefit. Chair and panel, that’s 5 page 25 of Mr Perkins’ supplementary witness statement? 6 A. We were very mindful indeed of the reputation of 7 George Bell, and in many ways the reputation of 8 George Bell is why we were holding the core group in the 9 first place. I have just mentioned a number of other 10 allegations we’d received about deceased clergy. Most 11 of those are obscure clergy, and didn’t generate this 12 level of action. Because we were aware of the weight of 13 his reputation and the likely impact of people reacting 14 to any actions we took, to some extent that was the 15 reason that we were having this nationally chaired 16 meeting involving staff from both the national church 17 and Chichester. 18 But I am very surprised at the extent to which, 19 certainly throughout the last two and a half years, 20 there have been many calls, and I am concerned that some 21 of those calls have correctly or otherwise perceived 22 a high level of support from within Lord Carlile’s 23 report for the suggestion that a great man such as Bell 24 cannot possibly have also been an abuser. 25 As I outlined in my statement, that runs against Page 26 1 a lot of the evidence that I’m aware of internationally 2 with regards to child sexual offenders within 3 institutions. If I may, I think there’s one other point 4 that I particularly want to make on that, and for me 5 this is quite an important point: Carol gave an 6 interview to the Brighton Argus in February 2016 — 7 sorry, 2014 — no, I’m getting my dates wrong, it was 8 2016, in response to the controversy. In that interview 9 she said, “I know that George Bell was a man of peace, 10 but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do these things to me”. 11 It always struck me as very powerful that, of all of 12 the people in this narrative, she has managed to keep 13 the balance and she has managed to articulate very 14 powerfully that it’s possible that he was both. 15 Q. I think at paragraph 70 of your witness statement you 16 identify some research that the NSPCC did in educational 17 settings which often found that those who sexually 18 abused students are often the most competent and popular 19 of staff and are often — I think the word used by the 20 NSPCC is “adored”? 21 A. Yes. The evidence — much of the evidence this inquiry 22 has heard, much of the academic evidence throughout the 23 world, suggests, again, going back to Nigel Speight’s 24 quote, that people find it extremely difficult to 25 believe that especially their admired leaders, or Page 27 1 admired teachers within that educational setting, 2 sometimes the teachers that are the most popular could 3 also be guilty of abuse. We know that’s worldwide 4 research. 5 Q. There are two technical issues I want to raise. 6 Lord Carlile criticises the core group, and this is at 7 paragraph 167 of his report, page 044, chair and panel, 8 if you want to get it up, B47. He identifies — he says 9 that one of the things that you got wrong was not 10 understanding that he wouldn’t — had he been alive, he 11 wouldn’t have satisfied the arrest conditions, is what 12 he says. 13 So you mistakenly — what I think he indicates is, 14 having read the minutes, he believes that what happened 15 was, you all thought he would be arrested, he would have 16 been arrested, and therefore that was something which 17 fed into your consideration of whether or not the civil 18 claim should be settled? 19 A. Firstly, I’m not sure that he’s correct about that, 20 having worked with Sussex Police on a large number of 21 cases. I’m actually just not sure that he’s correct. 22 I think he may well have been. 23 But he largely suggested that we were so 24 inexperienced within the criminal justice system that we 25 conflated arrest with charge with conviction. As I say Page 28 1 in my statement, that is simply not the case. There 2 were plenty of very experienced safeguarding 3 professionals with, between us, decades of experience 4 within the criminal justice system who were perfectly 5 capable of separating those things out. 6 Q. Thank you. He also identifies that you hadn’t followed 7 the basic prosecutorial process of looking at whether or 8 not something had happened and whether or not — you 9 know, the two-stage test which the CPS identified. Do 10 you have any comment that you wish to make about that? 11 A. Well, he specifically criticises that Sussex Police 12 hadn’t communicated properly to us that process. He 13 identifies Detective Inspector EF as the person who 14 should have, but didn’t, correctly communicate that to 15 us. He identifies that from one email exchange in 2013, 16 right at the start, when we were arranging Carol’s 17 interview with Sussex Police. 18 As I say in my statement, between certainly myself 19 and Gemma, we probably had weekly contacts with DI EF 20 across a five-year period between Operation Perry and 21 Operation Dunhill, and I think it highlights my point 22 that making that conclusion based on one email exchange 23 rather than discussing that with us, where we could have 24 explained that level of contact, is one of my concerns 25 about the process of the report. Day 10 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 16 March 2018
Page 29 1 Q. He also recommends, Lord Carlile, at paragraph 170, that 2 there should have been specialist criminal law advice 3 provided to the group. What’s your view about that? 4 A. If I can just — 5 Q. It is page 44 of B47, chair and panel. Thank you very 6 much, Paul. 7 A. I’m just trying to find within my own statement — 8 Q. Oh, you deal with it at paragraph 57, Mr Perkins. 9 A. Thank you. 10 Q. Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58. 11 A. Thank you. Firstly, this was a civil claim, so tested 12 to the civil standard. So it’s still not clear, and 13 I believe not clear to others who are responding to 14 this, why a comment about whether or not it could have 15 been proved to the criminal standard would necessarily 16 help us in deciding whether it could have been proved to 17 the civil standard. 18 But, again, that comment seems to have ignored my 19 submission from July 2016, where I make really clear, 20 and the minutes make really clear, and the legal advice 21 provided to the core group makes really clear, we were 22 making a choice to believe. 23 There was — never at any point, in my recollection, 24 at any point in the core group, did anyone say, “He 25 would have been convicted for this, so we have no Page 30 1 choice”. That just wasn’t part of the discussion, which 2 I say in that paragraph. 3 Q. Which, again, Lord Carlile in his report at 4 paragraph 171 seems to identify that one of 5 the criticisms of the core group is they didn’t think 6 about whether or not he would have been prosecuted had 7 he been alive, and he identifies that the prospects of 8 successful prosecution were low. I think at 9 paragraph 57, you say — 10 A. Thank you. 11 Q. — “Well, we wouldn’t necessarily have asked ourselves 12 that question”? 13 A. We were fully aware that the chances of a conviction, 14 were he alive, were low, and, as I say at the end of 15 paragraph 57, external advice on that particular point, 16 was a criminal conviction likely, was not sought, not 17 because it never occurred to us to ask, but because the 18 answer was relatively obvious. 19 Q. Can I ask you just about two further points that he 20 raises at paragraph 155, if we can go back to that, 21 please, chair and panel, 038, please, Paul. Page 38, 22 chair and panel, of B47. 23 He identifies that one of the other issues is that 24 there wasn’t adequate engagement and involvement of 25 Bishop Bell’s family or people speaking on Bishop Bell’s Page 31 1 behalf. I think you accept that critique, don’t you? 2 A. I accept that critique, although in the submission from 3 the National Safeguarding Steering Group, I would also 4 emphasise the separation in that submission from the 5 action — between the actions of the core group, the 6 work of the core group, and the work of — I think it’s 7 called — a group — a body thinking about the 8 litigation. I am not sure that there should be within 9 the core group a person doing that, because the core 10 group is really managing a different situation. I think 11 that obviously and clearly should happen, but perhaps 12 within that different body. I think that’s the advice 13 from — or that’s the response from the National 14 Safeguarding Steering Group, which I would agree with. 15 Q. Two further issues: one about limitation; the second 16 about non-disclosure agreements. Obviously you are not 17 a lawyer, so I’m not going to ask you this. One of 18 the points that Lord Carlile raises is that nobody 19 seriously considered the limitation issue and/or that 20 the limitation issue should have been considered. Just 21 for the public, the usual rule is that such claims have 22 to be brought within — well, actually, in cases of 23 sexual violence, it is six years, but in cases of breach 24 of duty, ie negligence, it’s three years but with an 25 equitable time limit under section 33 of the Limitation Page 32 1 Act, which involves, in effect, looking at all the 2 circumstances and saying, is it there or isn’t it there. 3 Now, we understand from the Ecclesiastical Insurance 4 Office’s guiding principles that in an insured claim — 5 we dealt with this with Professor Macfarlane earlier in 6 the week — they only raise limitation exceptionally, so 7 to speak? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Was limitation something which was considered and 10 discussed within the context of the group? 11 A. It was — 12 Q. Just to say, “It was just too long ago. We can’t 13 possibly settle a claim on this basis”? 14 A. It was considered and discussed extensively in the 15 second core group, July 2014. The minutes make that 16 very clear. In fact, the explanation you’ve just given 17 is possibly almost verbatim the explanation that was 18 given to that core group, and, as the minutes show, 19 there was then an extensive discussion. 20 I think, again, that goes back to my problem about 21 the process of the Lord Carlile review. 22 What the minutes do not say is, “The purpose of 23 limitation was clearly explained”, largely because 24 everyone was fully aware. They were clearly explained 25 but the minutes don’t clearly say that. Day 10 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 16 March 2018
9 (Pages 33 to 36) Page 33 1 Q. Of course, the issues of vicarious liability have 2 changed markedly over the past 10 years in respect of 3 cases of sexual violence against individuals? 4 A. Exactly. 5 Q. To make them a lot more generous than they were, shall 6 I put it that way? 7 A. Yes. But, as I say, the very fact that we had an 8 extensive discussion suggests that that — the point of 9 limitation was fully understood. That is certainly the 10 case: it was fully understood. 11 Q. Non-disclosure agreement. The other significant 12 criticism that Lord Carlile makes is, why wasn’t there 13 a confidentiality agreement put to this in order to 14 avoid what he considers to be unfair besmirching of 15 Bishop Bell’s reputation. I mean, that’s probably 16 putting it slightly higher than Lord Carlile puts it in 17 his report, so I’m slightly overegging that, but he 18 considers that it’s unfair. I think the church has 19 responded and said, “We think it was right that there 20 wasn’t a non-confidentiality agreement and we don’t 21 agree to — confidentiality agreements, I think, rather 22 than non-confidentiality agreements — think about NDA, 23 the US word for them. What’s your view about that, if 24 you have any? 25 A. As you said, the church has already rejected that Page 34 1 proposal. I was very glad to see that. As you said, 2 I’m not a lawyer, so I possibly shouldn’t stray into 3 this, but my understanding of — 4 Q. Well, from the perspective of somebody — you’ve 5 identified that you started this process trying to work 6 from the perspective of providing compassionate support 7 to victims and survivors? 8 A. Exactly. 9 Q. From that perspective, that’s your view? 10 A. From that perspective, my understanding of 11 Lord Carlile’s recommendation with regards to the 12 non-disclosure agreement or the confidentiality 13 agreement, he also suggests — my understanding of his 14 report is — that we should have settled the claim 15 with — 16 Q. Sort of no admission of liability? 17 A. No admission of liability. From my point of view, from 18 the perspective you just described, that would have 19 effectively been saying, “We are not accepting your 20 claim. We are not going to apologise. We are going to 21 perhaps provide some monetary settlement and we are 22 going to require you to sign a non-disclosure 23 agreement”. That is exactly the opposite of where 24 I think the church should be on this issue, from my 25 perspective. Page 35 1 Q. Can we now — that’s been very helpful, and I think we 2 have got a very clear view from you of your critique of 3 that, which I know you were very clear that you wanted 4 to give to this inquiry. 5 Can we now turn to the more mundane topic, or maybe 6 more exciting topic, of what you actually do on 7 a day-to-day basis?….
21 of those calls have correctly or otherwise perceived
22 a high level of support from within Lord Carlile’s
23 report for the suggestion that a great man such as Bell
24 cannot possibly have also been an abuser.
25 As I outlined in my statement, that runs against
Page 26
1 a lot of the evidence that I’m aware of internationally
2 with regards to child sexual offenders within
3 institutions. If I may, I think there’s one other point
4 that I particularly want to make on that, and for me
5 this is quite an important point: Carol gave an
6 interview to the Brighton Argus in February 2016 —
7 sorry, 2014 — no, I’m getting my dates wrong, it was
8 2016, in response to the controversy. In that interview
9 she said, “I know that George Bell was a man of peace,
10 but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do these things to me”.
11 It always struck me as very powerful that, of all of
12 the people in this narrative, she has managed to keep
13 the balance and she has managed to articulate very
14 powerfully that it’s possible that he was both.
Ignoring the fact Mr Perkins was mistaken on the Argus dates – it was December 16 2017 when ‘Carol’ made that statement – how could he say she “has managed to keep the balance…”! Incredible. ‘Carol’ was five years old at the time! How could she have known it was definitely Bishop Bell at that age!
May I also suggest Mr Perkins reads the book “Catholic Priests Falsely Accused” by David F. Pierre, Jr. – especially page 150 – before pontificating about the John Jay Report [Page 11 & 12 IICSA March 16].
CORRECTION
I stand corrected on the Argus dates – my apologies:
The Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood reported this on February 3 2016:
“Because he did good things, they automatically assume that he couldn’t do anything wrong, which was rather hurtful because a lot of men who have done good things have also done very evil things. He might be a man of peace but that doesn’t take away the fact of what he did to me,” said the woman, using the pseudonym ‘Carol’.
I confused this quote above with the quote made by ‘Carol’ on December 16 2017:
“He (Lord Carlile) can say Bishop Bell wouldn’t be found guilty, it doesn’t change the facts”
But neither quote helps the Diocesan Safeguarder Colin Perkins. It just confirms he might be seriously mistaken about the “balance” of ‘Carol’.
Also, Mr Perkins shows a serious lack of understanding of False Memory Syndrome (FMS) – “One of the features is that over a period of time – in this case a considerable time – the false accuser has convinced herself that her memory was correct”
Personally, I have little to no doubt ‘Carol’ was sexually abused. What I seriously doubt is that it was Bishop Bell. In other words, a case of mistaken identity.
‘Carol’ is an unreliable witness, and for Colin Perkins to put such faith in her recollections is not just seriously unprofessional for someone in his position, it is also seriously misplaced.
~ Richard W. Symonds
March 19 2018 – IICSA Reflections – David Lamming
“While IICSA should be given full marks for the production of the daily transcript (available to download from about 6 pm each day), the website is both woeful and impenetrable. There is no easy way to find a document, since they are indexed only by the URN allocated to them by the Inquiry. More seriously, witness statements and documents referred to by witnesses (and appended to their statements) are not uploaded in advance, which makes it difficult to follow the oral evidence.
A prime example is the evidence given on 15th-16th March by Colin Perkins. At the beginning of his evidence last Thursday, counsel to the inquiry, Fiona Scolding QC, asked that Mr Perkins’s three witness statements be “placed upon the website at a convenient and appropriate moment.” (Transcript, 15 March 2018, page 82). That moment should have been no later than when Mr Perkins took the oath, yet now, Sunday lunchtime, 18th March, they are still not available for the public to read.
“An illustration of the need for the statements to be published in advance is in the evidence Colin Perkins gave to the Inquiry about the Carlile report on Friday morning (Transcript, 16 March 2018, pages 1-34). Ms Scolding refers to certain passages in Mr Perkins’s witness statement in which he criticises aspects of Lord Carlile’s review. Those criticisms (at least so far as they appear from the extracts set out and commented on in the transcript) are selective and self-serving. One must ask whether Lord Carlile was done the courtesy of bring provided with a copy of the statement, or even being warned that he would be criticised at a public inquiry where he is not represented. One sentence in Mr Perkins’s evidence is telling: “… it is my job to try and articulate these things from the perspective of the victim.” (Transcript, 16 March 2018, pages 15-16) Where is the necessary objectivity, when Carol is regarded as victim, not complainant? No wonder one of Lord Carlile’s conclusions was “… the clear impression left is that the process was predicated on [Bell’s] guilt of what Carol alleged.” (Carlile Review, para 254(vi), page 65.)
“The Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, admitted last week it had been a mistake not to give the late Bishop George Bell a defending counsel at the kangaroo court which wrongly convicted him of child abuse. When will he admit that he has made a similar mistake by refusing to allow Bell’s niece, Barbara Whitley, to pick a lawyer to defend him against the mysterious second allegation now levelled against him in secret? Too late, for sure”
14 Q. Before we move on, we should deal briefly with one other 15 matter touching on Dean Treadgold. Is it right that at 16 the time of his retirement, or thereabouts, there came 17 a time when he burnt a number of files held within the 18 cathedral? 19 A. Yes. He had retired in the autumn of 2001 and moved 20 a short distance away. What I remember of the episode 21 is that he returned to the deanery, which then was 22 empty, this was long before Dean Frayling arrived, 23 removed a number of files from the deanery basement and 24 had a fire in the garden. 25 I don’t know what the files were. I think there is Page 151 1 some indication that they might have been old chapter 2 files, but they may well have been his own. It’s a bit 3 odd that he’d moved away and then came back to do this, 4 and it was sufficiently troubling for us to mention this 5 to the police, which happened. 6 Q. And the police subsequently investigated it, including 7 interviewing, I understand, Dean Treadgold under 8 caution? 9 A. They took it very seriously, yes. 10 Q. But no further action was ultimately taken? 11 A. Ultimately, no further action was taken. 12 Q. Did anybody within the cathedral or the chapter think to 13 get him back in, have a word with him and say, “What 14 were you burning and why were you burning it?”, because, 15 in theory, there’s a potential hole in your record 16 keeping now? 17 A. I don’t remember that happening. I think the person who 18 spoke to the police, as far as I can remember, was 19 Canon John Ford, who by then was the acting dean between 20 the two deans, and I can’t remember that we took further 21 action ourselves, knowing that the police were involved. 22 I think we took the view that that was police business. 23 Q. Once they’d taken no further action, why not then? Why 24 not then say, “Hang on a minute, somebody who has moved 25 away from the cathedral, who has retired, has come back, Page 152 1 potentially taken chapter files and burnt them. We need 2 to find out why and what they have burnt, if for no 3 other reason than to find out where we have now got 4 record gaps, or even take disciplinary action”? 5 A. I’m not sure what disciplinary action might have been 6 taken against a retired dean. The answer to your 7 question is that I don’t remember that kind of internal 8 investigation happening. 9 Q. If we can move forward to the Carmi Report…
and at the heart of this has to be justice, and justice is a very, very difficult thing to find, as you know much better than I do, but we have to have a system that delivers justice. That is so important. And if it doesn’t, it’s not good enough.
Fiona Scolding QC
Page 123 [Paras 14-25] Page 124 [Paras 1-8]
One of the points that Lord Carlile makes is that the church didn’t take a good enough account of…George Bell’s reputation. Now, we have heard from several individuals about their views about that. But what he seems to suggest is, you have to start — you know, this was such a Titanic figure that one must assume that his reputation is unblemished and, therefore, that has to be weighed very heavily in the balance. Do you have any response to that?
Archbishop Justin Welby
I think the greatest tragedy of all these cases is that people have trusted, very often, those who were locally, in diocesan terms, or nationally Titanic figures, and have then found that they were not worthy of their trust. The fact that someone is a titanic figure doesn’t tell you anything at all, except that they have done remarkable things in one area. It doesn’t tell you about the rest of their lives. And it is not something that we can take into account.
‘If Bishop Bell’s good reputation ‘is not something that we (The Church of England) can take into account’, then the Church of England [and Archbishop Welby as its leader] are breaking the law. As Lord Carlile has said, taking someone’s good reputation into account “is the law. In criminal cases especially, but also in civil cases, where the character of an alleged perpetrator is impugned by the allegation made, the court takes into account evidence of his good character. It does not mean that he can do no wrong. It is a factor to be weighed in the balance”‘
~ Richard W. Symonds
March 22 2018 – From The Archives [1988 – “Rumpole of the Bailey” with Leo McKern – Episode: ‘Rumpole and the Age of Miracles’ [Series 5 Disc 2) – Filmed on location at Chichester Cathedral [‘The Diocese of Lawnchester’ – Ecclesiastical Court]
Rumpole: “I happen to have a good deal of faith”
Ballard: “Yes, in what precisely?”
Rumpole: “The health-giving properties of Claret. The presumption of innocence…that golden thread running through British justice”
“Archbishop Welby, the leader of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion – who himself has come under some criticism for his handling of abuse cases – told the commission Wednesday that the church needs new powers to safeguard children…
“The decision by IICSA to turn the spotlight on Chichester Diocese comes amid controversy over the way Archbishop Welby had handled a case that involved a former bishop of Chichester, George Bell, who was accused of abuse. Bishop Bell’s supporters and others say the accusations against him lacked proof.
“Another inquiry last year, specifically into Chichester and chaired by Lord (Alex) Carlile, said the Church of England had rushed to judgement against Bishop Bell, who had died in 1958. But Archbishop Welby has refused to retract his statement that Bishop Bell, who was a leading churchman during World War II, had a cloud over his name because of the allegations. Lord Carlile warned that the Church of England’s processes were deficient and that it did not give proper consideration to the rights of the accused.
“But at the IICSA hearing Wednesday, Archbishop Welby focused on the victims…
“David Greenwood, a lawyer representing victims at the inquiry, claimed that Church of England officials had covered up abuse. ‘There is a strong suspicion of an organised conspiracy between clergy and bishops in the Diocese of Chichester to enable children to be abused,’ he said.
Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Fiona Scolding QC: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Dear Mark Woods – Editor (Christian Today)( mwoods@christiantoday.co.uk )
Please register this as a formal complaint.
I think your headline – “George Bell was ‘fond’ of paedophile bishop Peter Ball and sponsored him through ordination” – is one of the most disgraceful I have ever read.
Shame on you.
If this unbalanced article by Harry Farley is not corrected by 16.00 this Monday – 26th March 2018 – a formal complaint will be made to IPSO at 9am the following day (27th).
Sir – The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, is not alone in being ashamed of the Church in its handling of child abuse cases in the Diocese of Chichester (report, March 22). So are quite a few others. And some of us would add that we are ashamed of Archbishop Welby too.
At the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse hearing on Wednesday, the Archbishop was questioned about his continuing attack on the late Bishop George Bell, whose reputation has been besmirched by what Lord Carlile, the Church’s own eminent appointee to examine its legal processes, has described as a very misguided rush to judgement on a single accusation of historic child sexual abuse.
The continued anger that the case has aroused has nothing to do with Bishop Bell’s eminent reputation. It has everything to do with the fact that no one has ever been allowed to present a case in his defence.
The recent effort by the family to appoint its own lawyer in a new investigation has been turned down by the Chichester authorities. And once again, the Archbishop missed a chance to affirm his belief in Bishop Bell’s innocence as presumed by the law.
When will the Archbishop have the grace to admit that the Church leaders responsible for handling the George Bell case – including himself – have made the most colossal error of judgement in this instance?
March 25 2018 – From The Archives [March 10 2018 – Psychotherapist Anthony Stadlen on Bishop Bell and ‘Carol’: “It is not at all easy to find the right words to respect both the presumption of the Bishop’s innocence until proven guilty, and the presumption of Carol’s integrity of character and memory until proven otherwise”]
March 25 2018 – “If Archbishops and Bishops don’t have enough wisdom and prudence to discern justice from injustice, who the hell does? Thank God for the law and the philosophy of jurisprudence” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“Everyone knew a little, but no-one chose to do enough. It seems that the cultures of abuse were ultimately no-one’s fault. So no-one did anything [Or not enough – Ed]. Everyone else was to blame” – Martyn Percy
“Everyone was to blame so no-one was to blame. Everyone was responsible so no-one was
responsible. The ultimate cop-out. So Bishop Bell’s reputation remains destroyed”
March 30 2018 – Unpublished Letter – Daily Telegraph – Richard W. Symonds
Sir – It is right for the the Justice Secretary to be called upon to resign in his “attempt to divert blame…” (‘Worboys victims accuse minister…’, DT Front Page, 29 March). More so the Archbishop of Canterbury in his attempt to divert blame on to Bishop George Bell for his own shortcomings (‘Presumption of guilt’, Letters, 29 March). Richard W. Symonds The Bell Society
April 1 2018 – Submitted Letter – Daily Telegraph – Richard W. Symonds
Sir – Contributors to your letters pages last week repeatedly questioned how it was possible for the late George Bell to prove his innocence when he is no longer with us (“Bishop Bell not guilty”, Letters, March 31). Of course it is not possible. Therefore, it is our responsibility to speak up for those who cannot, and to demand of Archbishop Justin Welby complete exoneration for this wartime Bishop of Chichester. Richard W. Symonds The Bell Society
“The horror of what we learnt in the three weeks of the hearing is that the Church is run by the sort of people who are prepared to cover up and lie…” ~ Revd Canon Rosie Harper
And what of his position on George Bell, the former bishop of Chichester? Bell, who died in 1958, was, and still is, a heroic figure, for his support of the German resistance during the war, and for his opposition to area bombing by the allies. But in 1995, an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against him – a complaint that was not passed to the police by the church until 2013 (after a second complaint was made to what was now Welby’s office). The police concluded that, had Bell been alive, he would have been arrested, and the diocese went on to pay compensation to the victim. But the church’s handling of the case was widely criticised, mostly for its lack of due process. Last year, an independent review of the case by Lord Carlile said that the church had rushed to judgment, perhaps because it wanted to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The church then announced that it had passed new evidence about Bell to the police. The row, however, rumbles on. In January, a group of leading historians, among them Professor Sir Ian Kershaw, urged Welby to withdraw comments he made following the publication of Carlile’s report, in which he said “a significant cloud” still hung over Bell. The archbishop’s comments were “indefensible”, they said; the allegation against Bell is uncorroborated, and in their eyes contradicted by considerable circumstantial material. Welby has so far refused to do so. Is he likely to shift his position?
“Not for the moment. Following Lord Carlile’s report on what was a badly handled inquiry, we had further information which is being investigated, and that will take a long time. Nothing could be better for the church, and for Chichester, than if we were able to say there was nothing to it, but you can’t do that until it is properly investigated. We say that if someone makes an allegation, we always take it seriously.”
April 2 2018 – “It would appear Archbishop Welby is playing God, considering himself above the law regarding Bishop Bell acting both as judge, jury and executioner, and making decisions ‘above his pay grade’. Others might consider the Archbishop more an April Fool of the Church of England who has brought this centuries-old institution into disrepute” ~ Richard W. Symonds
April 2 2018 – Submitted Letter – Daily Telegraph – Richard W. Symonds
Sir – In a recent interview*, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby was asked whether or not he would change his opinion regarding the late Bishop of Chichester George Bell.
“Not for the moment” he replied.
Since when have Archbishops been allowed to ride roughshod over British justice – not least the Presumption of Innocence – and become a law unto themselves?
This Archbishop appears to be ‘playing God’ and passing judgement above his ecclesiastical pay grade.
London police are ditching guidelines to automatically believe sexual assault complaints, the Met Police Commissioner has said.
After heavy criticism over a series of failed sex crimes cases, the force will now put their role as investigators first, Met Commissioner Cressida Dick said.
Ms Dick said: “I arrived saying very clearly that we should have an open mind when a person walks in and we should treat them with dignity and respect and we should listen to them and we should record what they say.
“From that moment on, we are investigators,” she added…….”our job is not all about victims. Our job in investigations is to be fair, to be impartial and when appropriate to bring things to justice.
In 2016, Sir Richard Henriques, a retired judge, remarked on failings in Operation Midland and said that “the presumption of innocence appears to have been set aside”.
“Guilty until proven innocent. The tenure of Alison Saunders at the Crown Prosecution Service [2013-2018 – Ed] will be remembered for a monstrous inversion of that fundamental principle of British justice…Let her passing see an end to cruel zealotry and a return to the first principle of justice. You may remember it: innocent until proven guilty” ~ Allison Pearson
“In 2016, Sir Richard Henriques, a retired judge, remarked on failings in Operation Midland and said that “the presumption of innocence appears to have been set aside” [See above – April 2]
April 3 2018 – Archbishop Cranmer/VirtueOnLine
“So the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear when it comes to allegations of child (sexual) abuse and safeguarding: passing the buck by insisting ‘It’s not my job, mate’ evidences a lack of humanity and leadership — deficiencies in integrity and gifting which certainly ought to disqualify someone from holding a senior ministerial office in the Church of England” – ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ (Source: VirtueOnline – March 30 2018)
April 4 2018 – Submitted Letter – Daily Telegraph – Richard W. Symonds
Sir: As Rowan Pelling rightly says (‘She told me he’d coerced her into sex. But did she lie?’, Opinion, 4 April):
“…there’s no doubt we must cling to the central tenet of justice: guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt”
Pity the Church of England hierarchy has let go of this obvious truth in the case of Bishop George Bell.
Richard W. Symonds – The Bell Society
April 5 2018 – Submitted Letter – Daily Telegraph – Richard W. Symonds
Ed: Spanish ‘Zorro’ actor recalls (‘Antonio Banderas: his Grey Period’, DT Arts, 5 April):
“When Franco died…I remember running in front of the police and fighting for our first democratic government to prove the fact that we were innocent until proven guilty”
Perhaps we should consider doing the same in front of Lambeth Palace in the fight against the Archbishop’s ‘presumption of guilt’ regarding Bishop George Bell?
Linda Woodhead reflects on deeper problems revealed by the IICSA hearings
The IICSA panel
“LISTENING to the evidence of abuse and cover-up in Chichester diocese has been a miserable experience. The experiences recounted by survivors were harrowing, the explanations offered by senior clergy were shocking, and the juxtaposition of the two was a lesson in inhumanity”
…These pages contain a range of different perspectives on how to tackle sexual abuse; and yet there is a common desire to make safeguarding comprehensive and effective. This sounds like stating the obvious. There is a danger, however, pointed out most clearly by Josephine Anne Stein, that the type of safeguarding being promoted throughout the Church is modelled on a pattern designed to protect institutions from prosecution. A Christian organisation must do better than this…
“Bishop Martin, you got it wrong safeguarding clergy falsely accused, such as Bishop George Bell. What steps are you taking to put that right ?” ~ Richard W. Symonds ~ The Bell Society
…Safeguarding in the Church of England has burgeoned into a procedural, bureaucratic, and bloated industry that does not appear to be effective either in responding to abuse or in preventing further abuse. When checked earlier this year, the C of E’s safeguarding policy posted on the National Safeguarding Team’s website consisted of 364 separate pages…
…THERE are alternative approaches to safeguarding within the healthcare sector, grounded in the development of professional ethics, the regular assessment of fitness to practise, and professional discipline.
There are also alternatives to formal safeguarding complaints procedures that combine knowledge and experience from occupational psychology, specialist social work, and restorative justice, much of which is unfamiliar within the Church.
Furthermore, there are inexpensive and empowering ways to improve knowledge and understanding of both the causes of and responses to abuse in different constituencies within the Church — a bottom-up approach in contrast to current centralised, top-down training. If everyone in the Church is responsible for safeguarding, everyone is also responsible for ownership of safeguarding…
April 8 2018 – “It’s always easier to see the plank in someone else’s eye than the log in your own” ~ Janet Fife
The Church of England has just been through a traumatic fortnight of the Independent Investigation into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Those who are responsible for safeguarding are apparently devoid of compassion: “The cruel and inhuman treatment I have received from the National Safeguarding Team in Church House, and others in the Church of England hierarchy, makes what Peter Ball did to me pale into insignificance,” said one victim. It is impossible not to read some pronouncements and not conclude that the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team is either untruthful or incompetent (or quite possibly both).
The failings aren’t just historic; they are present and ongoing.
So who at Lambeth Palace thought it was a good idea to honour the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev’d Paul Butler, with the Hubert Walter Award “for his outstanding service to the church as Lead Bishop on Safeguarding”?
Bishop Paul might be a lovely, faithful, compassionate and pious man, but why this citation now? Why honour a bishop for his safeguarding genius just a few weeks after the appalling IICSA revelations? Isn’t it rather like awarding Captain Smith the Blue Riband for Outstanding Service as a Merchant Navy Officer in April 1912? It isn’t merely bizarrely inopportune; it is crassly insensitive for the Church of England to be blowing its own trumpet over safeguarding at all.
If the Archbishop of Canterbury is to make awards (as indeed he ought), might he not reflect on the fact that in some spheres of church life – such as safeguarding – that the last shall be first? Might he not perhaps consider honouring one or two representative survivors for their contributions to truth and services to reform? If the world can see the very obvious virtue in honouring the victims before indulging in self-congratulation, why couldn’t those advising the Archbishop?
“Nor does the Church routinely investigate allegations itself; they are reported to the police or local authorities as appropriate. However, if no one else will investigate fully – for example, if a civil claim is brought in respect of a deceased person – the Church has no option but to investigate as it must answer the claim” – Gabrielle Higgins (Diocesan Secretary. Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance, Hove, East Sussex
“Investigations are useless if investigated by a bunch of amateurs with little understanding of the law. They simply become ‘kangaroo courts’ (“Church investigations”, Telegraph Letters, April 9). Chichester Diocesan Secretary Gabrielle Higgins seeks to assure correspondents: “Nor does the Church routinely investigate allegations itself; they are reported to the police or local authorities as appropriate”. In 1995 – 37 years after George Bell Bishop of Chichester had died – one complaint was made by ‘Carol’ that he had abused her as a child. The complaint was not passed to the Sussex Police or West Sussex County Council at the time. It is beyond a disgrace to see a Church of England representative – in the form of a Chichester Diocesan Secretary – accept the unacceptable, defend the indefensible, and justify the unjustifiable”.
Bad news for Archbishop Welby’s continuing attempt to smear the name of the great Bishop George Bell, whose self-sacrificing courage in standing up for truth when it was unpopular utterly overshadows today’s trivial bishops.
Just after its kangaroo court condemnation of Bishop Bell was torn to pieces in a report in January, the Church proclaimed that new accusations against him had emerged.
What were they? Nobody would say.
To make these look important, the Church reported them to Sussex Police.
Justin Welby, pictured is continuing to try to smear the name of Bishop George Bell
But Sussex Police, who made fools of themselves by getting too deeply involved in the first, discredited allegation, now tell me that they have finished their inquiries and the matter is closed.
Could this be because there is nothing to say?
Mr Welby’s spokesman cowers behind a wall of silence.
It would be bad if this were an oil company. But it is worse when it is a Christian church.
Poor Barbara Whitley, 93, the Bishop’s surviving niece, has had enough of this…
April 22 2018 – Reaction of ‘L’ to the Mail on Sunday article by Peter Hitchens (above)
“That mendacious spiritual and intellectual pygmy Welby …are there no depths to which he will not sink? How long has he known that the Sussex police have closed their inquiry into Smear 2? Why the **** has he not made a grovelling apology to Barbara Whitley for his vile behaviour and that of the cabal which supports him in the hierarchy? Do we infer that if Peter Hitchens had not approached the police we should never have learned the truth? Surely there must be some kind of legal action Mrs Whitley can take – and I hope that she does” ~ ‘L’
April 23 2018 – “Police drop investigation into bishop besmirched by Church / Archbishop urged to retract statement smearing bishop” – Olivia Rudgard – Daily Telegraph
“Andrew Chandler, the bishop’s biographer, told The Times:
‘If they are determined to persevere in their own private investigations and processes, many people will wonder what they can possibly be worth. The church caused deliberate, calamitous damage to Bishop Bell’s reputation in October 2015, by inciting a public judgement that he was a paedophile'”
April 23 2018 – “Police close Bishop Bell abuse inquiry” – Charlie Parker – The Times
“If they (the Church Heads – Ed) are determined to persevere in their own private investigations and processes, many people will wonder what they can possibly be worth. The church caused deliberate, calamitous damage to George Bell’s reputation in October 15 by deliberately inciting a public judgement that he was a paedophile” – Andrew Chandler – Bishop Bell’s biographer
29 April 2018 8:00 AM In January, the Church of England announced a new child abuse accusation against the late Bishop George Bell. They handed it to the police. This weekend, the police said that the case is now closed. Their spokesman added, ‘Of course further police investigation or action is not possible as Bishop Bell died 60 years ago.’ Indeed so. The date of his death was known to the police when they received the information. Why did they not at once tell the church authorities to go away, on the grounds that it is not their job to investigate crimes allegedly committed by people who, being dead, cannot be tried? Three months have been wasted. The police involvement allowed the church to refuse to say anything further. Now that this cloak has fallen away, we may find out if anything lies beneath. We do not yet know what the accusation is, nor what process is being used to establish its truth. Lord Carlile’s report about the first accusation revealed that the process was utterly inadequate. The church says it has learnt its lesson, though the logical conclusion is that it must exonerate Bell. If this second process is to be credible, it must not be conducted by any bishop or official who was involved in the first. Yet the authorities still will not say what is happening. Justice for Bell is delayed and denied.
This is an extract from Charles Moore’s Spectator’s Notes, which appears in this week’s magazine
May you continue to ask the important questions Martin, but may I suggest there are six, not five questions to ask. Kipling put it like this: “I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who” [From the “Elephant’s Child” 1899] It seems to me and I’m sure to you, the “Who” question is rather important in Safeguarding, even if the “Who” is an Archbishop. Please keep pressing for the answers to these questions and thank you for all you are doing to ensure the truth is revealed.
I raise my glass to Bishop Bell Is he really now in hell? And if it be so then I pray, That I may join him there one day! For then eternity would pass Much quicker, and we’d raise a glass And raise it to the place Where those who never sinned Sit smug and never look within. Does his life’s work now count for nought? It seems this now is what we’re taught. God bless the Bishop now I say I’ll sing his praises every day.
Dear Sussex Police, Can you please supply details of the allegations made against the late Bishop George Bell, which were passed to you by the Church of England on January 2018, specifically what the allegations were, and where and when the alleged crime was said to have been committed. As your enquiries are complete and the Bishop has been dead for 60 years, I can see no legal or procedural bar to releasing this information.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Hitchens
Date: 19.04.2018
Your Ref: Details of the allegation made against the late Bishop George Bell
Our Ref: FOI 400.18
Contact Name: Roger Brace FOI Officer
Contact number: 101 ext 545251
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your request which has been received by Sussex Police.
This request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, from the date of receipt. In some circumstances Sussex Police may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.
Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.
Please Note: Sussex Police are currently receiving a high volume of FOI requests at a time of reduced staffing levels to process them. Every effort is being made to comply with the statutory 20 working day response deadline but on occasions this may not be possible – we apologise for the inconvenience this may cause.
May 16 2018 – Freedom of Information Request – Delay by Church of England
Dear Church of England, On January 31st you announced that there had been new allegations against the late Bishop George Bell. Could you please give an outline of these allegations, and state when and where the alleged actions are supposed to have taken place.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Hitchens
Link to this Peter Hitchens 16 May 2018
Dear Church of England,
You should by law have responded by now to my request for information about your inquiry into new allegations against the late Bishop George Bell. Please can you respond to this? If you do not do so within seven days, I shall refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
The way to protect the church’s reputation, he says, is by “being utterly truthful and transparent and honest. No cover-up. Justice for complainants and justice for those who are complained against. We have to love and care for those who are the vulnerable and weak in this. We have to find – and, of course, we haven’t got there yet – ways of acting rightly on it” His determination that there should be no cover-up has led to an acrimonious confrontation with those who feel Welby unjustifiably trashed the heroic reputation of bishop George Bell, a revered figure in the 20th century, after allegations were made of sexual abuse dating back six decades. Lord Carlile, who last year carried out an independent review of the church’s handling of the claims, concluded that Bell had been “hung out to dry” and the church had “rushed to judgment”. Welby refused to back down, however, saying a “significant cloud” was left over Bell’s name. The poisonous row shows no sign of going away, and may yet cause Welby real difficulty.
May 17 2018 – Letter 1 – Sunday Herald – Scotland
“The morality of “terror bombing” had been questioned in Britain in early 1944. The Rev George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, and probably the greatest Christian prophet to speak to the British people in the last 100 years, stood up in the House of Lords and said that if we allowed the RAF to continue carpet bombing German cities we were no better than the Nazis”
Dan McPhail, Secretary, the Phoenix Friendship Club, 1 Rockmount Avenue, Thornliebank, Glasgow.
May 17 2018 – Letter 2 – Sunday Herald – Scotland (Unpublished)
Dear Editor
As Dan McPhail rightly points out (“Hiroshima may have saved two weeks but it was still mass murder”, Sunday Herald Letters, May 17):
“The morality of ‘terror bombing’ had been questioned in Britain in early 1944. The Rev George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, and probably the greatest Christian prophet to speak to the British people in the last 100 years, stood up in the House of Lords and said that if we allowed the RAF to continue carpet bombing German cities we were no better than the Nazis”
The present Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, not only has a serious problem with this brave wartime Bishop of Chichester, he also has a serious difficulty with the 9th Commandment and the foundational law relating to Presumption of Innocence.
Sir, — At the General Synod in February, the House of Bishops once again promised a “new culture” in the way that the Church relates to victims of its abuse (News, 16 February). Since then, there has been no indication of what that new culture might look like, or how or when it will be realised. Indeed, since February there has been minimal contact between the bishops and victims.
The suggestion in a private letter that the National Safeguarding Team is “in the process of developing the terms of reference for a Working Group on Cultural Change” caused hearty laughter among weary victims.
When pressed, individual bishops have dropped hints that “something is being worked out” and will be revealed in due course. This is inadequate for at least two reasons.
The first is that it fails to recognise that the climate of nods and winks, secrecy, and fixing things up in private, is precisely the environment in which abuse thrives. Bishops working things out behind closed doors is the problem; it cannot also be the solution.
The second is that the bishops have yet to face the fact that they are neither qualified nor equipped to fix the Church’s problems in this area. By definition, many have risen to the top through abusive cultures. They are unable to recognise their own privilege and are unwilling to admit their own victimhood. They are horses trying to muck out their own stable.
Until the Bishops admit their inadequacy in this area and call on victims and independent experts to advise, all they will succeed in doing is spreading the muck around.
ANDREW GRAYSTONE 17 Rushford Avenue Manchester M19 2HG
The bishops’ move came after Francis said the Chilean church hierarchy was collectively responsible for “grave defects” in handling sexual abuse cases and the resulting loss of credibility suffered by the church.
He accused them of destroying evidence of sexual crimes, putting pressure on investigators to downplay abuse accusations and showing “grave negligence” in protecting children from paedophile priests.
We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October 2015 statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the original story.
On 15 December 2017 the Church of England published the independent review of Lord Carlile and issued three statements made in response by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop of Bath & Wells. On the same day the George Bell Group issued the following statement:
The George Bell Group, together with admirers of the Bishop worldwide, heartily welcomes Lord Carlile’s independent review of the process which led to the statement by the Church in October 2015 painting Bell as a paedophile. Lord Carlile deserves congratulations for producing such a comprehensive and authoritative report.
In his response to the report Archbishop Welby has chosen to emphasise that Lord Carlile has not sought to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the alleged assaults. That is not surprising, it was no part of Lord Carlile’s terms of reference from the Church to say whether Bell was innocent or not. But his devastating criticism of the Church’s process shows that Archbishop Welby was wrong in 2016 when he described the investigation as ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse as clearly correct on the balance of probabilities. A close reading of the detail of Lord Carlile’s report can only lead to the conclusion that he has thoroughly vindicated the reputation of man revered for his integrity across the Christian Church.
It is no wonder that the Church’s investigation has been compared by Lord Carlile to the discredited police investigation of Lords Brittan and Bramall. The Safeguarding Group appear to have gone about their work looking for reason to doubt the veracity of the complainant. A proper investigation would have looked to see whether they could find independent corroboration of the complaint. That Bishop Bell had been dead for over half a century did not justify depriving him of the presumption of innocence or of due process. As Sir Richard Henriques pointed out in his report for the Metropolitan Police on historic sex offence investigations, the policy of believing victims shifts the burden of proof onto the suspect and ‘has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale’.
The misconceived approach of the Safeguarding Group, described by Lord Carlile as neither fair nor equitable, was aggravated by the failure of their investigation to reveal easily discoverable evidence:
They failed to speak to Bell’s domestic chaplain during two of the four relevant years, who lived with the Bells in the Bishop’s Palace. He could have explained to them precisely why the complainant’s account did not add up; nor did they speak to Bell’s biographer, the historian Professor Andrew Chandler, who has studied the layout of the Bishop’s Palace at the relevant time; they did not interview former choristers of Chichester Cathedral who might be thought to have been aware if Bell had been a paedophile. Eleven of them wrote to The Times complaining that the Bishop had been smeared to suit a public relations need.
Lord Carlile’s report has now left the Church with many searching questions, including how best to remedy the many defects in the current Practice Guidance so as to ensure that such an injustice can never recur. But most important of all, the time has now come for the Church of England to redress, without hesitation or qualification, the immense damage done to the fine reputation of a man who served it for so long and with such courage and devotion. Those institutions which summarily removed Bell’s name from their titles should now fully restore it.
Archbishop Welby, who has said in his response to Lord Carlile that he realises that ‘a significant cloud’ is left over Bell’s name, should join with the Bishop of Chichester in removing that cloud. The Church deprived the Bishop of due process, they should not deprive him of the presumption of innocence. There is not just no fire, there is no smoke. We share Lord Carlile’s disappointment that the Church has rejected the protection of innocence as a clear and general principle.
As Bishop Bell said in a broadcast to the German people in December 1945, now engraved in the Bell Chapel at Christ Church in Oxford: ‘Without repentance and without forgiveness, there can be no regeneration.’
“The House discussed the emerging themes of the last set of hearings from the Independent Inquiry into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), reflecting on…”
The timetable for the General Synod group of sessions includes, on the Saturday morning, 7th July, a “Presentation on Safeguarding with questions” at 9.45 am, followed, at 10.30 am, by “Debate on a motion on Safeguarding from the House of Bishops.” 1½ hours have been allocated for this debate, but the terms of the motion have not yet been made public. It would be of interest to know now the terms of the motion and who is to propose it. Given the criticism in February that then there was only a presentation (with Q&A) and no debate, it seems likely that whatever the wording of the motion at York, it is likely to attract a number of amendments.
Unfortunately, the report from IICSA on the Diocese of Chichester case study (to be combined with that on the Peter Ball case study, the hearing for which is at the end of July) is not to be published till the autumn, so we shall not have the benefit of any recommendations the panel may make to inform the debate. It is also not clear at the moment whether the investigation into the ‘fresh information’ about Bishop George Bell (“Bell 2”), announced by the National Safeguarding Team on 31 January 2018, will be completed by July. If not, that, too, is likely to inhibit discussion.
Posted by: David Lamming on Thursday, 24 May 2018 at 10:03pm BST Not more workshops! We will have to wait and see what they are about, but we are there to debate and legislate. More time could be given to debating safeguarding…
Posted by: Charles Read on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 12:42am BST “Fresh information” by the time the 7th July comes around this information will be far from fresh but rather stale after a period of over six months delay when no one is any the wiser as to the nature of this mysterious information concerning Bishop George Bell.
Posted by: Father David on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 3:38am BST
This Synod agenda shows a total failure of leadership in my opinion, and a desire to “overly manage” Synod with regards to sexuality issues. Indeed there is not one mention of the word ‘sexuality’ despite all the calls there have been for debates. I am sure we will be fobbed off with some form of group work – but that is not what any of the synod members have been asking for, from either side.
One day, the House of Bishops (who are ultimately the power behind the throne in all this) will realise they need to treat their fellow synod members as equals and not children!
Posted by: Jayne Ozanne on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 8:17am BST
One day, the House of Bishops (and Archbishops) will realise they don’t always know best. But in the precious meantime…
Posted by: Richard W. Symonds on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 12:36pm BST
‘Sexuality’ covers a wide range of issues, including safeguarding. Sexual abuse is more about power than it is about sex, but nevertheless sex is involved – as it is in cases of sexual harassment and indecent assault.
But it does seem odd, given the furore over the Nye letter, that there is to be no debate or presentation on the issues around same-sex attraction and marriage. The powers that be seem to labour under the erroneous impression that if a contentious issue isn’t officially given space for an airing, it will evaporate. They’re wrong.
The Persians have a traditional saying, ‘You can shut the gates of a city, but you can’t shut the mouths of the people.’ You can keep a subject off Synod’s agenda, but you can’t stop Synod members discussing it. And tabling questions, writing to the press, blogging, and Twittering.
Posted by: Janet Fife on Friday, 25 May 2018 at 12:33pm BST
David Lamming’s ‘Bishop Bell’ Motion [see below – July 6-10 General Synod] has not secured the requisite 100 hundred signatures to be considered and even if he had, it isn’t automatically the case that it would be. The Business Committee is powerful and listens to the Bishops.
The Bishop Bell ‘2nd Allegation’ has clearly affected people’s view; hesitation is not unnatural.
Martin Sewell May 28, 2018 at 4:23 pm One of the oddest things is that so far as I can ascertain, the Church does not employ a single specialist Lawyer with what I would regard as a Child Protection background. It is like setting up a maternity hospital and employing no midwives.
When I worked in the field, I would in the course of an ordinary week, represent a child victim, a mother married to a perpetrator, an innocently accused father, intervenor grandparents etc ; I used to represent Local Authorities and the NSPCC. This breadth meant that you were constantly reminded that an open mind was needed, it preserved you from assuming all cases were alike.
The Association of Lawyer’s for Children have a couple of thousand members all over the country, yet we never tap their vast reservoir of experience, largely because if you do not do this work routinely you “ don’t know what you don’t know”.
If you have specific matters to raise at the York Synod….
Posted by: David Lamming on Tuesday, 29 May 2018 at 10:06pm BST
I have noted, but do not accept, the somewhat ungracious comments (above) critical of my PMM about the Carlile report and the ‘significant cloud’ statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury following its publication in December 2017. This blog is not the place to answer those criticisms: that will be for the debate in General Synod, if and when it takes place, though I shall be very willing to discuss the issues with Synod colleagues at York.
Also, I do not accept Richard Symonds’s ’14 word summary’ as an accurate summary of my PMM (comment today timed at 2.26pm): my motion says much more than that.
I do, however, accept that the ‘fresh information’ the National Safeguarding Team received in December 2017 (shortly after publication of the Carlile report), the fact of the receipt of which was made public by the NST in a press statement on 31 January 2018 (just a week before the General Synod meeting in February), is likely to have been a significant factor causing Synod members to hold back from adding their signatures to the motion. Effectively, I recognised this as being the likely impact of the ‘fresh information’ in an e-mail I sent to Synod members on 5 February 2018. It is also the case (contrary to what Richard Symonds is seeking) that we cannot expect Justin Welby to retract his ‘significant cloud’ statement while the outcome of the investigation into the fresh information remains unknown: he said as much in a long interview published in the Guardian/Observer on 1 April 2018.
What does concern me is the utter silence from the NST on the investigative process into ‘Bell 2’. We still do not know who has been appointed as the independent investigator (though I note RS’s revelation earlier today with ‘CH’ as his source), what the terms of reference are, and the timescale (if any) set for the investigation to be completed and a report published. Given that Sussex Police were able to carry out a “proportionate investigation”, doing so “thoroughly and sensitively” and reporting to the NST on 20 March, i.e. just 7 weeks after the fresh information was referred to them by the NST, the NST’s failure to say anything about the progress of their ‘independent investigation’ is unacceptable. It also defies an answer given in February to a supplementary question that Martin Sewell put to Bishop Peter Hancock (the lead bishop on safeguarding): “After Carlile, shall we see better transparency of process from start to finish in respect of the new Bell allegations than we did with the first?” Bishop Peter’s answer was an unqualified “yes”.
The NST have now had the ‘fresh information’ for 5½ months, and it is 4 months since they announced that they were commissioning an independent investigation. At the very least, the NST owe it to Bishop Bell’s surviving niece, 94-year-old Barbara Whitley, to announce who is conducting the investigation, on what terms of reference, and when the investigation should be completed and a report published.
‘G’
“Not enough votes to support David Lamming’s motion. Whatever the reasons for its failure in the House of Laity, the House of Bishops
should be actively concerned and press the matter…I can find no reason to excuse the Church’s injustice to Bishop Bell. For heaven’s sake, it is such a special case that no general condemnation of the Church for going soft on sexual abusers would have any plausibility if the church recognised the plain fact that the case against George Bell is fair rubbish. Even if there were general condemnation, which I doubt, the church should take its stand on the grounds of justice, whatever the consequences”
“Since its first shocking error of accusing the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, of child abuse without proper process nearly three years ago, the Church of England has waded deeper in. Even when the Carlile report it had itself commissioned showed how worthless its processes had been, it refused to back down.
“On 31 January this year, it suddenly produced ‘fresh’ allegations against Bell. It would not say what they were, but handed them to the police, who eventually admitted, under pressure, that they were not investigating, since Bishop Bell had died in 1958 (a fact widely known since 1958).
“The church then promised an inquiry into the new claims which would follow Carlile-compliant methods. It tried to insist, however, that the ‘decision-maker’ in the inquiry would be the present Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner. Since Dr Warner had effectively staked his reputation on the proposition that the first accusation against Bell was true, and was himself part of the unjust investigation, there could scarcely be anyone less impartial to preside over round two.
“At last, defenders of Bell’s cause have forced Dr Warner to step aside. He is to be replaced by Timothy Briden, who has led a quiet life as a church lawyer, and editor, since 1989, of Macmorran’s ‘Handbook for Churchwardens and Parochial Church Councillors’.
“Since Mr Briden is vice-chancellor of the Province of Canterbury, one hopes he will find the courage to be independent of his Archbishop, who made such a bad mistake by rushing to judgment against Bell. On Tuesday, the inquiry’s investigator, a retired North Yorkshire detective superintendent, Ray Galloway, began work. Please can the world be told the inquiry’s terms of reference and whether any of the ‘core group’ that got it so wrong last time will be involved?”
“Since its first shocking error of accusing the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, of child abuse without proper process nearly three years ago, the Church of England has waded deeper in. Even when the Carlile report it had itself commissioned showed how worthless its processes had been, it refused to back down. On 31 January this year, it suddenly produced ‘fresh’ allegations against Bell. It would not say what they were, but handed them to the police, who eventually admitted, under pressure, that they were not investigating, since Bishop Bell had died in 1958 (a fact widely known since 1958). The church then promised an inquiry into the new claims which would follow Carlile-compliant methods. It tried to insist, however, that the ‘decision-maker’ in the inquiry would be the present Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner. Since Dr Warner had effectively staked his reputation on the proposition that the first accusation against Bell was true, and was himself part of the unjust investigation, there could scarcely be anyone less impartial to preside over round two. At last, defenders of Bell’s cause have forced Dr Warner to step aside. He is to be replaced by Timothy Briden, who has led a quiet life as a church lawyer, and editor, since 1989, of Macmorran’s Handbook for Churchwardens and Parochial Church Councillors. Since Mr Briden is vice-chancellor of the Province of Canterbury, one hopes he will find the courage to be independent of his Archbishop, who made such a bad mistake by rushing to judgment against Bell. On Tuesday, the inquiry’s investigator, a retired North Yorkshire detective superintendent, Ray Galloway, began work. Please can the world be told the inquiry’s terms of reference and whether any of the ‘core group’ that got it so wrong last time will be involved?”
I’m not at all sure how Private Investigator Galloway is earning his money, given that Sussex Police completed a “proportionate investigation…thoroughly and sensitively” last March, and notified the Church authorities they would no longer be investigating the case.
The Church of England hierarchy is creating the unseemly impression of pursuing an unhealthy ‘witch-hunt’ against Bishop Bell – an impression it needs to correct before the General Synod early next month.
Not only does the Church of England hierarchy – led by Archbishop Justin Welby – continue to suspect Bishop George Bell ‘guilty until proven innocent’, they recruit a private detective, apparently, tomake the former Bishop of Chichester ‘guilty until proven guiltier’.
This moral and legal disgrace by the Church must stop now.
“Some years ago now I persuaded the BBC to admit that they had wrongly stated on air that the guilt of Bishop George Bell (after allegations of child abuse) was ‘proven’, when it was nothing of the kind.
“This was a very rare success in many attempts I have made to complain about instances of BBC bias. It was also achieved by persistence and some expertise in using the BBC’s complaints system. And this expertise comes only from repeatedly following the procedure. What you must know is this: The first complaint you make to the BBC website is fielded by Capita, an outside contractor. It is only if you reject that complaint, and make it the subject of a second complaint, that you reach the pathway to the Executive Complaints Unit, an actual BBC body.
“Complaints should be concise, polite, and based from the start upon divergence from the BBC’s own editorial guidelines (easily found on the web) and/or on the terms of its Charter and Agreement.
“I wish success to all genuine and serious complainers”.
Prince Charles has been approached by lawyers acting for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which is investigating the disgraced bishop Peter Ball….
At the time of the 2015 hearing a spokesman for Clarence House said: “The Prince of Wales made no intervention in the judicial process on behalf of Peter Ball.”
Last year Moira Gibb’s review into Ball’s offending found that he tried to use his contact with the Prince of Wales as leverage to influence the decisions made by then-Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.
Ball “sought to exploit his contact with members of the Royal Family in order to bolster his position, particularly in the eyes of Lord Carey and others from whom he hoped to receive sympathetic treatment,” the report found…
Lawyer Richard Scorer from Slater and Gordon, who is representing complainants at the IICSA, said it should “leave no stone unturned”.
“If this means calling Prince Charles and other prominent establishment figures as witnesses then the inquiry should do so without fear or favour,” he said.
“Ruining the name of clergy is unfortunately rather easy and is even easier once the person is deceased. Once the press picks it up and if it is outside the statute of limitations, at least in the USA, anyone can say anything. The best way to counteract the attacks is to make sure your voice is heard and try to make it louder than the negative. BUT the raw truth is once it starts and if it gets legs, then damage is done and cannot be undone” – PF
“Who controls the voices and the volume?” – Richard W. Symonds
“Monsignor William McCarthy paints a picture embracing a situation that is almost impossible to comprehend. Had I not stood by him throughout the years of pure hell he experienced, I would not have believed the outright calumny by a detective, and how the subsequent action of his bishop and diocesan staff could have occurred. Child abuse is a terrible thing, but equally horrible is when innocent priests are unjustly condemned and destroyed by the hierarchy of their church.”
~ Arthur N. Hoagland, M.D. [‘The Conspiracy’ back-cover]
“This book is a must read for any…who loves their Church but is concerned about its often self-destructive response to the tragedy of clerical pedophilia. It is a story about tragedy and triumph. The tragedy of the Church that Monsignor McCarthy loves deeply, and into which he has selflessly devoted his entire life, but is sometimes governed by people who have lost all sense of justice. It is a Church that betrayed him. In its attempt to protect the victims of child abuse, it established a new category of victims: its faithful priests. The triumph of Monsignor McCarthy is his faith and love of Jesus, which saw him through his terrible ordeal in spite of the evil that was perpetuated against him.”H
~ Deacon Joseph Keenan [‘The Conspiracy’ back-cover]
“Justice demands that the guilty pay, but it also demands that the innocent not suffer. On June 15-18 [2011], the bishops will meet in Seattle, and one of the items they are expected to address is the issue of accused priests and fairness in dealing with them.”
Epilogue – Chapter 79 – “The Conspiracy – An Innocent Priest” – Monsignor William McCarthy
I wrote to the former Vicar General of the diocese, requesting an interview. I wanted to go face-to-face with the person who was directly responsible for my destruction … I was told he had strongly advised my former bishop to proceed with my censure.
On March 3, 2009, we both sat down in his office facing each other. I began by opening my Bible to John 7 : 51, and read: “Nicodemus spoke out, ‘Does our law condemn a person without first hearing him and knowing the facts?'”
I then asked him point blank: “Why did you condemn me without hearing me and knowing the facts?”
He replied, “Bill, we were following the system.”
“What system?” I pressed.
“Orders from Dallas,” he said, “when they hastily put together that charter.”
I looked him squarely in the eyes and stated, “That’s what they said at the Nuremberg Trials – ‘We were only following orders.'”
When he didn’t respond, I continued: “They were all convicted of crimes against humanity. In 2003, the diocese also committed a crime against humanity – me in particular. They did not lift a finger to help me. The diocese, particularly you as Vicar General, was reckless and impetuous in censuring me, and calling for my execution as a priest. You behaved badly! Instead of prudently investigating the accusation you rushed to judgement and as a result, you caused me extraordinary damage. You were reckless!”
Again he didn’t respond…
I asked him why I was not brought before the Board that was established for that very reason – why was I not given a chance to present my side of the story?
“One: You never spoke to the detective. Two: You never spoke to my accusers. Three: You never spoke to me, the accused. However, you proceeded in concert with the bishop and the promoter of justice to censure me. You put blind faith in the detective’s report…and accepted it as infallible…
“Bill,” the former Vicar General interrrupted, “we were acting in good faith.”
At that point I almost lost it…”How hypocritical!! You then published in the diocesan newspaper, over the entire front page, the whole sordid story which ruined my health, my reputation, my life. I suffered the humilation of being a censured priest for five long years until finally, through the conclusion of an ecclesiastical trial, I was unanimously declared innocent.”…
I asked the former Vicar General how he could justify his behavior.
Once again, he had no answer, except to meekly offer, “Sorry, Bill, we made a mistake.”
“I forgive you,” I said evenly, “but I will never forget. My life is irreversibly tarnished. I suffer from chronic flashbacks and panic attacks.
“So that my suffering will not be in vain, I want you to go public with an apology to the Press – and further, that you write to the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C., Archbishop Sambi, and demand that he make a concerted effort to revise that weapon of mass destruction of our priests – that instrument known as the Dallas Charter.
The former Vicar General promised me he would do his best. I must give him credit for his calm demeanor and humility. I got the impression he was not just paying me lip service; and that he would indeed at least make the effort to correct the wrong that he had done. He not only acted like he knew he was guilty; he accepted the blame, which made me think deep down, he was doing what Jesus would want him to do.
June 11 2018 – “Hope Springs Eternal In The Priestly Breast” – ‘A Research Study on Procedural Justice for Priests’ by James Valladares [iUniverse 2012]
“The Caiaphas Principle” – ‘Bishops, who are supposed to be fathers, brothers, and friends to their priests, have instead become mere managers with institutional damage control as their top priority’ (Foreword p. xiv – Rev Michael P. Orsi)
June 11 2018 – From The Archives [July 9 2010 – “False Accusations” by John Landry http://www.catholicity.com – Quoted in “Hope Springs Internal in the Priestly Breast – A Research Study on Procedural Justice for Priests” by Fr. James Valladares – Page 200 – “Where is Justice for Falsely Accused Priests?”]
Safeguarding discussion at the York Synod sessions
From Mr David Lamming
Sir, — You kindly published my letter (5 January) arguing for time to be found at the February sessions of the General Synod for a debate when the issues arising from the Carlile review (of the Church of England’s handling of the claim by “Carol” that she had been sexually abused as a child by the late Bishop George Bell) could be properly discussed.
In the event, there was no such debate, and discussion of the Carlile report was effectively inhibited by the announcement by the National Safeguarding Team (NST) on 31 January (just a week before the Synod met) that “fresh information” had been received concerning Bishop Bell and that a Core Group was “now in the process of commissioning an independent investigation in respect of these latest developments”.
The NST statement also said that Sussex police had been informed and that “we will work collaboratively with them.”
It was then reported (News, 27 April) that Sussex Police had closed the case, having assessed the information and carried out a “proportionate investigation”, and that this had been reported to the NST some time in March — i.e. within two months of the NST referral on 30 January.
Although there was no debate on the Carlile report in February, it was the subject of questions. In one supplementary question, Martin Sewell asked Bishop Peter Hancock (the lead bishop on safeguarding): “After Carlile, shall we see better transparency of process from start to finish in respect of the new Bell allegations than we did with the first?”
Bishop Hancock’s answer was an unqualified “yes”. Five months after the 31 Januarystatement, however, nothing has been published about the “Bell 2” investigation, who is conducting it, and the timescale set for it to be concluded. An email I sent to the National Safeguarding Adviser, Graham Tilby, on 8 March(by way of follow-up to an email from him on 5 March, in response to questions I put to Bishop Hancock at the Synod) remains unanswered, despite two reminders.
The timetable for the forthcoming Synod meeting in York was published last week. As in February, there is to be a presentation on safeguarding (with questions), on the Saturday morning, 7 July, but this time to be followed by a “Debate on a motion on Safeguarding from the House of Bishops”. The terms of that motion have not yet been disclosed.
Unless the “Bell 2” investigation is completed and a report published by 7 July, however, debate at York on the Carlile report and the episcopal statements that accompanied its publication (including the controversial “significant cloud” comment by the Archbishop of Canterbury) will again be inhibited. Perhaps more importantly, Bell’s surviving niece, 94-year-old Barbara Whitley, deserves to know the outcome as soon as possible.
If the Church is to be as transparent as Bishop Hancock indicated, details of the “Bell 2” investigation process should be published now, with a clear indication of when this will be completed. If not, or perhaps in any event, there are likely to be more difficult questions for the NST at York.
DAVID LAMMING (Synod member for St Edmundsbury & Ipswich)
From Mr Martin Sewell
Sir, — The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has begun with tributes to 72 of the victims, which are being heard by those who will eventually reach decisions about what needs to be done to ensure that such a disaster never happens again.
In contrast, most members of the General Synod will never have personally met or heard the testimony of survivors of abuse within the Church. We have read quotations in the Stones Not Bread booklet, and February’s presentation contained some recorded testimony from two years previous, though much has changed in the mean time.
In my experience, such presentations do not do justice to the ordinary/extraordinary, brave, funny, intelligent, and compassionate individuals whom I have come to meet and know during my engagement with the issue. I would like all members of the Synod to have the opportunity to meet and engage with those who have broken through our institutional indifference, through commitment and pure strength of character.
This should not be at their expense. We should be inviting them to attend, not as passive observers, but as honoured guests, with the purpose of getting to know better those who are helping us to put right the historic wrongs that we inflicted on them. I am sure that funding some to join us on the campus at the University of York in July would be money well spent.
SATURDAY 7 JULY 2018 9.00 a.m – 12.40 pm MORNING WORSHIP 6 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS The Archbishop of York will give a Presidential Address SAFEGUARDING (GS 2092) 7 Presentation under SO 107. Note: The Business Committee has determined under SO 107(3) that this presentation should include an opportunity for questions. 8 The Bishop of Bath and Wells to move: That this Synod, recognising that safeguarding is at the heart of Christian mission and the urgent need for the Church of England to continue to become a safer place for all and a refuge for those who suffer abuse in any context: (a) endorse the priorities for action outlined in the report (GS 2092); and (b) call on the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to ensure that the plan of action is implemented as a matter of priority.
SPECIAL AGENDA III – PRIVATE MEMBERS’ MOTIONS BISHOP GEORGE BELL AND THE CARLILE REPORT Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) to move: That this Synod, (a) express its appreciation to Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC for his thorough review of the way the Church of England dealt with a complaint of sexual abuse made by a woman known as ‘Carol’ against the late Bishop George Bell; (b) acknowledge and accept unreservedly the serious criticisms of the investigation carried out by the Core Group charged with investigating the complaint, as set out by Lord Carlile in his conclusions at paragraph 254 of his report, dated 15 December 2017 [GS Misc 1173]; (c) note that the effect of those conclusions can only be that the process was so fundamentally flawed that any finding, explicit or implicit, that Bishop Bell committed the alleged acts of sexual abuse, cannot stand or be sustained, regardless of the fact that determining the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell was excluded from Lord Carlile’s terms of reference; (d) accordingly, acknowledge that Bishop Bell’s reputation as one of the great bishops of the Church of England is restored untarnished; (e) regret the distress caused both to Bishop Bell’s surviving relative and to ‘Carol’ by the Core Group’s inadequate investigation; (f) regret that the statement made by the Church of England on 22 October 2015, announcing the settlement of a civil claim by Carol against the current Bishop of Chichester was, as is now revealed to be the case by Lord Carlile, both inaccurate (in stating that the settlement followed a “thorough” pre-litigation process) and disingenuous (in stating that none of the expert independent reports commissioned “found any reason to doubt the veracity of [Carol’s] claim”); (g) regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his public statement on 15 December 2017 following the publication of the Carlile report, (i) failed to acknowledge expressly that the process was so fundamentally flawed; (ii) failed to accept Lord Carlile’s recommendation that where, as in the case of Bishop Bell, a settlement is made without admission of liability, it should generally be with a confidentiality provision, and (iii ? Ed) (iv) stated that “a significant cloud” was left over Bishop Bell’s name, when the only basis for such statement was a single uncorroborated allegation, first made over 40 years after the alleged events, when Professor Anthony Maden (the expert instructed by the Core Group) had said that “memory is not reliable over such long periods of time” and that “after so many years there is no way of determining without reference to corroborating information whether or not recall is accurate”; (h) accordingly, call upon the Archbishop to retract that particular statement; and (i) call upon those institutions that responded to the Church’s statement of 22 October 2015 by writing Bishop Bell out of their history, to reinstate Bell’s name and restore him to their historical narrative. 26 signatures February 2018
‘Guilty until proven innocent’ [Source: “Hope Springs Eternal In The Priestly Breast” – ‘A Research Study for Procedural Justice for Priests’ by Fr. James Valladares – iUniverse 2012 – Page 160-161]
In a very interesting article entitled “Guilty until Proven Innocent,” Fr. Austen Ivereigh, MA, DPhil, of Heythorpe College, Oxford, informs us of the Cumberlege Commission review of the Church’s child-protection policy [Nolan Report – Ed]. And this is his initial observation: “While treatment of the abused has improved, disturbing evidence has emerged that priests who have been accused and not charged are left in limbo, suspicion still hanging over them” [Ref 345: Austin Ivereigh, ‘Justice for Priests and Deacons’, Vol. 1, no. 1 – September 2007, 10].
Ever since a dithering Caiaphas [See ‘The Caiaphas Principle’ – June 11 2018 – Ed] succumbed to public pressure and maintained that the destruction of an innocent man was justified to save a nation, the law of Christian countries has consistently upheld the presumption of innocence, and the need for definite and incontrovertible evidence, before an accused can be convicted . In the Church’s legal tradition, this is known as ‘favor rei’ – the accused enjoys the benefit of the law and is deemed innocent until he is proved guilty. Said Pope John Paul II in 1979: “Due process and individual rights should never be sacrificed for the sake of the social order”.
In the wake of the explosive revelations of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy in 2002 (exposed by the Boston Globe and highlighted in the ‘Spotlight’ film – Ed), the bishops of the world reacted with drastic measures to repair the scandal and restore justice through penal sanctions. Quasi-judicial bodies were established and duly authorised to implement their policies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, there was COPCA (the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults), the child-protection agency of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, set up at Lord Nolan’s report on abuse in 2001.
Fr. Austen Ivereigh frankly confesses that Nolan was well aware of the possibility of false or malicious allegations, and the haunting danger of reputations being irreparably destroyed. Yet, continues Fr. Ivereigh, “COPCA’s policies have ridden roughshod over these qualms. ‘Nolan would be turning in his grave,’ more than one canonist has told me.” So there is a pressing need for a level playing field [Ref 348: Paul Bruxby, ‘Justice for Priests and Deacons’, Vol 1, no. 1 – September 2007, 10].
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, the bishop in charge of COPCA, candidly acknowledged last year that an accused priest is unlikely ever to be reinstated. Of the 40 clergy in England and Wales who had been accused by 2005, only two had been restored to ministry; four were dismissed. Of the 41 reports made in 2006, 24 resulted in no further action by the police, while 14 are still being investigated. Ivereigh adds, “And what is the fate of those whose cases have been dropped by the police? Many of them live in limbo, their reputations and vocations cast to the wolves. All too often, they leave the priesthood”. ‘So a priest is guilty until proven innocent – and this is the deplorable stance of the very ones who brazenly preach about justice in season and out of season’.
Fr. Paul Bruxby, the Brentwood canonist who defends accused priests, informs us that most of the 20 priests he is defending have been assessed as ‘low risk’; yet, five or six years later, they are unable to return to their parishes. “They feel shunned by their bishops and describe themselves as lepers. They feel hopeless, and sometimes imagine committing suicide” [Ref 348: Paul Bruxby, ‘Justice for Priests and Deacons’, Vol. 1, no. 1 – September 2007, 10]
June 15 2018 – “Clergy Suicides in Sussex 1918-2018 – An Investigation by Richard W. Symonds [currently in progress]
June 16 2018 – RWS Note
May I bring to your attention what I believe to be the most dangerously ignored aspect of child sex abuse allegations – the lack of due process for wrongfully accused clergy.
I believe we are witnessing an abuse of power and privilege in which wrongfully accused clergy are not only given inadequate pastoral support, but also given inadequate protection under canon law and the laws of natural justice.
What can a local vicar do if wrongfully accused of child sexual abuse? Precious little it seems to me. The pastoral support and legal protection is simply inadequate.
In the rush to ensure a child is never sexually abused, another form of abuse has been allowed to surface – the abuse of wrongfully accused clergy by certain factions within the Church hierarchy.
There will be little to no improvements in ‘Safeguarding’ until we raise our voices to say we will not tolerate abuse in any form.
~ Richard W. Symonds
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
“The topic of safeguarding adults from false allegations of abuse is the flip side of safeguarding children from adult abuse. It needs to be acknowledged that both exist and both cause deep suffering”
The present preoccupation with sex crime and victims of crime has given rise to a new type of victim: the falsely accused…I believe that victims of false accusations now deserve more consideration…Various victims of false accusations, of whom the most high profile and outspoken is the well-known BBC radio presenter Paul Gambaccini (& Sir Cliff Richard – Ed) have voiced dismay at the authorities’ willingness to entertain complaints that in the past would have been seen as outlandish, even vexatious…It star witness is an anonymous accuser, whose multiple personalities include ‘Nick’, ‘Carl Survivor’ and ‘Stephen’…It’s time for a much more rigorous and open discussion about why some people…make false accusations. But first I should clarify what is meant by ‘false’. The word is ambiguous, covering a spectrum of claims that are simply unfounded, to those that are mistakes, to those that are dishonest.
In their 2012 paper, Jessica Engle and William O’Donoghue proposed 11 pathways to false accusations of sexual assault. These are: 1. Lying 2. Implied consent 3. False memories 4. Intoxication 5. Antisocial personality disorder 6. Borderline personality disorder 7. Histrionic personality disorder 8. Delirium 9. Psychotic disorder 10. Disassociation 11. Intellectual disability.
Crucially, they omit ‘the honest but mistaken person’: Pathway 12. A classic example of this is the rape victim who misidentifies her assailant in an identity parade (or the elderly ‘Carol’ who mistakenly identified Bishop Bell when she was very young? – Ed)…
People can also develop false memories of abuse, for example as a result of contact with therapists, pressure from peers or from significant others (such as partners or parents), or even from reading stories in the media. There is no space here to discuss this important topic in detail.
It is a sad fact that those with mental disorders or learning disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to sexual assault. But it should also be recognised that third parties – such as care providers – may stand to benefit from a false allegation.
That mental problems could potentially lead to false allegations is rarely discussed. But it is a very serious issue, which would benefit from wider debate. Those with personality disorders may be motivated to make false accusations out of motives of revenge, ot attention-seeking. Some may misperceive non-sexual events as sexual. Those who are delusional may also make false accusations of sexual misconduct….”Testifiers do not inevitably speak the truth, as virtuous as they may perceive themselves to be” [Professor Janice Haaken]
Since the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse moved the focus of its hearings away from the Church of England until returning later in July, campaigners for the reform of Safeguarding and victim care within the CofE have had to be patient. On neither of the twin fronts of challenge has there been significant opportunities to bring the issues back into public debate.
A second allegation against the late Bishop George Bell necessarily required those campaigners wishing to restore his reputation to allow proper procedures to take their course, and the broader movement within the church to improve both our safeguarding structures and engagement with victims has had to await opportunities offered at the July Synod. That is not to say that all is well, or nothing has been happening; it is simply that choosing one’s timing is a often a necessary part of making progress.
On the Bell issue, Sussex Police predictably declined to engage further with an investigation after what they carefully described as a ‘proportionate’ inquiry. They plainly have learnt lessons, but not so the Church of England. At Synod Question Time in February I asked a supplementary question of Bishop Peter Hancock. the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. in the following terms: “After Carlile, shall we see better transparency of process from start to finish in respect of the new Bell allegations than we did with the first?” I received the reassuringly unqualified answer, “Yes”.
Unfortunately for us all, the writ of the Lead Bishop does not run very effectively within the Established Church, and we saw the old waysreassert the traditional destructive gravitational pull, akin to that of a black hole. We were not told who constituted the new Core Group, nor its terms of reference, nor its time frame. And when the Church addressed the Carlile recommendation that someone ought to be appointed to represent the deceased Bishop’s interests, the church immediately appointed one of its own to that role without consultation with the Bishop’s last living relative.
I understand that following robust representations, not insignificantly supported by Lord Carlile himself, a compromise solution was cobbled together so that the Bell Group currently has some confidence in the case against Bell being at least competently challenged, and we do now know the name of the lead investigator. Nevertheless we are still some way off the sunny uplands of ‘Transparency and Accountability’ to which we do occasionally pay lip service in our corporate documentation.
On the other side of the coin, listening to victims and developing serious debate about remedying our deficiencies, things are proving less than satisfactory.
The agenda for the July Synod has just been published and it indicates that the representatives of the Houses of Clergy and Laity will be given a short presentation on safeguarding developments including time for a few Questions and Answers. We had a similar structure in February. There was no significant challenge or dialogue. There was no debate on the Carlile Report or the Elliott Review then, neither will there be one now. At the February presentation, we heard testimony from four of our victims, but these remarks were pre-recorded – I understand some two years beforehand. Much has happened since.
So in two Synod sessions it appears that we lack the collective courage to invite our victims and critics to speak to us live and unmediated by ‘the powers that be’. Of course that would have been risky and uncomfortable, but a body that is serious about owning its failures and reaching solutions through hard engagement with the facts might have had the integrity to take such a chance.
The motion with which we are presented is anodyne:
That this Synod, recognising that safeguarding is at the heart of Christian mission and the urgent need for the Church of England to continue to become a safer place for all and a refuge for those who suffer abuse in any context:
a) endorse the priorities for action outlined in the report (GS 2092); and
b) call on the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to ensure that the plan of action is implemented as a matter of priority
As of now, we do not have the document GS2092, and will have but two weeks to consider it and liaise with outside interested parties. Even if this is a well drawn document, it is simply not a good practice for the Bishops and advisors – who have, after all, been in charge throughout the developing safeguarding debacle – to devise a rescue plan without having first invited the representatives of the wider church to have made their contributions. General Synod is being treated as an optional extra; the last to know and with no opportunity to contribute or amend.
It seems to me that the Bishops are inviting us to fast-track the acclamation having neglected to include members of General Synod in any meaningful way in the discussion of the problems, the identification of structural weaknesses which created the problems, and without any opportunity for us to have called them to account for their stewardship to date.
We heard from Bishop Peter Hancock in February that devising a suitable motion is difficult when there are so many strands to a problem, and one can have some sympathy with that view. However, if it is such a multi-layered conundrum, is that not all the more reason for taking a little time, consulting more widely, publishing proposals in good time, and, above all, giving a chance for the victim community to contribute?
Safeguarding problems are currently within the church’s power to fix if we concentrate and put our hearts, minds and resources into it. Had this Synod been substantially devoted to grappling with this solvable problem, we might have made good progress, not least in educating and engaging those whose record of taking responsibility for putting things right is certainly sub-optimal. We appear to have given up that chance: there will be a fringe meeting run by the National Safeguarding Team, which is deeply distrusted by the victims, but that will hardly affect how the matter is conducted on the floor of Synod where the votes are cast.
To the victims it looks like General Synod is being managed to enable the Church of England to present to IICSA an image of sincere engagement, yet by doing it in this present manner it is both disrespectful and bad practice not to have given its members the opportunity to have aired their thoughts and concerns before presenting ‘the solution’.
But what else will we be doing in York?
Apparently we have to discuss sexuality again, even though the Bishops have now told us that no decisions can be made until their teaching document is ready in 2020. So we will have ‘group work’ predicated on a document we don’t and won’t have, and will continue a conversation in which, as far as I can tell, everyone’s mind is already made up, and we evidently think this a more productive use of our time than addressing a problem without much theological or ‘party-line’ controversy which might actually prove both productive and unifying if we gave extended time to it.
We are also to discuss climate change and divesting from energy companies. Although we will hear the case against those who provide our energy needs, we will not be inviting any companies to address us with a balancing case.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is currently no sufficient alternative to the carbon economy by which 7.6 billion of us are kept from poverty, yet we in the Church of England have apparently run out of patience with the energy companies for not having yet solved an immensely complex problem. So, while applauding ourselves for “continuing to become” a safer church, we will not give them credit for “continuing to become” greener, even though they are all engaged in the necessary complex and expensive research to reposition themselves.
Ray Galloway is the Director of Blue Light Investigations and Training Limited. He retired from North Yorkshire Police in 2013 as a Detective Superintendent having previously worked for Merseyside Police, a total of 30 years in a range of investigative roles.
Ray Galloway is a fully accredited Senior Investigating Officer with a breadth of experience in the investigation of homicide, organised crime and covert operations. He is also a trained and experienced Hostage Negotiator…
Ray’s roles in the police service include those of Head of Major Crime, Head of Serious and Organised Crime and Director of Intelligence. He was the Kidnap and Extortion Champion for North Yorkshire and a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) national working group that identified best practice relating to the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences.
We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October 2015 statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the original story.
The George Bell Group, together with admirers of the Bishop worldwide, heartily welcomes Lord Carlile’s independent review of the process which led to the statement by the Church in October 2015 painting Bell as a paedophile. Lord Carlile deserves congratulations for producing such a comprehensive and authoritative report.
In his response to the report Archbishop Welby has chosen to emphasise that Lord Carlile has not sought to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the alleged assaults. That is not surprising, it was no part of Lord Carlile’s terms of reference from the Church to say whether Bell was innocent or not. But his devastating criticism of the Church’s process shows that Archbishop Welby was wrong in 2016 when he described the investigation as ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse as clearly correct on the balance of probabilities. A close reading of the detail of Lord Carlile’s report can only lead to the conclusion that he has thoroughly vindicated the reputation of man revered for his integrity across the Christian Church.
It is no wonder that the Church’s investigation has been compared by Lord Carlile to the discredited police investigation of Lords Brittan and Bramall. The Safeguarding Group appear to have gone about their work looking for reason to doubt the veracity of the complainant. A proper investigation would have looked to see whether they could find independent corroboration of the complaint. That Bishop Bell had been dead for over half a century did not justify depriving him of the presumption of innocence or of due process. As Sir Richard Henriques pointed out in his report for the Metropolitan Police on historic sex offence investigations, the policy of believing victims shifts the burden of proof onto the suspect and ‘has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale’.
The misconceived approach of the Safeguarding Group, described by Lord Carlile as neither fair nor equitable, was aggravated by the failure of their investigation to reveal easily discoverable evidence:
They failed to speak to Bell’s domestic chaplain during two of the four relevant years, who lived with the Bells in the Bishop’s Palace. He could have explained to them precisely why the complainant’s account did not add up; nor did they speak to Bell’s biographer, the historian Professor Andrew Chandler, who has studied the layout of the Bishop’s Palace at the relevant time; they did not interview former choristers of Chichester Cathedral who might be thought to have been aware if Bell had been a paedophile. Eleven of them wrote to The Times complaining that the Bishop had been smeared to suit a public relations need.
Lord Carlile’s report has now left the Church with many searching questions, including how best to remedy the many defects in the current Practice Guidance so as to ensure that such an injustice can never recur. But most important of all, the time has now come for the Church of England to redress, without hesitation or qualification, the immense damage done to the fine reputation of a man who served it for so long and with such courage and devotion. Those institutions which summarily removed Bell’s name from their titles should now fully restore it.
Archbishop Welby, who has said in his response to Lord Carlile that he realises that ‘a significant cloud’ is left over Bell’s name, should join with the Bishop of Chichester in removing that cloud. The Church deprived the Bishop of due process, they should not deprive him of the presumption of innocence. There is not just no fire, there is no smoke. We share Lord Carlile’s disappointment that the Church has rejected the protection of innocence as a clear and general principle.
As Bishop Bell said in a broadcast to the German people in December 1945, now engraved in the Bell Chapel at Christ Church in Oxford: ‘Without repentance and without forgiveness, there can be no regeneration.’
Ray Galloway is the Director of Blue Light Investigations and Training Limited. He retired from North Yorkshire Police in 2013 as a Detective Superintendent having previously worked for Merseyside Police, a total of 30 years in a range of investigative roles.
Ray Galloway is a fully accredited Senior Investigating Officer with a breadth of experience in the investigation of homicide, organised crime and covert operations. He is also a trained and experienced Hostage Negotiator…
Ray’s roles in the police service include those of Head of Major Crime, Head of Serious and Organised Crime and Director of Intelligence. He was the Kidnap and Extortion Champion for North Yorkshire and a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) national working group that identified best practice relating to the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences.
My starting point was a social sciences degree with honours in social work from the University of Cape Town. I recognised that the injustice of the legal framework of apartheid South Africa was of more interest to me than working on the frontline in social work. It was about having a vehicle to try and change things at source rather than deal with the symptoms of unjust and immoral law. I converted to law.
Personal circumstances brought me to England soon after. I did the London University external LLB (the UK did not recognise my South African degree). It was so comprehensive, covering everything from constitutional law to jurisprudence, and forced me to do subjects I had no interest in (like company law). The LPC which followed gave me the basic skills I needed in practice, and my training contract built on that.
The hardest challenge I’ve faced as a lawyer is finding a way through the post-Jackson costs reforms, holding on to making my niche practice as a child abuse lawyer sustainable.
Memorable highlights include JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938. The Court of Appeal held that a bishop could be held liable for wrongdoings (sexual abuse) by priests in his diocese. It was a landmark case with potentially wide-reaching consequences extending to other organisations where quasi-employees commit wrongdoings for which their ‘employers’ can now be held liable.
Another is ABB & Ors v Milton Keynes Council [2011] EWHC 2745 (QB). The local authority was held liable for the shortcomings of social work provided in the early 1990s to a family whose children suffered sexual abuse by their father for many years. My clients were made the highest ever awards of damages in such a case in the UK.
All my clients are survivors of abuse, usually by someone in authority. The betrayal of trust they have experienced sometimes carries through into the solicitor-client relationship, which requires the highest level of client care possible.
My least favourite law is the Limitation Act 1980 which imposes a time limit on ‘historic’ abuse claims, which is the claimant’s 21st birthday. The nature of sexual abuse is such that it can take a person years to speak about their abuse, for reasons of shame, fear and simply because they have been so emotionally manipulated by their abuser. It is not uncommon for survivors to wait until their abuser is dead, by which time a civil action is almost impossible. This time limit rule does not apply in the criminal law (defendants can be prosecuted for sexual offences decades after the alleged events) so why can’t the civil law be consistent with this?
Survivors of abuse have remedies available to them which they did not have when I first started doing this work 15 years ago. In practice, however, their ability to access justice has been eroded by massive cuts to the legal aid budget and extortionate court fees. So funding their claims is becoming harder and harder.
The Church of England ‘botched’ its investigation into alleged cases of abuse…”
“It seems beyond outrageous the Church of England hierarchy can dictate, control and manipulate an agenda in such a way that the Bishop Bell issue – and others like it – can be kept off the agenda”
The Church of England has today published a report into its handling of the 2007-2009 Past Cases Review [PCR]. The full text of the report can be downloaded from here.
There is a press release: Report into handling of Past Cases Review which explains the background. Sir Roger Singleton authored the report and chaired the independent scrutiny team.
…In November 2015, in his report to the Archbishops’ Council, the newly appointed National Safeguarding Adviser noted ‘growing recognition of shortcomings of PCR’; inconsistencies in the application of the House of Bishops Protocol designed to bring consistency and independence to the process, cases of abuse coming to light that should have been identified in the PCR and survivors not being engaged in the process.
Following an initial screening process by the National Safeguarding Team, Sir Roger Singleton was asked to independently review the adequacy of the Past Cases Review and makes recommendations to the Church of England.
The report sets out the findings of this independent scrutiny and makes nine recommendations. These have been accepted by both the Archbishops’ Council and House of Bishops, and action is now being taken to address both the shortcomings of the original PCR and to instigate a further review known cases and new appointments made since 2007.
Today’s report will be sent to the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to which Sir Roger Singleton gave evidence during the Chichester Case Study public hearing in March of this year…
The BBC had a report about this earlier, Church of England ‘s 2010 abuse inquiry was ‘flawed’ and ‘failed‘, which currently notes that the report is not due to be published until next month. There were items on the Radio 4 Today programme about this too, including an interview with Sir Roger Singleton.
…The PCR looked at more than 40,000 case files relating to allegations of abuse dating as far back as the 1950s and concluded that just 13 cases of alleged child sexual abuse needed formal action.
After survivors complained that the report was inadequate, Sir Roger was commissioned to carry out an independent review of how it was conducted.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that it was “botched in three ways”.
“The survey wasn’t completely comprehensive,” he said. “It didn’t include some cathedrals, it didn’t include employees working with children in some parishes.
“The attempts really to make the survey absolutely complete were flawed.
“In the public statement that it issued reporting on the review, (the Church) rather failed to give a comprehensive picture of the concerns that existed.
“It narrowed down the definitions of who had actually been responsible for abuse by limiting it to just new cases and cases where the Church took formal action. This had the impact of reducing the numbers from probably nearer 100 to just two which appeared in the public statements.”
Asked whether he found that Church officials were concerned to avoid reputational damage, Sir Roger said: “I think that is one of the factors that led those who prepared the press statement to emphasise the positive points for the Church and rather to downplay the negative aspects.”
He said it appeared “extraordinary” that some survivors were denied the chance to give evidence.
“There is no doubt that some victims and survivors came forward and offered to meet with the reviewers carrying out this work and that offer was refused,” he said.
Comments
“Case law”, as I read it (but I might be wrong), seems to define the clergy – and bishops – as “quasi-employees”
“JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938. The Court of Appeal held that a bishop could be held liable for wrongdoings (sexual abuse) by priests in his diocese. It was a landmark case with potentially wide-reaching consequences extending to other organisations where quasi-employees commit wrongdoings for which their ‘employers’ can now be held liable”
What is deeply disturbing in the Bishop Bell case is that an Archbishop – ++Welby – can say anything with immunity and impunity, and therefore puts himself above the law. His libellous “significant cloud” comment is a case in point.
St Cuthman’s School was established at Wispers in 1956 or 1957,[6] when the Wispers estate was bought by West Sussex County Council who ran a mixed-sex boarding school there for children aged from 7 to 16 with special needs.[5][7] During its life it was known both as St Cuthman’s Special School (i.e. in 1968 it is referred to by this name in official documents)[6] and as St Cuthman’s School. It closed on 31 August 2004, with 54 pupils on the roster.[8]
“Desmond Browne QC is dealing with ‘Bell 2’. It is not without complications and we need to be patient. The Singleton intervention is justified, and shows again the chaotic way alleged and real sexual abuse has been dealt with”
“General Synod, meeting next month, must decide where to take the next stage of Safeguarding. Whitewash, cover-up even outright lying will no longer do. The Synod must oversee not only good practice but also justice…”
~ Stephen Parsons
”Justice for those sexually abused as children. Justice for those wrongfully accused as adults”
Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop said: “These criticisms have been taken very seriously and acted upon and the House of Bishops have offered full support to implementing the recommendations in the report and any subsequent actions. We are committed to making sure that any known individuals who have not been dealt with appropriately in the past are assessed…”
COMMENT ON PAST CASES REVIEW AND SINGLETON REPORT – 22nd June 2018
The past cases review (PCR) published in 2010 was announced with the following declaration in the church press release “We firmly believe that any concerns about a member of clergy or other office holder’s suitability to work with children have now been thoroughly examined in the light of current best practice by independent reviewers”
Contrast this with just one submission from one Diocese in which 390 personnel files were reviewed and 76 were found to have had no checks at all. 114 PTO files reviewed 12 had no checks at all. Of the 390 files reviewed and 24 needed further investigation. 1 person was ordained despite having a conviction for indecent assault; 1 person’s file had been taken by the Metropolitan police Paedophile squad. In another, “nasty” pornography discovered but no action taken. This information does not square with the quote above in bold. To our knowledge none of these cases were followed up, investigated further or reported to the police.
The true story is of vast cover up and avoidance of responsibility on an industrial scale.
The church set out in its review criteria to minimise any damage which could result from opening up the books. The criteria given to reviewers were that they should include (1) The number of files reviewed (2) The numbers referred to statutory authorities (3) The number dealt with formally internally. There seems to have been no concern that these three criteria ignored more detailed but still important safçeguarding concerns such as cases where clergy had been arrested without being internally disciplined, retired clergy who still pose a risk, clergy against whom no action has been taken despite allegations against them, clergy with no CRB checks. Parish employees and volunteers were ignored. Non-diocesan organisations such as Cathedrals and monastic Orders were excluded
The question has to be asked what has happened to all these cases which remained very much live but which were ignored and swept under Rowan William’s bulging carpet ?
In the closing weeks of the PCR while the final results were being tallied – there was an extraordinary process in which Archbishop’s Council and senior figures in both Lambeth Palace and Church House were inviting dioceses to whittle their numbers down to zero. So for example in their original return, Chichester returned over 50 cases – but were asked to reduce this to zero on confused criteria that seemed almost to have been invented in closing stages. Chichester’s final return was in fact 3. 3 out of 13. Another diocese returned nearly 40 but this was reduced to zero. This seems to have been the pattern. We now know that Lincoln diocese has sent many files to the police, perhaps as many as 50 – but only within the last two years. Presumably many if not all these files should have led to arrest and potential prosecution at the time of the PCR.
In short the PCR was a whitewash. It was never going to be anything other. It left vast numbers of clergy un-investigated, unreported to the police, free to continue abusing and effectively protected by the church. This amounts at best to misfeasance in public office and at worst perverting the course of justice and harbouring criminals. Church officials’ behaviour should be investigated by the police.
Roger Singleton in his evidence to the IICSA IN March 2018 was critical of the Past Cases Review, its methodology and how it created a false rosy picture about safeguarding problems in the church. He made the point that files are very poorly kept and the press statement on the Past cases review was “under-evidenced”.
Yet we heard this morning on BBC R4 Today Roger Singleton now defending the past cases review by denying there was any cover up by the church. How can we have any faith in the review chaired by him when he has been so soft on the ludicrous charade that was the PCR? His review of the PCR has now been published. It is another attempt to keep things “in house” and persuade IICSA that “they can handle it”. Mr Singleton and his reviewers don’t get it and have been far too lenient with the church.
Mr Singleton’s report amounts to another attempted cover up. He uses loose words, and fails to call the PCR what it was – organised massage of the figures which hid abuse and allowed perpetrators and the good name of the church to be protected. He misses the point which is that the PCR was largely a statistical exercise unconcerned with rigorous assessment of church responses. There was no assessment of whether the church response in each case was appropriate (ie whether the alleged perpetrator had been treated too leniently or whether a case was reported to the police).
The CofE shoehorned a massive problem into an eggcup and hoped to get away with presenting this as a misrepresentation of reality. It has taken 8 years for this story to come to light as Phil Johnson and other members of MACSAS tried to get both the Church and the media to attend to this at the time. And we are seeing now today a whitewash of a whitewash. The church has vowed to introduce limited independent oversight but their idea of independence (for example their use of Roger Singleton) is not our idea of independence.
We need a bold minister to step in and appoint an truly independent reviewer to do a thorough examination of the cases and make referrals to the police of abusers and those responsible for covering up for them – and the church should pay for it.
A new report on sexual abuse ignores the voices of survivors and appears averse to the reality of past mistakes
‘Nearly 50 lost cases were sent in for consideration from the diocese of Chichester alone.’ Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
It’s not the scandal that does the damage, they say, but the cover-up. What happens if the cover-up is itself covered up? This is the question that the Church of England must face with the publication of an extraordinary report into the occasion, eight years ago, when it gave itself a pass mark on the issue of sexual abuse. A report then published, prompted by scandals earlier in the decade, was meant to measure the extent of historic sexual abuse known to the church. Instead it produced the frankly incredible claim that there were only 13 cases in 30 years that had not been dealt with properly.
Now that Peter Ball, a former bishop of Lewes and of Gloucester, has been convicted of indecent assault and been sentenced to 32 months in jail, while Lord Carey, who as archbishop of Canterbury attempted to rehabilitate him and suppressed some of the evidence against him, has been barred from working as a priest in retirement, it is time to review the church’s earlier self-examination. The Ball case is only the most visible of what is now obviously a considerable load of past cases. The archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, along with two of his bishops, has been formally reported to the police for alleged inaction over the case of one of their priests who was as a young man raped by an older priest.
So it is disappointing to see that the church has managed to produce another report that appears to argue that the original clean bill of health was the product of perfectly innocent misunderstandings. Sir Roger Singleton is a distinguished social worker and at the same time a charter member of the great and good. So his report is full of damning evidence of incompetence and obstruction within the original review, but it is written in a tone that suggests unflagging zeal hindered only by quite unforeseeable circumstances. It must be read with attention to the rotten steak and not the sizzle.
When the house of bishops first discussed the matter, in 2007, one bishop objected that “the real victims could include those clergy and church officials about whom unfounded allegations had been made”. On the other hand, something would have to be seen to be done: “It was noted … that a failure to proceed might be taken as evidence of a church culture which colluded with child abuse.” Perish the thought. In the event, those parts of the church that wanted to collude continued to do so. Seven bishops sent in no reports whatsoever: none are named in the report, although the church has since named their dioceses. All have now retired.
In keeping with this general aversion to reality, a decision was made early on to examine only files of cases, and not to talk to any survivors, on the grounds that to do so might be traumatic for them. None were asked if they would feel better for being ignored. The files were much easier to deal with, in part because they were haphazardly stored, in some cases in garages, and of varying age and completeness. Some records, says the report, referred merely to “an unfortunate saga” or “past difficulties”. “The state of many files does generate a risk that safeguarding concerns were not recognised as such,” writes Sir Roger in a magnificent understatement.
In the end, despite these hazards, nearly 50 lost cases were sent in for consideration from the diocese of Chichester alone (and there are 43 more dioceses). The compilers of the original report whittled these down to 13 for the whole country. It is difficult to understand how Sir Roger could be confident that there was no massaging of the figures.
This morning a Guardian editorial was entitled : “Anglican cover-up : the Church that didn’t want to know.”
It follows an extraordinary week since my story for the BBC broke the news of how the Church of England mishandled its review into past cases of sexual abuse.
My small team and I had seen emails which seemed to show a reduction of cases of concern, to just 13 across the whole of the Church, nationally, in 2010. Some of the cases not recorded were serious and we now know that that enabled abusers to continue unchecked. During the recording process, files were left unopened, often in garages and sheds and one Diocesan Bishop chose not to engage at all in the process.
Because of our work, the Church was forced into bringing forward Sir Roger Singleton’s report into the Past Cases Review, weeks ahead of schedule. Indeed, just two hours before its release, I had asked the Church for a time-frame and been told the report was still being revised.
Sir Roger himself said that the PCR had been “botched” and there is no doubt that it was “flawed”. But I think one of the most important aspects to all of this is the way in which the Church has responded to it in the past few days.
On Radio 4’s Sunday programme, the lead Bishop for Safeguarding, Peter Hancock, said there had been “no deliberate intention to cover-up, but that has happened.” He went on to say that there had been “over concern to protect the Church’s reputation” and that “priorities were wrong”. Well done, these are very important words, Bishop Peter, but let’s remember that we’re talking about the Church of England here. One of our great National Institutions…like the BBC. And many would argue that the Church has an even greater moral responsibility than other institutions to be a beacon of transparency and openness.
Indeed, last September, Justin Welby criticised the way the BBC handled sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile. He said the BBC had not shown the same integrity over accusations of child abuse that the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches had. But abuse survivors disputed that, took issue with how he categorised the Church’s response, saying they had experienced years of silence, denial and evasion.
Over the last few years and months, I have met and spoken with many survivors and they say that despite words to the contrary, that is still their experience of the Church’s handling of their claims. There is a frustration that words are not followed by actions and that documents such as “Responding Well” actually don’t do what they say on the tin.
So where does the Church go from here?
In his report, Sir Roger wrote of the need for “culture change” in the Church. My experience of meeting people at many different levels within the Church suggest this is true….many want to see real change. But the question survivors ask is : “Is there the will at the top to make that happen? And who is really in charge of the Church?”
Is it Justin Welby or the senior layer of Bishops beneath him? Either way, the structure of the Church needs a serious re-think if trust in the institution is to improve. And the senior layer needs to be held to account and be accountable.
It is interesting to think generally here of the culture of institutions and how mindsets and attitudes can change as individuals rise to the top of their organisation. As their status within the organisation changes, sadly it can be human nature for a sense of superiority to set in, especially when all those around you are behaving deferentially towards you. Everybody I suppose has some sort of ego and those within the Church are no different.
But this can make it difficult to speak truth to power. It is difficult, even as a jourrnalist sometimes, but how much more difficult to try to do that if you are a survivor?
But it is surely not difficult for the Church to now take this opportunity to look properly at itself. To look at its structures, to reach out to survivors, rather than shutting them out and regarding them as a problem. To meet people where they are and to stop being afraid of what true engagement may bring.
After all, it is Petertide, a time of new beginnings for many….so how about also for the Church itself?
Thanks for reading this,
Donna.
June 30 2018 – RWS Notes
It seems beyond outrageous the Church of England hierarchy can dictate, control and manipulate an agenda in such a way that the Bishop Bell issue – and others like it – can be kept off the agenda.
Sir Roger Singleton’s report tells us the Past Cases Review had particularly inadequate responses from seven Dioceses, but more surprisingly there was one Bishop who was particularly un-cooperative to the Church of England’s initial efforts to ‘get to grips’ with the extent of its historic abuse.
Surprisingly that Bishop remains unidentified, adding weight to the accusation of victims the Anglican Church functions as a kind of ‘Living Bishops Protection Society’.
I am mindful in the case of Bishop George Bell, in which the presumption of guilt is looking increasingly unjust, Archbishop Justin Welby nevertheless felt moved to declare his reputation remains blighted, even though the evidence on which that slur is based was declared inadequate by the independent reviewer.
Why should not the reputation of the anonymous, obstructive Bishop – mentioned in the Singleton report – be similarly placed “under a cloud” by a Church that says it is committed to transparency and accountability; or does this only apply to Bishop George Bell ?
GS 2092 GENERAL SYNOD Report by the National Safeguarding Steering Group Summary This report is intended to resource the Synod debate on the motion on Item 8 “Safeguarding” (GS 2092) and provides an overview of the key themes emerging from the first set of hearings on the Anglican Church by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). It identifies priorities for work related to these themes that the National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG) plans to progress on behalf of the House of Bishops and Archbishops’ Council….
Conclusion and Recommendations: “Call on the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council to ensure that the plan of action is implemented as a matter of priority” 81.The Inquiry has said that it will publish a report into the two case studies in its ‘Anglican Church’ investigation in autumn 2018 covering the Chichester case study and Peter Ball case study (the hearing for the latter is due to take place next month). A further hearing in respect of national church responses to safeguarding will be held in 2019. In view of this, it is likely that subject to the decisions of the Business Committee, Synod will receive further up-dates on progress being made in respect of these and other priorities after the Inquiry’s interim report and final reports relating to their investigation into ‘the Anglican Church’ has been published. 82.As we wrote at the start of this report, safeguarding is at the heart of the mission of the Church. The Church has failed in many ways to live out this mission in the past, but our vision for the future is to make the Church a safe place for all and a beacon to the rest of society. We are asking Synod to endorse the action set out and to commend it to the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council. We believe that, with the help and grace that God supplies, that this vision and the associated actions can be achieved.
The Rt. Revd Bishop Peter Hancock, Lead Bishop for Safeguarding For and on behalf of the National Safeguarding Steering Group June 2018 Members of the NSSG Rt Revd Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough Mrs Mary Chapman, Member of the Archbishops’ Council William Featherby QC, Member of the Church Commissioners Rt Revd Jonathan Gibb, Bishop of Huddersfield Revd Daphne Green, Chaplain to the Archbishop of York Dr Jamie Harrison, Member of the Archbishops’ Council Ven Gavin Kirk, Archdeacon of Lincoln Very Revd Stephen Lake, Dean of Gloucester Revd Malcolm Macnaughton, Chief of Staff to the Archbishop of York Ruth Marlow, Chief Executive, Diocese of Coventry Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London Rt Revd Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester Rt Revd Mark Sowerby, Bishop of Horsham (Vice-Chair) Ven Mark Steadman, Archdeacon of Stow, Diocese of Lincoln Rt Revd Tim Thornton, Bishop at Lambeth
“Following on the Symonds comment about the Scolding reference to Sewell…. Does the Church of England _never_ require any complainant or plaintiff to maintain confidentiality, as a condition of the Church of England making a payment to settle a litigation of any kind? Or does the Church of England insist, at the same time, on confidentiality in some types of cases, and on very public “clouds” in others? Might we wonder whether the Church and its current officials get confidentiality, whereas intended scapegoats do not?”
Are we any further forward in receiving Justice for Bishop George Bell? Surely, it is to be hoped that the significant cloud will be lifted from his name by the time we commemorate the 60th anniversary of his passing on 3rd October 2018
The notice paper contains the answers as well as the questions. The questions and answers will not be read out, but Synod members have the opportunity to ask supplementary questions [See July 6 entry below – Ed – General Synod Questions this evening – Friday – Questions 55-61 ]
Definitely with me in paper form will be the Bible to all this stuff – the Agenda Document.Decoding it is infinitely easier if you also have to hand the ‘Synodipedia’ – otherwise known as GS2091: A Guide to the July 2018 group of Sessions. Between them they tell you what’s on when and why, and give you the all-important GS or GS Misc number that enables you to quarry the paper mountain for the right document. Whether you are a Synod member of not, you can see all the papers electronically on the C of E website here. (Alternatively, you could rely on me to know what’s happening, but I do not claim to tell the whole story. Other …
Saturday morning looks like being quite a set-piece. Archbishop Sentamu will give a Presidential Address. Even bathwellschap, with 12 years on Synod, will not attempt to predict where he will go with that. But he’ll be followed by a formal motion on the Church’s safeguarding progress (or lack of it, depending where you stand). There are enough issues swirling around here to make this quite a difficult morning.
The IICSA inquiry spent three weeks looking at the diocese of Chichester,, which was not a pretty sight. They will spend another week on Bishop Peter Ball at the end of the month, with implications for the dioceses of Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, and more than one Archbishop. I’ve posted extensively on IICSA here.
There is a long-running row about Carlile Report into the way the church handled allegations made about Bishop George Bell: this has exercised several Synod members and media figures. We had twenty questions about it in February, and it hasn’t gone away.
Just issued is Sir Roger Singleton’s independent report into how dioceses managed (or mis-managed) a Review of Past Cases in 2007-8. Seven dioceses are to do the work again – the Church Times has produced this handy map so you can work out which ones they are for yourself.
There was an acerbic Guardian leader about this (“the church that didn’t want to know”), and Bishop Peter Hancock was given a hard time on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme about it – listen to it here.
For bathwellschap’s background on the Ball and Bell cases, go here and scroll down . The Singleton report is here. It’s a long read, but essential for anyone involved in safeguarding or diocesan or episcopal administration.
As Lead Bishop on Safeguarding, Bishop Peter Hancock (disclaimer: my boss until I retired in December) will doubtless touch on all the above, and if he doesn’t, you can bet Synod members will in their questions or speeches. It’s going to be complicated, and will stretch the ‘big tent’ as people with strong views on what has been done badly in the distant past and in the various enquiries press for more action and for justice. UPDATE (Thursday 5 July): Synod member Martin Sewell has posted a characteristically trenchant review of where we are up to on the Archbishop Cranmer blog.
The format is to be a presentation with questions. Victims and survivors of abuse, who are increasingly finding a voice (and, I hope, being listened to) will be part of the presentation. That will be followed by a formal motion endorsing the current plans for safeguarding work.
More change is on the way…
As ever, we have to ask whether – as with so much in the current safeguarding situation – we are looking at events of ten years and more years ago through today’s spectacles. But too much looking back is probably not helpful when the actual report from the National Safeguarding Steering Group (GS 2092 – read it here) is about what we do now and what we do next. It sets out a range of new policies and changes to existing ones, covering (for example) a national clergy register, and new ways of looking at potential ordinands and supervising retired ‘Permission to Officiate’ clergy….
Well, that covers about 1 of the 3½ inches of paperwork. I hope I’ve taking the waiting out of wanting for you, but you can download all the papers here if your interest has been excited . (You don’t need a Dropbox account, there’s an option to download without signing up.)
If all the above is impenetrable to you, then those nice people at the Church Times have produced a handy infographic explaining Synod, They will do proper grown-up objective reporting on paper, and electronically here.
I’ll report, as usual, at the end of each day’s proceedings with my usual unbiased, cheery and selective account of how we’re doing.
I’ll post on twitter @bathwellschap when I put the next post up, or you can automatically be alerted by clicking on the ‘follow’ button – go to the right hand column at the top of this post.
There are official tweets through the day @synod and unofficial, sometime very funny ones @GSMisc. Or you can just follow the #synod tag on Twitter, though it can be a bit episodic.
Sir, — Sir Roger Singleton’s report (News, 29 June) tells us that the Past Cases Review had particularly inadequate responses from seven dioceses, but, more surprisingly, that there was one bishop who was particularly uncooperative with the Church’s initial efforts to get to grips with the extent of its historic abuse.
Surprisingly, that bishop remains unidentified, adding weight to the accusation from victims that the Anglican Church functions as a kind of “Bishop Protection Society”.
Why should not the reputation of the anonymous, obstructive bishop — mentioned in the Singleton report — be placed “under a cloud” by a Church that says it is committed to transparency and accountability; or does this apply only to Bishop George Bell?
RICHARD W. SYMONDS The Bell Society 2 Lychgate Cottages Ifield Street, Ifield Village Crawley, West Sussex RH11 0NN
Mr Stephen Hofmeyr (Guildford) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q55 What national guidance (i) was in place in 2007-2009, (ii) was in place subsequently and (iii) is being proposed (if any) for the conduct of reviews of alleged safeguarding failures?
The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A (i) There was no formal guidance in respect of the conduct of reviews of alleged safeguarding failures during this period. (ii) The first guidance issued on learning lessons from alleged safeguarding failures was incorporated into ‘Managing serious safeguarding situations relating to church officers’ (June 2015), which has now subsequently been revised and strengthened within ‘Responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against church officers’, published in October 2017 (section 9). This can be found on the Church of England website. (iii) A ‘Lessons Learnt case review guidance’ is currently in development and following a consultation exercise and agreement by the National Safeguarding Steering Group will be issued later in 2018.
Mrs Katharine Alldread (Derby) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q56 Given the discrepancies in numbers between the original (‘around 3300’) and corrected (‘around 2600’) answers to my question in February 2018 regarding the number of safeguarding cases and allegations of abuse, please could an explanation be given as to why the National Safeguarding Team finds such difficulty in stating the number of safeguarding concerns/ allegations and the breakdown of the number relating to church officers? The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A Each diocese is asked to collate and complete an annual safeguarding self-assessment. Since February, an NST Associate has been commissioned to analyse the data from 2016 and 2015 and the format for its collation. The analysis of this will be presented to the NSSG on July 12th. The self-assessment for 2017 data is currently with dioceses and as a result of the Associate’s work the guidance has been strengthened and clarified to minimise data quality issues. The return is due by the end of July. Following the report to the NSSG and in the light of evidence given to IICSA, the NST will consider other ways to strengthen both the accuracy and regularity of monitoring and reporting arrangements.
Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q57 At the February Group of Sessions I asked the supplementary question “After Carlile (ie the Report of Lord Carlile’s Independent Review of the Bishop George Bell case) shall we see better transparency of process from start to finish in respect of the new Bell allegations than we did with the first?”. I received the reassuringly unqualified answer “Yes”. Five months later, why are the terms of the second Bell review still unavailable in the public sphere, and can you give us an estimated time for conclusion and an outline progress report on process, not substance?
[The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: No reply yet received – Ed]
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q58 With reference to the answer given by the Bishop of Bath and Wells to my supplementary questions at General Synod in February 2018 regarding the ‘fresh information’ about Bishop George Bell received by the National Safeguarding Team in December 2017 (Q58), and his answer that “the questions are being noted; I’ll make sure you get a reply”, and given (i) that the identity of the independent investigator (Ray Galloway) and the decision-maker (the Rt Worshipful Timothy Briden) have now been revealed in The Spectator magazine, and (ii) 32 that the Bishop answered ‘”yes” to Martin Sewell’s supplementary question, “After Carlile, shall we see better transparency of process from start to finish in respect of the new allegations than we did with the first?”; will you please now inform Synod of (a) the terms of reference for the new investigation and (without revealing any confidential information) what Timothy Briden is to be asked to decide, and (b) the timescale (if any) set for the investigation to be concluded and a report published? The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A Mr Galloway is performing a role analogous to an investigating officer, were this a secular criminal investigation. He will provide a report on the results of his investigation. Consistent with Lord Carlile’s recommendations, the Core Group will not decide whether allegations are made out, i.e. whether they are assessed to have occurred on the balance of probabilities. The Bishop of Chichester has asked Tim Briden to come to an independent judgment. Mr Briden will hear representations from all those with a proper interest. As the body which instructs the investigator, members of the Core Group have a legitimate interest in questions about Mr Galloway’s terms of reference. They will, as soon as practicable, be asked to consider their publication. Given previous criticisms, the Church has put in place a thorough process which allows for a fair and robust decision. I am therefore not able to give a fixed completion date. Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q59 At the July 2017 General Synod group of sessions Martin Sewell asked (Q13), “Given the importance of transparency and accountability in raising public confidence in our safeguarding culture, will the House seek the co-operation of the Business Committee to ensure that members of Synod may extensively evaluate the Church’s responses to [the Gibb and Carlile] reports by no later than February 2018?” The Carlile report had not then been published but, in his reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops, the Bishop of Bath and Wells said that both reports would be considered “at the next full meeting of the House.” The Carlile report was published on 15 December 2017 and issued to General Synod members in January 2018 as paper GS Misc 1173. In February 2018, in answer to a question from the Ven Julie Conalty (Q50), Bishop Hancock said that that the National Safeguarding Steering Group were “working through its consideration of how to give effect to the 33 recommendations of Lord Carlile’s independent review into the case of George Bell” and that “the NSSG will report to the House of Bishops as soon as this process is complete.” In February 2018, the NSSG’s “Response to the George Bell Independent Review Recommendations,” was published on the Safeguarding pages of the Church of England website. However, there is no reference to that document in GS Misc 1192 (Summary of decisions by the House of Bishops and Delegated Committees, dated June 2018) and the only reference to the Carlile report is at paragraph 27 recording that the House of Bishops Standing Committee (HBSC) “considered a number of Safeguarding matters, including the Independent Reviews from Dame Moira Gibb and Lord Carlile QC…” at its meeting on 14 March 2018. Further, there is no reference to the Carlile report, or to the NSSG’s February 2018 paper in response to it, in paper GS 2092. In the light of the above, what is the current status of the paper “National Safeguarding Steering Group Response to the George Bell Independent Review Recommendations”, when will the various ‘responses’ be implemented, and why is there no reference to those responses in paper GS 2092? The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A The response of the National Safeguarding Steering Group to Lord Carlile’s independent review was published in February 2018 [and has been approved by the House of Bishops in accordance with its procedures]. In order to ensure a consistent approach where allegations are made against a posthumous office holder, the NSSG’s response sets out the principles which the National Safeguarding Team currently applies to the investigation and management of such allegations whether or not there is a civil claim. The paper GS 2092 relates to the key themes and priorities identified by the NSSG as a result of evidence given to IICSA to date and is not intended to have in view the matters considered by Lord Carlile.
Mrs Isabel Adcock (Chelmsford) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q60 Given the recent correspondence circulated to members of the Synod by a complainant concerning her dissatisfaction with the Church’s response to her, what steps have been taken by the House of Bishops and the National Safeguarding Team to secure the publication of the Gladwin report regarding Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester and the implementation of its recommendations? The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A The Bishop of Winchester has sent the relevant recommendations of the review to the National Safeguarding Steering Group for consideration as to what actions are necessary to implement learning at a national level. Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q61 The completed report of Sir Roger Singleton on the Past Cases Review was only released shortly before Synod although it was evidently available some weeks beforehand. This joins GS 2092, the Elliott Report, the Carlile report and the terms of the Bell 2 Inquiry as subjects which Synod has not been given adequate time or opportunity to address at an appropriate time. Are these unfortunate timings entirely accidental, or are the early views of the Houses of Clergy and Laity not wanted by the House of Bishops?
The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A Following evidence given to IICSA in March by Sir Roger Singleton, a draft independent report into the adequacy of the Past Cases Review conducted by the Church of England in 2008-09 was presented to the National Safeguarding Steering Group in April 2018. At this point there were two outstanding dioceses upon which the Independent Scrutiny Team (IST) had yet to finalise their views. The findings of the report were agreed by the Archbishops’ Council and House of Bishops in May 2018. The judgement of the IST in respect of the two outstanding dioceses was confirmed to the NST in mid-June and the report published at the earliest possible opportunity on 22 June. The NSSG, supported by the NST, is now working to implement the recommendations of the report and will consider an action plan at its next meeting on 12 July.
July 6 2018 – General Synod Live [Hat-Tip: ‘Thinking Anglicans’]
#synod: The Church has zero tolerance to all forms of abuse of children and vulnerable adults, John Sentamu tells the General Synod # archbishop John
RWS Note – “Zero tolerance” is a piece of US-imported jargon – a lethal ambiguous expression used in the Dallas Declaration by American Roman Catholic Bishops in an attempt to deal with child sexual abuse. Practical policies implemented with “Zero tolerance” proved beyond catastrophic for the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. It is almost certain to be the Church of England experience. “Zero tolerance” breeds a dangerous intolerance, resulting in monstrous injustices, which can spread like an aggressive malignant cancer, not just within the Church but also throughout the wider community” ~ Richard W. Symonds
July 7 2018 – Archbishop Sentamu
In his presidential address, before the presentation, the Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, asked what hope might look like for survivors of abuse. “Answer: ‘We are with you.’ Total solidarity,” he said.
“A willingness to stand in their shoes — which will be very uncomfortable. Justice also demands that alleged abusers are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But they must tell of the truth and nothing but the truth.”
‘In his presidential address, before the presentation, the Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, asked what hope might look like for survivors of abuse. “Answer: ‘We are with you.’ Total solidarity,” he said. “A willingness to stand in their shoes — which will be very uncomfortable. Justice also demands that alleged abusers are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But they must tell of the truth and nothing but the truth.”
Regrettably, the Church Times failed to report Archbishop Sentamu’s “Zero tolerance” remark.
I say regrettable because if they had reported that remark then they might have spotted the danger.
If “Zero tolerance” is applied as a policy, then a culture of ALWAYS believing the accuser will be created, and the accused will almost ALWAYS be disbelieved.
In other words, there will be almost always be a presumption of guilt of clergy accused of sexual abuse – whether alive or dead.
This will mean, almost inevitably, to clergy being wrongfully and falsely accused.
George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, has clearly been wrongfully accused of child abuse, and been a victim of the dark side of a rigid, intolerant “Zero tolerance” culture.
But there have been, and there are, many ‘Bishop Bells’ out there – and there will now be many, many more.
The Clergy Abuse Crisis has posed the greatest threat to the traditional understanding of the Catholic priesthood since the Protestant Reformation. Now, as then, the deadliest attacks are coming from within the Church. In an attempt to ameliorate a system that allowed a small minority of the clergy to violate children and minors and the gross negligence of some bishops who recycled these predators, the American bishops instituted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, in 2002. It is, unfortunately, doing the Church more harm than good.
By adhering to the Charter’s provisions the American hierarchy has unwittingly undermined the Church’s sacramental theology regarding Holy Orders and Her ecclesiology which depends on a priest’s relationship with his bishop. This breakdown has encouraged present day Modernists, who believe that truth is culturally conditioned and that the Faith is based merely on sentimentality, to try to remake the Church according to their own lights. Intra-ecclesial groups like Future Church, Voice of the Faithful (VOTF), and the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) have subsequently formed challenging the hierarchical nature of the Church, Her non-fallible teaching on the male-only priesthood, and the Western tradition of priestly celibacy.
A major factor responsible for a large number of the sex abuse cases, according to the 2011 John J. College of Criminology Report to the bishops, is attributed to the sexual confusion which reigned in society and the Church in the 1960’s and 70’s. The teaching of moral relativism and the acceptance of popular psychological theories over traditional theological principles led to the excess of bad behavior during this period. No doubt bad thinking led to bad actions. The lesson is that orthodoxy is necessary for orthopraxis.
The Dallas Charter was a response to the deep regret felt by the bishops for the perverse crimes that had occurred against minors and a recognition that strong safeguards must be in place protect them. But, the remedies that they enacted were influenced by the secular solutions of lawyers and public relations experts which compromised the Gospel. They do not reflect justice, charity and forgiveness towards priests. Dangerous procedural measures, such as, administrative leave, zero tolerance and a one-size-fits-all policy for accused priests and for punishing malefactors have lent themselves to violations of canonical due process and a mockery of time-tested principles of jurisprudence. This is especially evident when dioceses publish the names of defenseless dead priests as sex abusers on their websites. But, most egregious is the forced laicization imposed on those deemed to be guilty. This action clouds in the popular mind to the permanency of the indelible character of Holy Orders conferred at ordination.
The present state of affairs has caused mistrust and fear in the priest-bishop relationship. The collaboration of a priest with his bishop is vital since he participates in the bishop’s priesthood. Bishops who are supposed to be fathers, brothers and friends to their priests have instead become mere managers with institutional damage control as their top priority. Many priests have dubbed this the Caiaphas Principle. A recent survey in an unpublished dissertation found that most priests don’t believe that they can count on the support of their fellow priests in the event of a false accusation. Presumably, out of fear of retribution from their bishop or from victims advocacy groups. This too is extremely dangerous because priests of the diocese form a presbyterate in union with their bishop. It has devastating pastoral consequences.
“Credible evidence,” the nebulous standard of used by Diocesan Review Boards, has effectively made priests guilty until proven innocent. This has forced priests to shy away from human interactions, especially expressions of pastoral warmth and concern which were the hallmarks of Jesus’ public ministry. Now a fatherly touch may be interpreted as a sexual advance, or an act of kindness toward a young person misconstrued as “grooming.” As one so priest so poignantly stated, “If I meet a woman, I’m having and affair, if I meet a man, I’m gay, and God forbid I’m with a child, I’m an abuser.” In the current climate, any human action of a priest is suspect. Naturally, this has had a devastating toll on the effectiveness of the ordained ministry.
In Hope Springs Eternal in the Priestly Breast, Father James Valladares shows how justice and charity have been violated by some bishops in dealing with accused priests. He examines the pertinent canons that guide the Church’s justice system and finds that these are often ignored or wrongly applied. He provides true cases which highlight the injustice of the process and the agony of priests who have been subjected to the Charter’s draconian mandates.
The Church has incurred tremendous financial losses because of settlements rising from both legitimate and false claims. Her image has been marred by the secular media which has taken advantage of the crisis. However, we often fail to understand how trivial these are in comparison to the damage done to the priesthood by the enactment of the Charter’s policies. This is now the pressing issue that the bishops need to address.
The present scenario reported by Father Valladares is dark. Yet, he has surprisingly chosen a title for his book which speaks of hope. For sure, it is a hope based on Jesus’ words to his disciples, “I will be with you always”. Therefore, far from being pessimistic, Father Valladares presents the facts with confidence that “the truth will set us free.”
For his hard work, born out of love for the priesthood, Fr. Valladares is to be commended.
“Having immersed myself, not totally, in certain General Synod proceedings over the last few days – very much as an outsider – I can’t help but wonder what percentage of what is said, done and promised is moral posturing and virtue signalling” – Richard W. Symonds
“Yesterday’s round-up has attracted some critical below-the-line comment grumbling that I did not say anything about the Bishop Bell issue. I try hard to only report and comment on things I know about or have special interest in. The point of bathwellschap is to explore and explain Synod for those who aren’t there but might be interested. I don’t do campaigning here” – Stephen Lynas – ‘BathWellsChap
“For Stephen Lynas to sniffily dismiss and reduce the Bishop Bell issue to mere “campaigning” is ……. interesting. This critical issue was formally debated on Friday evening and Saturday morning at General Synod” ~ Richard W. Symonds
”… George Bell, the Bishop of Chichester, now posthumoussly libelled by his own church for unproved child abuse”
July 12 2018 – RWS on Bishop Bell
“The Archbishop has made a dreadful mistake regarding Bishop Bell, and he isn’t yet man enough to admit it. Bishops, don’t make the same mistake. Please grasp the enormity of this error and injustice – and grab the opportunity to right the wrong which is in your power so to do”
As the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey has said himself, it was “unjust” for the present Archbishop, Justin Welby, to strip him of his Assistant Bishop position. It was also “unjust” for the present Archbishop of Canterbury to say there was still a “significant cloud” hanging over George Bell, Bishop of Chichester. As Charles Moore of the Telegraph has said in the Spectator this week, Bishop Bell has been “posthumously libelled by his own church for unproved child abuse” The only “significant cloud” hanging over anybody on this critical issue is Archbishop Justin Welby. Archbishop Welby can’t escape this moral maze of his own making – unless he apologises…or resigns. To apologise would be just. To resign would be regrettable.
Amidst all the deliberate obfuscations and hidden agendas surrounding this critical issue, the words of Fiona Scolding QC – spoken on the first day of the IICSA hearing last March (5th) – still have a clear ring of truth to them:
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
The Church of England is being investigated for its failure to solve a fundamental problem of injustice, created, as Martin Sewell says, “by a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience, gained in a practical safeguarding context”.
To right the wrong of this injustice within the Church, both those who have survived abuse AND those who have been wrongfully accused of abuse must be listened to.
I am growing in the conviction that former Archbishop George Carey is being ‘scapegoated’, and those covertly manipulating the process are ‘rogue elements’ within the Church of England whose motives are far from Christian.
“‘Fall guy’ is a colloquial phrase that refers to a person to whom blame is deliberately and falsely attributed in order to deflect blame from another party”
This seems to apply, and to fit ‘hand in glove’, especially regarding the present cases of both the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey (still living) and the former Bishop of Chichester George Bell (now dead).
Those responsible (and irresponsible) appear to be indulging in an ecclesiastical version of the children’s game ‘Pass the Parcel’ (of Blame) – hoping and praying the Parcel doesn’t land on their lap when the music stops.
It would be naive to think the buck of blame stops with the Archbishop at the time (If that was the case, Justin Welby would be in an extremely precarious position).
So where does the buck stop in this unholy mess if it’s not the Archbishop? William Nye is a strong contender – or his bosses above him. Most TA readers here know of Mr Nye, but if any do not, look it up – he’s on Wiki.
Peter Ball was protected by people far, far more powerful than Archbishop Carey [eg Prince Charles]. Will they “go and retire quietly”? I think not. Former Archbishop George Carey has been ‘thrown under the bus’ to protect a State-controlled Church – just like Bishop George Bell.
FrDavidH asked on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website: “Which churchmen are more powerful than the Archbishop of Canterbury?”
The Church of England is the Established Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the most senior cleric, although the monarch is the supreme governor.
IN a report published two weeks ago, former Barnardo’s chief Sir Roger Singleton concluded that the Church of England’s previous review of child abuse cases was “flawed”. He is too generous by half. It is clear that from start to finish the church’s primary concern was protecting its own reputation, even to the extent of arranging a cover-up of a cover-up.
The Past Cases Review (PCR) was initiated by Archbishop Rowan Williams in 2007 after a nasty spate of church child abuse revelations. When the Methodist Church ran a similar review, all serving ministers were mandated to report whatever they knew about past or present abuse in the church. The CofE review was limited to an audit of clergy personnel files to check there were no outstanding abuse cases that hadn’t been dealt with adequately.
Even this limited project did not go down well with Williams’s fellow bishops, who fought ferociously to limit its scope. Pearl Luxon, then head of safeguarding for the church, observed that “the bishops and the CofE as a whole were averse to exposing themselves to any greater scrutiny than was strictly necessary.” They agreed to take part only when Bishop Anthony Priddis, who was then the bishop in charge of safeguarding, promised that the completed review would be slipped out as quietly as possible. Even so, several dioceses refused to allow anyone external to audit their files, and one bishop did the job himself.
Down to zero When the results were in, the numbers of clergy abuse cases reported by the dioceses was more than the church could bring itself to publish. In the weeks before publication, the Archbishops’ Council and senior figures in both Lambeth Palace and Church House sent the returns back to dioceses, asking them to whittle the numbers down to zero if possible.
They agreed that dioceses could exclude clergy who had been arrested without being internally disciplined, clergy who still posed a risk but were retired or not currently in post, clergy who worked in cathedrals or training colleges rather than parishes, clergy against whom no action had been taken despite allegations against them, and youth and children’s workers who were employed by a local church rather than a diocese. They also excluded cases that had arisen after the launch of the review, and clergy who had been disciplined by their bishops but whose “ministry had not been impeded” by the action.
In its original return, Chichester diocese reported more than 50 cases for concern; its revised return had just three. Another diocese reported nearly 40 cases, but under instruction from head office reduced this to, er, zero. According to the Eye’s sources, at one stage it looked as if the review of 40,000 files was going to return only two cases for concern in the entire Church of England. Then someone from the communications team pointed out that this might look less than credible, so the number was increased to 13.
None of this is mentioned in Sir Roger Singleton’s report, which says he found “no evidence of a planned and deliberate attempt to conceal information”. He thinks the PCR was flawed only in the sense that it “wasn’t completely comprehensive”.
‘Best practice’ In truth, it was downright dishonest. It was eventually published in 2010 with this confident declaration: “We firmly believe that any concerns about a member of clergy or other office holder’s suitability to work with children have now been thoroughly examined in the light of current best practice by independent reviewers.” Eight years later, seven dioceses have now been ordered to go through the whole process again. They include Sheffield, whose bishop at the time was Steven Croft – currently the Bishop of Oxford, and one of five senior clerics waiting to be interviewed by South Yorkshire police about their alleged failure to deal properly with abuse claims against a vicar.
Now the Eye learns that Croft has quietly restored former archbishop George Carey’s Permission to Officiate (PTO), which allows him to function as a priest. It was withdrawn in June 2017 after the disclosure that he had failed to act on accusations against Bishop Peter Ball, who was jailed in 2015 for sexual offences against 18 teenagers and young men. Carey also had to stand down as an honorary assistant bishop in the Oxford diocese, a punishment he called “unjust”.
There doesn’t seem to be any new information to justify giving Carey back his PTO: indeed, more embarrassing evidence is expected when his involvement in the Peter Ball case comes up at IICSA, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, at the end of July. But Croft was in a difficult position because of the mounting evidence that as Bishop of Sheffield he too failed to act against a clerical abuser, the Rev Trevor Devamanikkam. If Carey remained debarred, it might imply that Croft should lose his own Permission to Officiate – and that would never do, since the very same Steven Croft is now a strong contender to succeed John Sentamu as Archbishop of York!
It’s a real pity that an item about those abused by the church has been highjacked into a discussion about false accusations. This is standard practice for the well-connected to protect them from investigation. And now the claim is made that there are a ‘considerable number’ of false accusations. No evidence is presented for this false statement. It is the weak who suffer at the hands of the strong in this fallen world, and it seems that the reputation of a dead bishop trumps the cries of the children. As I’ve said before ‘same old, same old’ the powerful always… Read more »
Jeremy
If you were acquainted with the recent history of this subject, then you would not say there is not a “considerable number” of false accusations.
Your accusation that “the reputation of a dead bishop trumps the cries of the children” is a pure canard. I agree that it is the weak who suffer at the hands of the strong–but that statement can apply to living adults, as strength and weakness can depend on power dynamics other than age.
I very much understand, and am in sympathy with, Peter Milligan’s personal analysis, but I do not think his view is correct when applied to the Bishop Bell case – and others like it.
Fiona Scolding QC has a more balanced view – which I think is worth repeating again:
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Janet Fife
I have no problem with those campaigning to clear Bishop Bell’s reputation, and have considerable sympathy for any who have been falsely accused. That is a terrible ordeal to go through. I know of at least two people that has happened to.
The independent investigations which many of us survivors are campaigning for would also assist those who are subject to mistaken or malicious allegations – this is not the expertise of Church personnel and it shows. We need investigations to be carried out by those who are skilled in this area and can operate without fear or favour.
Perhaps someone would consider putting together a book by and about those falsely accused? The Bishop Bell case alone deserves a full and competent treatment for the general reader.
In the meantime, I am happy to report that in just a few days we have raised over 80% of the funding needed for ‘Letters to a Broken Church’. Thanks to all who have contributed or shown interest.
But I must warn the ‘general reader’, this Chronology is not a quick-read; it requires careful thought, prayer and analysis. I would suggest a quiet corner somewhere, with a mug of coffee in hand!
James Byron
I’m glad the book’s going ahead: it’s crucial that voices of survivors are heard, and the church (let’s dispense with euphemisms here) making herself an accessory after the fact is exposed.
Regarding false accusations, as I’ve said before, and Janet rightly says here, it’s a false choice to present due process as being in conflict with justice for survivors: the two go hand-in-hand, with due process for all being the only path to justice for all. Given that authoritarians frequently hijack the cause of victims’ rights to bend the law to their will, it’s crucial that this point is repeatedly and vigorously made. The alternative’s not only injustice for the falsely accused, it’s public sympathy turning against those who deserve it most.
“1.39. In the case of prominent people, it appears that they are more vulnerable to false complaints than others. The cases I have reviewed involve individuals, most of whom are household names. Their identities are known to millions. They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems. The internet provides the information and detail to support a false allegation. Entertainers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations meeting, as they do, literally thousands of attention-seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity which may be exaggerated or misconstrued in their recollection many years later. Deceased persons are particularly vulnerable as allegations cannot be answered.
…”1.94… It is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate the emotional turmoil and distress that those persons and their families have had to endure. The allegations have had a profoundly damaging effect upon the characters and reputations of those living and those deceased. In differing ways those reputations have been hard-won, over several decades, and yet in Operation Midland they were shattered by the word of a single, uncorroborated complainant… In short, these men are all victims of false allegations and yet they remain treated as men against whom there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them. The presumption of innocence appears to have been set aside.”
“Short of flying a helicopter over his grave in Chichester Cathedral, how does what the BBC inflicted upon the good name of Sir Cliff Richard differ from the disgrace and dishonour the Church of England has heaped upon the reputation of Bishop George Bell?” ~ ‘Archbishop Cranmer’
Comments 1 – ‘Not a machine’
“The judge is at least mindful that in most cases there is no public interest in guilt or innocence, until the courts have concluded or judgment given”
Comments 2 – ‘Father David’
I’m delighted that Sir Cliff has been cleared of any alleged misdemeanor or indiscretion. The former Director General of the BBC – Fat Pang says that Auntie would be mad to make an expensive appeal against this sage judicial decision. Now we await the judgement of the second Core Group examining the allegation against Bishop George Bell – hopefully we can look forward to a similar exoneration and the lifting over the “significant cloud” being lifted from his reputation.
“What the BBC did was an abuse. They took it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. I hope the press don’t think freedom of speech is in danger here. It’s not. It’s their abuse of it that’s in danger. I’d rather ten guilty people get away with it than one innocent person suffer”
“Ray Galloway is the Director of Blue Light Investigations and Training Limited. He retired from North Yorkshire Police in 2013….”
“£400,000 paid to him [Sir Cliff Richard] by South Yorkshire Police, after admitting liability in respect of their disclosure to the BBC he [Sir Cliff] was under investigation for alleged sexual offences involving a minor” [2014]
“After the IICSA hearing next week, former Archbishop George Carey may well join Bishop George Bell and Sir Cliff Richard in being found to have been very seriously wronged. That would be under the watch of the present Archbishop, Justin Welby…”
“I often feel overwhelmed by the scale of this inheritance and by the best accomplishments of my predecessors.
“Bishop George Bell made Chichester famous for its contribution to learning and the arts, and he was building on solid foundations…….
“My Lords, I have no sense of being equal to the noble achievements of my worthy predecessors. “But, encouraged by your Lordships’ welcome, I look forward to playing an active role in the work of your Lordships’ House in the years to come.”
A major threat to Ball after his police caution and his resignation from the see of Gloucester in 1993 was the possibility of having his ministry curbed by some form of inhibition from Lambeth Palace and Archbishop George Carey. The avoidance of a public trial in that year had been a close-run thing. This escape from the full force of the law was arguably assisted by the bombarding the Director of Public Prosecutions with 2000 letters of support. Now Ball had to prevent the Church stopping him exercising a ministry among his supporters. These included public-school headmasters and others high up in terms of social position and status. George Carey’s reluctance to take decisive action against Ball may possibly be read as the conflict of two power systems. Although Ball’s institutional power had been weakened, he still retained considerable social power through his links and friendships with members of the Establishment. Many of these were still mesmerised by his charismatic power. Carey seems to have not wanted to be on the wrong side of the power that Ball could still muster to support him, even though as Archbishop, he could be said to have considerable institutional authority. He must have dreaded the problem for Lambeth Palace if even a small fraction of the supporters who had rallied to Ball’s support at the time of the caution had turned their attention on him. Carey, having risen to the top in the church from fairly humble social origins, seems to have been fairly easily intimidated by the disapproval of his social ‘betters’. I am, of course, speculating at this point, but in summary it is a reasonable reading of the available evidence to suggest that Archbishop Carey was simply afraid of the power that Ball could muster against him. The weak responses made by Carey, including the failure to share relevant letters with the authorities, are the actions of someone who is frightened of a power greater than his own.
Social power, institutional power and charismatic power are phenomena to be found in every institution, including the church. It is when they operate without being identified and understood that they can become a real problem. Ball, in possessing all three types of power, could and did become an extremely dangerous individual in the church. There were few checks and balances on his behaviour and the use of his power. Abusing this power was at the heart of his offending. He was also too powerful to challenge, even after his resignation and police caution. Even when the secular authorities caught up with him, the church still seemed not to understand how they had been manipulated by his narcissism and charismatic charm over a long period. What is likely to be revealed next week is a history of gullibility and naivety in the face of a predator who knew how to exercise power effectively for his own ends and fool everyone else in the process.
~ Stephen Parsons
July 21 2018 – David Virtue Online
On a brighter note, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey was invited back to Oxford to preach this past week. He is allowed to preach again just weeks before a child sex inquiry looks into allegations that he ‘covered up’ and colluded with Bishop Peter Ball over the sexual abuse of vulnerable young men and boys. Ball was convicted in 2015 of sexually abusing vulnerable young men and boys. You can read more here: https://tinyurl.com/y7r2rgfl
I hate his cheesy hits, but I’ve just joined the Cliff Richard fan club after his court victory
This is Peter Hitchens’ Mail On Sunday column
My congratulations to Sir Cliff Richard. By taking the BBCand the police to court over their shocking treatment of an unproven allegation against him, he has struck a mighty blow for justice.
I wish all my journalistic colleagues would recognise this and stop carping about a mythical threat to press freedom.
I sympathise with Sir Cliff because I have spent quite a lot of the past few years trying to restore the reputation of a great Englishman, Bishop George Bell, unfairly besmirched after the Church of England publicly revealed ancient and uncorroborated allegations of child sex abuse against him, and appeared to have accepted them.
George Bell has nothing to do with the modern Bishop Peter Ball, by the way, who is a convicted abuser and whose disgusting acts I condemn. By contrast, George Bell (who died in 1958) was never tried, and had no chance to defend himself. Accusations made more than six decades after the alleged offence were lazily accepted by various prelates and apparatchiks, after a sloppy and prejudiced apology for an investigation.
Many otherwise intelligent people assumed his guilt, largely due to an incorrect claim that he would, if alive, have been arrested by the police, who were dragged into the matter by the Church. This would not have been proof of guilt even if true, but it did what it was intended to do, and poisoned many minds against him.
It also helped that several supposedly responsible newspapers, and the BBC, proclaimed prominently that his guilt was established, when it was not. Only the BBC have ever admitted that they were wrong. A dead man has no rights.
My small role in getting justice for Bishop Bell (a battle that is still not over) taught me a lot about the tattered, decrepit state of justice in this country. And here is what I learned. Hardly anyone understands British justice any more, especially the vital presumption that all of us are innocent until proven guilty.
Police actions can prejudice fair trials. Well-publicised arrests and spectacular raids (often, absurdly, at dawn) on homes serve no serious purpose except to shatter the morale of the target and to prejudice the public mind.
Can anyone tell me what South Yorkshire Police actually hoped to find when they searched Sir Cliff’s home in conditions of total publicity in 2014?
The accusation, since dismissed, was that the singer had abused someone at a Billy Graham rally in 1985. I am shocked that any magistrate with any self-respect could have granted a warrant for such a grotesque invasion of a man’s privacy, on such evidence.
I cannot imagine such a thing would have happened 50 years ago, when more people were properly educated and understood what freedom is. But the state has recently gained extraordinary and uncontrolled powers to punish people without proving anything against them.
An allegation, especially of abuse, will ruin the accused person’s reputation forever because millions of people wrongly believe the silly old saying that there is no smoke without fire. He will probably have to spend his entire life savings to fight it. Even if a jury throws out the charges, he will not get a penny of that back. How can this possibly be just? It cannot be, yet we permit it.
I am told that if we are not allowed to report this sort of thing, it will allow the state to persecute people in secret. A simple provision, that such searches may be made public only if the accused person gives written permission, solves that in a second. I believe that the police, deprived of the oxygen of publicity, will simply stop behaving like this.
What is the point of turning up at dawn with a dozen cars with flashing lights if it can’t be shown on TV? You might as well do what you should have done in the first place, and ask the accused to come round to the station.
AS FOR the argument that these actions cause ‘other victims’ to come forward, the claim itself is an example of the ignorant prejudice of our times. Not all accusations are true, as we have learned quite a few times lately.
They are not ‘victims’ but ‘alleged victims’, until the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt in a fair court of law. And why can they not come forward when the accused is formally charged and arrested?
I may in the past have wondered whether Sir Cliff was worth the fantastic amounts of money he has earned from his long career. Now I don’t begrudge him a penny. It was only thanks to his huge wealth that he was able to fight and win a battle that badly needed to be fought.
Now everyone who cares for liberty and justice must see that his efforts are not wasted.
This case study will seek answers to the following 19 questions: (1) why did Bishop Peter Ball escape detection as an abuser, despite, as it has now emerged, the fact that he made sexual advances to a significant number of young men who came within his ambit of influence? (2) how did the church permit him to run a scheme 25 where young people came to stay with him for extended Page 14 periods of time in his home without any supervision or oversight and without any real sense of what was happening or who was there over a more than ten-year period whilst he was a suffragan bishop? (3) why was he given a caution, rather than prosecuted, for the offending that the police investigated in 1992/1993 in respect of Neil Todd and others? Why were other complaints brought at that time not prosecuted or subject to any form of disposal at that time? (4) why was Peter Ball represented by a lawyer during the criminal proceedings in 1992 who was also the diocesan registrar, that is, an official lawyer for the diocese in religious matters? This individual discussed the case and Peter Ball’s defence with various senior members of the church during the course of the investigation. Why was this potential conflict of interest not identified or acted upon? (5) was it wrong for the church to become involved in seeking to defend Peter Ball by employing a private detective on his behalf? (6) were the church, police or prosecution put under undue and improper pressure by individuals who held positions of power and influence within society to try and quash the criminal allegations made against Page 15 Peter Ball and return him to ministry? (7) should a caution ever have been administered? (8) why was he not subject to any disciplinary action by the church until 2015? Were the disciplinary powers of the church at the time in question, 1992 through to 2015, fit for purpose to manage the sorts of allegations that this case study raises? Why, given the frustrations expressed by senior individuals within Lambeth Palace about Peter Ball’s lack of insight into his own offending behaviour was no risk assessment process undertaken of him until 2009? (9) why was he allowed to return to public ministry and even granted permission to visit schools and undertake confirmations in the light of what was known about his offending behaviour within the church at the time? (10) why didn’t the church refer letters received from various individuals which made allegations similar to those that Neil Todd had made to the police in December 1992 and why in fact did it take until 2010 for the majority of those letters to be passed to the police? (11) was the internal investigation conducted by the Church of England in 1992/1993 adequate? (12) why did the prosecution decide to accept the Page 16 guilty pleas entered into by Peter Ball in 2015 and why were other offences not pursued to trial? (13) would the church approach a similar matter concerning a senior member of its ranks in a like manner today and, if not, what steps have been nut in place to create a consistent approach to dealing with such allegations? (14) what steps does the church, police, Crown Prosecution Service and society need to undertake to overcome the problems that this case study may demonstrate? We have sought and obtained evidence from Peter Ball himself. He has provided two witness statements to the inquiry. We have received medical evidence that he is too unwell to give us evidence either in person or by way of videolink. Both his witness statements will be placed upon the website. He has provided an apology in the second of those witness statements and has identified that he has neither been open nor shown penitence in the past. He also identifies that previously he has not had the courage to be forthright about his sexuality that maybe he should have had…….
Page 90 MR GIFFIN: Chair, members of the panel, the Archbishops’ Council is grateful for this opportunity to make some brief opening remarks. The inquiry of course heard longer submissions from us at the start and finish of the Chichester case study, and we also filed detailed written submissions at the close of the Chichester hearings, and all of those are publicly available and I needn’t repeat any of the detail of them now. Rather, I shall confine myself to three matters. The first and foremost is to say, clearly, that the church is sorry and ashamed. At the Chichester hearings, the Archbishops’ Council offered an unqualified apology to those vulnerable people, children and others, whose lives have been damaged by abuse, and who were not cared for and protected by the church as they should have been. We repeat that apology now, specifically to those who suffered abuse at the hands of Peter Ball, and the families and others who have been affected by that abuse. In 2015, after Ball, as you have heard, pleadedguilty to offences and was sentenced for them, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, wrote to individuals known to have been abused by Ball to offer Page 91 his apologies and the church made a public statement, including these words, which bear repeating. Shall I pause? MS SCOLDING: I’m terribly sorry. I don’t know what is going on. I will ask Mr Fulbrook to go and see if whatever is happening can be desisted from immediately. MR GIFFIN: Shall I continue, chair? I will, if I may, repeat my previous words….
Page 99
Mr Bourne
Now, this does not excuse the error of not passing on the letters, but the inquiry will see that the police back then had abundant evidence of a wider picture of Peter Ball’s abusive activity and the inquiry can be reassured that the addition of one further allegation would not have altered that picture in any significant 25 way. Page 100 My second comment on Dame Moira’s report is that, on three key points, it will benefit from some clarification. Unfortunately, those key points have attracted as much attention as anything else in the report. They are the references to collusion, coverup and deliberate concealment. In fairness to Dame Moira, her report is actually expressed in very measured terms; so measured, in fact, that any conclusions drawn about collusion, coverup or deliberate concealment are not easy to pin down. The problem, however, is that the report’s use of those words has already had serious consequences, and that’s not surprising because there is a crucial difference between mistakes, however blameworthy, and conspiratorial acts carried out for a guilty purpose. We have no doubt that this inquiry will wish to distinguish carefully between those two things. There are, therefore, questions for Dame Moira Gibb about those specific areas. All I will add now in opening is that Lord Carey’s hope is that this week’s hearing will make some important matters clearer for everyone. The clearest possible understanding is, of course, for the benefit of all of the public and especially for victims and survivors. Chair, thank you…….
Reverend Graham Sawyer
Page 171
A. Let me make this very clear. The sexual abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Bishop Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the enduringly cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained, in the Church of England, and I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or ten years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others, and I use those words “cruel and sadistic”, because I think that’s how they behave. Q. How much of that do you attribute to the lingering effect, shall we say, of Peter Ball, because the events you describe sort of postdated Peter Ball’s caution and resignation? Page 172 A. Well, there’s an expression used in Australia to refer to the bench of bishops, they don’t refer to the bench of bishops, but they refer to the “purple circle”, andthe purple circle exists pretty much in every national church within Anglicanism. It no doubt exists in other episcopally-led churches. They support one another in a sort of club-like way. If anyone attacks one of them, they will, as a group, as a sort of collective conscience and in action, seek to destroy the person who is making complaints about one individual. Now, don’t take my testimony alone from this. There is former — in fact, the recently retired bishop of Newcastle in NSW, Australia, who was a victim of sexual abuse there, and he described his treatment — he said it is like an ecclesiastical protection racket. That is the culture within Anglicanism and no doubt within other episcopally-led church. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket, and anyone who seeks in any way to threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed. That is the primary thing, and that is the culture within Anglicanism.
July 23 2018 – From The Archives – [1988 – “Rumpole of the Bailey” with Leo McKern – Episode: ‘Rumpole and the Age of Miracles’ – Series 5 Disc 2 – Filmed on location at Chichester Cathedral – ‘The Diocese of Lawnchester’ – Ecclesiastical Court]
Rumpole: “I happen to have a good deal of faith”
Ballard: “Yes, in what precisely?”
Rumpole: “The health-giving properties of Claret. The presumption of innocence…that golden thread running through British justice”
July 24 2018 – David Lamming on the IICSA – ‘Thinking Anglicans’
“In the wake of the £200,000 fine imposed on IICSA by the Information Commissioner (which, effectively, taxpayers will pay) for a serious breach of data protection laws, and for which the Inquiry Chairman, Professor Alexis Jay, failed to take the opportunity to issue a public apology at the outset of this morning’s first day of the ‘Bishop Peter Ball’ case study hearing, it takes the biscuit that, having thanked core participants and their legal teams for their assistance in preparing for the hearing, she then announced a ‘leak inquiry’ (a better description might be a witch hunt) to attempt to discover who leaked the contents of Prince Charles’s draft witness statement to the media, in particular The Times and the BBC: see transcript, 23 July 2018, page 2, line 21, to page 3, line 25. This follows Professor Jay’s ‘over the top’ public rebuke of the Archbishop of Canterbury in March for revealing in advance that he was to be a witness during the three-weeks Diocese of Chichester case study hearings: IICSA transcript, 5 March 2018, page 3, line 22, to page 4, line 10.
What today’s hearing also revealed was the lengths to which Prince Charles and/or his solicitors went to avoid providing a signed witness statement to the Inquiry (see transcript, 23 July 2018, page 86, line 21, to page 89, line 24.) Mr Scorer, in his opening statement, said that “with all due respect to His Royal Highness”, his clients (six survivors of abuse by Peter Ball) found the explanations for the Prince’s interactions with Ball “frankly astonishing.” (see transcript, page 83, line 24, to page 86, line 6). He urged that the panel hold to account “senior figures in the establishment [who] aided and cosseted a serial sex offender and in many cases did so with knowledge” (transcript, page 86, lines 13-19). The panel will need to consider whether or not, on the evidence, the Prince of Wales has shown himself to be a fit person to be a future Supreme Governor of the Church of England”
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave…It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”
~ Reverend Graham Sawyer
July 24 2018 – RWS Comment
I think the words of Reverend Graham Sawyer are worth repeating here, shedding light not just on how the Church//CPS/Police have treated victims of sexual abuse (eg Neil Todd & Reverend Graham), but also how ‘they’ have treated victims who have been wrongfully/falsely accused of abuse (eg Lord Bishop Bell and Sir Cliff Richard):
Reverend Graham Sawyer: Let me make this very clear. The sexual abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Bishop Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the enduringly cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained, in the Church of England, and I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or ten years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others, and I use those words “cruel and sadistic”, because I think that’s how they behave.
Fiona Scolding QC How much of that do you attribute to the lingering effect, shall we say, of Peter Ball, because the events you describe sort of postdated Peter Ball’s caution and resignation?
Reverend Graham Sawyer Well, there’s an expression used in Australia to refer to the bench of bishops, they don’t refer to the bench of bishops, but they refer to the “purple circle”, and the purple circle exists pretty much in every national church within Anglicanism. It no doubt exists in other episcopally-led churches. They support one another in a sort of club-like way. If anyone attacks one of them, they will, as a group, as a sort of collective conscience and in action, seek to destroy the person who is making complaints about one individual. Now, don’t take my testimony alone from this. There is former — in fact, the recently retired bishop of Newcastle in NSW, Australia, who was a victim of sexual abuse there, and he described his treatment — he said it is like an ecclesiastical protection racket. That is the culture within Anglicanism and no doubt within other episcopally-led church. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket, and anyone who seeks in any way to threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed. That is the primary thing, and that is the culture within Anglicanism.
“The bishops’ move came after Francis said the Chilean church hierarchy was collectively responsible for “grave defects” in handling sexual abuse cases and the resulting loss of credibility suffered by the church. He accused them of destroying evidence of sexual crimes, putting pressure on investigators to downplay abuse accusations and showing “grave negligence” in protecting children from paedophile priests”
July 26 2018 – RWS Note
What has emerged from the ‘Peter Ball’ IICSA hearing this week is an unbelievable account of chaos, cover-up, callousness, and incompetence within the dark corners of the Church of England’s highest echelons.
Maybe it is time for the Bishops’ “purple circle”, as described by the abused Reverend Graham Sawyer, to collectively take responsibility and follow the example of the Bishops of Chile, by offering their resignations en bloc to the Church’s Supreme Governor – Her Majesty the Queen.
“The bishops’ move came after Pope Francis said the Chilean church hierarchy was collectively responsible for ‘grave defects’ in handling sexual abuse cases, and the resulting loss of credibility suffered by the church. He accused them of destroying evidence of sexual crimes, putting pressure on investigators to downplay abuse accusations and showing ‘grave negligence’ in protecting children from paedophile priests”
26 July 2018 Our reference: IICSA-0002624 Dear Mr Symonds,
Thank you for contacting the Inquiry via email on 20 July with your query about the Peter Ball hearing. The Inquiry is not intending to call Mr Nye to give evidence at the Peter Ball hearing as he has already provided a witness statement to the Inquiry in relation to the Anglican Church investigation, which you can read about here. You can find all the documents and videos relating to this investigation on our website at: http://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations/investigation-into-failings-by-the-anglican-church?tab=hearing The timetable for the hearing can be found here. Thank you once again for making the time to contact the Inquiry and for your interest in the Anglican Church investigation. Yours sincerely, Liz Long Head of Inquiry Network, IICSA Operations Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
In his letter, the prince said: “I first became aware of Peter Ball during the 1980s. He was later appointed Bishop of Gloucester when he became my local diocesan bishop.
“Peter Ball told me he had been involved in some sort of ‘indiscretion’ which prompted his resignation as my local bishop.
“He emphasised that one individual that I now understand to be Mr Neil Todd had made a complaint to the police, that the police had investigated the matter, and the Crown Prosecution Service had decided to take no action.
“That sequence of events seemed to support Mr Ball’s claim that the complaint emanated from one individual and that individual bore a grudge against him and was persecuting him, that the complaint was false, but that the individual had nonetheless profited from the complaint by selling his story.
“Events later demonstrated beyond any doubt, to my deep regret, that I, along with many others, has been misled.”
The Prince of Wales has told the child abuse inquiry he could not “shed any light” on who he was referring to in a letter to disgraced bishop Peter Ball when he wrote: “I will see off this horrid man if he tries anything again.”
Ball had told the prince a single accuser was behind allegations which led to him having to quit as Bishop of Gloucester.
In a letter to the inquiry, the prince said Ball had told him the complaint against him was false and had arisen from someone who had a grudge against him and was “persecuting” him.
Peter Ball (John Stillwell/PA)
In extracts from one letter between the prince and Ball, Charles says: “I can’t bear it that the frightful and terrifying man is on the loose and doing his worst.”
But in his letter to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) on Friday, the prince, who said he regrets having been “deceived” by Ball, said: “I regret that I am unable to shed any light on references made in a letter dated 23rd March 1997 to a ‘horrid man’ or a `frightful and terrifying man’.
“This seems to be a manner of speaking in the midst of a long letter written more than twenty years ago.
“I do recall that Peter Ball felt that numerous individuals, including his critics in the media, were doing all in their power to disadvantage him unfairly.
“I suspect, but cannot be certain, that the reference is to this issue in some way.”
Charles maintained a friendship with Ball for more than two decades after Ball accepted a caution for gross indecency, only stopping contact when Ball was convicted in 2015 of sexually abusing 18 young men over 30 years.
The prince says he did not know about the nature of the complaint against Ball and had not appreciated the meaning of a caution.
A lawyer for some of the former bishop’s victims has said it was difficult to see that “as anything other than wilful blindness”.
In another letter from the prince to Ball in 1995 – two years after Ball’s caution – the future king said he wished he could “do more”.
He said: “I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”
Charles also said he had been told by the then Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey that the church was looking at bringing Ball back into public ministry.
In the 1995 letter he said it was “appalling” that the Archbishop, now Lord Carey, had “gone back on what he told me”.
He said it was clear the Archbishop was “frightened of the press – what he calls ‘public perception’.”
Another letter from Charles the following year referred to the process of getting a Duchy of Cornwall property for Ball and his brother Michael, Bishop of Truro.
It said: “I long to see you both settled somewhere that suits you and gives you peace and tranquility – and not too far from here so you can come over more easily.”
The pair rented a Duchy property between 1997 and 2011.
Charles’s letter to the inquiry said: “My heart goes out to the victims of abuse and I applaud their courage as they rebuild their lives and, so often, offer invaluable support to others who have suffered.
“It remains a source of deep personal regret that I was one of many who were deceived over a long period of time about the true nature of Mr Ball’s activities.”
Charles said Ball told him his resignation as Bishop of Gloucester had been prompted by an “indiscretion”, but the prince said: “When this exchange took place, I did not know about the nature of the complaint.”
He also said, in the six-page statement read by counsel to the inquiry Fiona Scolding, that he had not appreciated the meaning of a caution and that at the time the word of a bishop was generally seen as trustworthy.
He said he did not realise the truth of what had gone on until Ball’s conviction, adding that his main source of information until then had been the bishop himself.
Dismissing any suggestion he had ever tried to interfere in the police investigation into Ball, Charles said it was possible his name had been taken “in vain”.
In his statement, dated July 10 this year, Charles said: “At no stage did I ever seek to influence the outcome of either of the police investigations into Peter Ball and nor did I instruct or encourage my staff to do so.”
Ball, the former bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, is too ill to give evidence in person, the inquiry has heard.
But in a statement he referred to his relationship as having been one of “support and respect”.
He added: “I would strongly resist any suggestion that in some way I could bring pressure to bear on him to act on my behalf and have certainly never made a request for him to do so.”
On Monday the inquiry heard there had been lengthy discussions between Charles’s lawyers and the inquiry in which his legal team initially argued that the future king could not be compelled to produce a statement.
Clarence House has since said Charles was willing to help the inquiry and had voluntarily answered all questions asked of him.
Richard Scorer, a specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon who represents a number of Ball’s victims, said Charles’s explanation that he was not aware of the meaning of a caution left his clients “dissatisfied”.
He said: “Prince Charles had access to the best legal advice that money can buy and, as a man in his position, a particular responsibility to check the facts.
“It is difficult to see his failure to do so as anything other than wilful blindness.
“His evidence, together with that of Lord Carey, the then archbishop of Canterbury, and other establishment figures who have given evidence this week, will do little to dissuade survivors from the conclusion that the British establishment aided and protected Ball and even now have failed to give a transparent account of their actions.”
Ball was released in February last year after serving half of his 32-month sentence behind bars.
Mr William Chapman, counsel for complainants, victims and survivors represented by Switalskis and also who represents MACSAS:
Page 135-136: “He [George Carey], in the words of Andrew Nunn, did try to sweep it under the carpet. If George Carey thought by doing so he served the reputation of the church, it was a gross misjudgment. The tactics deployed by the church were at the very edge of lawfulness. We heard how Bishop Kemp attempted to compromise Mr Murdock. We heard how several bishops telephoned Ros Hunt to ask her to tell the young men who had made complaints not to speak to the police or the press. We heard how Michael Ball, Bishop of Truro, had been contacting witnesses and, in Mr Murdock’s view, trying to influence them. We do encourage the police to review whether any of these matters, in particular the actions of the bishops who contacted Ros Hunt, disclose offences of perverting the course of justice”
Mrs Kate Wood
Page 89-92
Q. How would you characterise the emails you received from Neil Todd? You received a number I think at this time?
A. I did. He, I think, was surprised this was being raised again. He was very calm about it, I felt. He wanted information, and why wouldn’t he? I wanted to give him as much information as I could, but, for the reasons you have outlined, I had to be a bit careful. I didn’t have any emails from him that showed any great distress at that point. He was obviously anxious, and he wanted information. But he was very calm and composed with his emails. I could tell he was also very angry at the church, and, again, why wouldn’t he be? So I tried to support him through that.
Q. In your witness statement at paragraph 149 you refer to the fact that in his later emails in particular he was clearly angry with the church —
A. Yes.
Q. — and was feeling anxious. You refer to an email — I think the reference is wrong, but the correct reference is ACE001870. This is an email to Jeremy Pryor. Why is it that you have this email, Mrs Wood?
A. I can only think that Jez, Jeremy, copied me in on it, I think.
Q. You think Jeremy copied you in or did Neil Todd copy you in? The reason I say that is in your summary you seem to think that Neil copied you in when he wrote this to Jeremy?
A. I don’t know, sorry.
Q. That’s all right. Don’t worry about that. If we can go down to the fifth paragraph of the long email that begins, “So the difficulty”. I think this is the email you are referring to in your witness statement:
Neil Todd’s Email to Mrs Kate Wood/Jeremy Pryor
“So the difficulty of the black-and-white events of Peter Ball’s behaviour are not in the acts themselves — but the fact that he corrupted my genuine search for something good with acts which were obviously intentional for his own sexual gratification in the guise of a wise teacher nurturing and caring of a young seeker, aspiring to good intentions.
“When he denied his behaviour, this struck at my deepest conscience — it was then that the reality of what I allowed him to do — was not moral. The reality that his behaviour was not for my good or inspirational guidance.
“He only had to admit that what he did — actually occurred — this would then have made some sense to me. If he could admit that lying on top of me naked, his ejaculations, the naked showers under his instruction, the threat of physical beatings was all part of his unique path to spiritual guidance, was normal, then maybe we could have accepted that his intentions were good, just unusual. But his denial of all that occurred resulted in deep disillusionment. I personally felt ashamed for allowing this behaviour to occur, for allowing myself to be so gullible and not question or seek guidance earlier. This could have redirected my path. I could have joined a true community and been guided appropriately. The church should also have showed a greater deal of support but to dismiss me after the incident with no due care, simply resulted in full disillusionment with the institution as a whole. I genuinely felt the church was covering up, but at the worst it affected my personal relationship with God and my genuine search in faith. When Peter accepted a caution, he stated with penitence and sorrow he was accepting the police caution, but, again, the church was saddened by his resignation.
“All I want is the truth to be known without suspicion. I want Peter to admit in black and white that the events that took place did take place — that none of this was my imagination — nor my fault. I want the black-and-white questions to be answered.
“I would also request that the church take responsibility for not acknowledging nor supporting nor investigating my concerns.
“I heard that Peter had a new candidate when I was based in London — I wonder if he too experienced similar behaviour.
“I have survived all this, led a normal life — I changed direction after a few years of rebellion, to say the least, and commenced training as a registered nurse. I have been qualified since 1999 and have been working as director of nursing for indigenous communities in Australia. I have a loving and supportive partner of 18 years and am generally considered normal.
“Unfortunately, I never had counselling to deal with nor work through the emotions that occur after such a personal incident — but, yes, I can accept that Peter Ball’s behaviour has left its mark. I am not a vindictive person — I only wish for an acknowledgement that my experience was a reality and that all Church of England hierarchical parties take a share in the responsibility of their inaction.
“Regards, Neil.”
Closing remarks by Fiona Scolding QC
Page 175-176
Chair and panel, obviously it is not the role of counsel to the inquiry to sum up. I just have a very few brief remarks. I would like to thank everybody — in particular the legal teams and all the witnesses who have attended — for their patience and cooperation. I would also like to thank everyone for the courteous and respectful way in which this hearing has been conducted and in their approach and role towards us as counsel to the inquiry. Just a few statistics, so that everyone can feel that they have earned their fees: 108,000 pages of documents were received by the inquiry during this investigation, and 53,244 pages were disclosed; 118 witness statements were obtained from 23 97 individuals; we have heard 14 live witnesses and three read witnesses. Last, but by no means least, we want to hold and remember Neil Todd and his family and hope that they are able to find peace and solace after what must have been a painful reawakening of their memories. We also wish to thank all the other victims and survivors, whose courage in speaking to us and whose insight, wisdom and understanding is both central and essential to the work of this inquiry. We apologise for any distress and upset that this week may have caused to them. Thank you very much
“The Revd George Mitchell, wearing his monocle, stands behind Bishop George Bell” – ‘The Bloomsbury Group in Berwick Church’ by Peter Blee [page 100] – Mural Painting by Duncan Grant c. 1941 – Photo by Richard W. Symonds – August 1 2018
A Lovely, Gentle Way of Striking a Blow for Truth and Justice
Here is a possible counterblast to the Church of England’s horrible Stalinist attempt to suppress and obscure the memory of the late Bishop George Bell, whose memorial in Chichester Cathedral was for some months disfigured with prejudicial ‘safeguarding’ notices, whose name has been stripped from several institutions and schools which it used to adorn and whose statue lies unfinished in a stoneyard at Canterbury cathedral, where he was for some years a most distinguished Dean. All this without anything remotely resembling a fair trial, let alone a finding of guilt.
If you dislike this sort of behaviour, you can do something constructive and rather wonderful, by helping to preserve some unique and rather lovely wall-paintings at the Church of St Michael and All Angels at Berwick (no, not that one) a village in East Sussex close to Virginia Woolf’s old home at Charleston. The Virginia Woolf detail is important, as you will see.
For some months now the campaign to get justice for George Bell has been treading water. Many of you will remember the devastating verdict which Lord Carlile QC pronounced on the Church of England’s kangaroo-court condemnation of the late Bishop.
For anyone unfamiliar with the case, the neccessary information is here . To begin with for the really keen, are almost all the necessary documents
Here is an account (in a newspaper which initially wrongly assumed Bell’s guilt) of the vindication, and of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s miserable failure to accept it
And here is the report by Lord Carlile QC, after which Lord Carlile said to me that, having reviewed the case very thoroughly, this distinguished advocate did not believe he could have won a prosecution on the evidence provided. This is as near as he could come to saying he thought Bell not guilty (since he was specifically not asked to rule on Bell’s guilt or innocence, I wonder why?)
So now let us go back to Berwick, a small, not-very-old church on the edge of the chalk downs of Sussex, chosen by George Bell for an artistic experiment in the 1940s. The full details of this are here
You can discover how George Bell (who loved all the arts and sought to harness them to the cause of Christ in the modern era) persuaded three Bloomsbury artists (not famous for their piety) to decorate the church with wall-paintings depicting Biblical themes. You can see pictures of what they did, many of which I find rather splendid and extraordinarily English, in a way that seemed to die out of our painting after about 1945.
Among them are, as a war memorial, pictures of a soldier, a sailor and an airman which I find extremely evocative. There is the birth of Christ in a Sussex stable, the Supper at Emmaus (to me the most moving moment in the entire Bible ‘Abide with us, for it is towards evening and the day is far spent’) with the chalk hills in the background, and an Annunciation with an English garden visible through the window.
And, which was only just, there is a representation of George Bell himself, his plain clergyman’s face well-depicted, resplendent in his Bishop’s robes. Gosh, I bet there are people who would be happy if that were to crumble away.
tells you how, if you are moved to do so, you can help achieve this. You might want to visit as well, I am told it is a very pleasant part of the country. I certainly plan to do so. But if you can help, what a lovely, quiet, good way of supporting truth justice and the English way of doing things, which does seem to be so very much under attack.
He was a successful barrister, and “took silk” as a Queen’s Counsel in 1967. In 1969 he was appointed Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales, serving until 1977.
July 30 2018 – Archbishop Welby & his ‘Paymasters’ vs The Rest – “Thinking Anglicans” – Comments
“Archbishop Carey acted arrogantly (a not uncommon trait among bishops) but without malice and is not the only eminence to fall for Ball’s undoubted charisma. He is not a danger to children or the vulnerable, but the Church of England under Welby is on a mission to show off its whiter than white safeguarding credentials and to that end, scapegoats it must have. Welby is not finished with his predecessor and we have not seen the end of the humiliation of an old man, to the eternal discredit of the Church of England” ~ Jill Armstead
July 30 2018 – RWS Note
“It seems that to better understand what is going on (eg how the Peter Ball Abuse scandal has somehow turned into “Lord Carey Abuse scandal”), it is important to understand Royal Prerogatives and their application to the State-controlled Church of England in a constitutional monarchy. But don’t be surprised if greater understanding leads to greater confusion – Royal Prerogatives are ‘masonic’ in terms of power and secrecy” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“The bishops’ move came after Francis said the Chilean church hierarchy was collectively responsible for “grave defects” in handling sexual abuse cases and the resulting loss of credibility suffered by the church. He accused them of destroying evidence of sexual crimes, putting pressure on investigators to downplay abuse accusations and showing “grave negligence” in protecting children from paedophile priests”
July 30 2018 – Charles Moore Notebook – Daily Telegraph
“Twenty-five years ago, the Church was too inclined to believe the denials of clergy in abuse cases [Peter Ball – Ed] because it feared for its reputation. Today, it is too inclined to believe any criticism thrown against clergy now retired [George Carey – Ed] or – as in the wrongs done to the name of George Bell, the former Bishop of Chichester – dead. Such self-protective behaviour was wrong then. Today, it takes the opposite form, but it is still self-protective and still wrong.
“To the justified anger of all abused people who have not received justice must now be added the justified anger of all those falsely accused of child abuse itself, or falsely accused of covering it up”
~ Charles Moore
July 31 2018 – ‘Thinking Anglicans’ – Comments
Janet Fife
It’s such a complex story, and only Ball’s victims seem to have been completely innocent. But rather than struggle with the complexities and their implications for the Church we’re part of – and for ourselves – it’s easier just to heap all the blame on one elderly man. Much more convenient…
To clarify the facts: Carey did not offer ‘support, succour, and comfort’ to a convicted abuser, but to one who had received a caution. Moreover, the caution was issued without the usual admission of guilt, and then not recorded so it didn’t appear on the records. This left Ball able to claim that he was actually not guilty, but had resigned in order to spare the Church negative publicity. All this wangled by Ball with support from a serving Law Lord and others, including vehement support from Prince Charles.
adarynefoedd
Have little time for Lord Carey but feel he is a bit of a scapegoat. Having written numerous reviews of ‘hard cases’ myself, everybody feels a lot better if the health visitor/GP/social worker had not been so naive. Putting aside the complex issues of the Church, class and reputation management, I feel this is classic tale of an institution turned inside out by a narcissistic and manipulative individual who probably believed his own rhetoric, indeed must have done to shore up his self esteem. Even if you are trained and experienced in dealing with such people, they can still con and play you and the system. As Ros Hunt said in her perceptive evidence it was made even more difficult by the fact there were twins acting symbiotically. The idea that any system is safe from such a person is naive, he or she will always find ways of getting power over other people and will exploit our weaknesses. (kindness/tolerance/fear/guilt etc)
Simon Bravery
I am grateful to Gordo and Interested Observer for their comments. The parallel with the 9 o’clock Service is instructive. The church was (and is now to a greater extent) having difficulty in attracting those in their late teens and early twenties ( and now under 40). Any one who seemed to have a rapport with those in this age group and succeeded in encouraging them to take part in church activities was therefore accorded a high degree of respect and admiration. Those who expressed concern were reminded of the numbers of young people they had encouraged and told to get with the programme. This developed into an uncritical acceptance of behaviour which should have set alarm bells ringing.
Peter Ball’s role in the Woodard Corporation assisted him in this. I am not sure if any part of the Inquiry is focusing on schools but perhaps it should, particularly i the light of the John Smyth allegations as well.
Peter Ball had a double status, both as old boy of Lancing and local Bishop. As he was actively involved in the governance of the Corporation that gave him access to the Corporation’s schools. Headmasters of other public schools though he was obviously a Good Thing or he wouldn’t be involved with the Woodard Corporation.
There is a wonderful scene in Alan Bennett’s play ” A Question of Attribution.” The Queen ask Anthony Blunt how he knows if a painting is genuine. She dissects what is meant by ” provenance” and comes to the conclusion that if enough of the right sort of chaps say it is genuine then it is accepted as such. Blunt of course suspects that she is talking about something other than painting and becomes increasingly uncomfortable. Something similar seems to have happened to Peter Ball. He could hide in plain sight because his provenance was attested by a wide cross section of the great and the good.
Actually, if there is any peotic justice in this world, then Welby and his collaborators of this farce should ideally end up accused of something they didn’t do and be the ones on the receiving end of a karangoo court while they are still living. Maybe then they will recant and see the error of their ways vis-a-vis Bishop George Bell.
As much as I would like to help by monetary donation, I simply cannot afford to do so at this current time. I’m glad to see a revived blog post on this subject and one that is to some minor extent positive, as I recall the last update here was regarding the CofE’s renewed assault on Bishop Bell’s reputation soon after Lord Carlile’s report on the initial mishandling of the case, and the subsequent reprehensible denial of the right to choose representation by his only remaining living relative. It really makes me despair that the supposed moral guardians of our times are instead the very ones peddling mendacious deceit. Clearly they have no understanding or no care of the religion they purport to live by and represent. Utterly contemptible behaviour – more in league with Beezlebub than Christ – and I can only wish the current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and his duplicitous cohorts the very worst for the future.
Dear Mark Woods – Editor (Christian Today)( mwoods@christiantoday.co.uk )
Please register this as a formal complaint.
I think your headline – “George Bell was ‘fond’ of paedophile bishop Peter Ball and sponsored him through ordination” – is one of the most disgraceful I have ever read.
Shame on you.
If this unbalanced article by Harry Farley is not corrected by 16.00 this Monday – 26th March 2018 – a formal complaint will be made to IPSO at 9am the following day (27th).
Sir, — What has emerged from the IICSA hearing about Peter Ball is an unbelievable account of chaos, cover-up, callousness, and incompetence within the dark corners of the Church of England’s highest echelons.
Maybe it is time for the Bishops’ “purple circle”, as described by the abuse survivor the Revd Graham Sawyer, collectively to take responsibility and follow the example of the Bishops of Chile, by offering their resignations en bloc to the Church’s Supreme Governor, the Queen.
“The bishops’ move came after Pope Francis said the Chilean church hierarchy was collectively responsible for ‘grave defects’ in handling sexual abuse cases, and the resulting loss of credibility suffered by the church. He accused them of destroying evidence of sexual crimes, putting pressure on investigators to downplay abuse accusations and showing ‘grave negligence’ in protecting children from paedophile priests” (The Guardian).
RICHARD W. SYMONDS The Bell Society 2 Lychgate Cottages Ifield Street, Ifield Village Crawley, West Sussex RH11 0NN
August 6 2018 – RWS Letter to the Private Secretary to Her Majesty The Queen, The Supreme Governor of the Church of England
However the Church has not been terribly active after it received the Ruston report in 2012/3 ( it is unclear) As far as we know, nobody living or dead has ever been called to account or had their reputation placed “ under a cloud” for the cover up or exporting the alleged abuser to Africa. Contrast this with Bishop Bell placed “ under a cloud” on a single uncorroborated allegation. In this case, there are over 20 in UK maybe 70 in Africa and those we primarily criticise had a plain report which they believed sufficiently to act upon it.
Comments – Len
One is hoping that the Church (other Institutions as well)(see Aug 9 2018) are going to learn that attempting to conceal the criminal activities of some of their members will cause the whole Institution to be brought into question.
Comments -Dominic
It is staggering that no-one else actually did anything about it, bar banishing the perpetrator.
On a more positive note it appears that Downside and Ampleforth RC schools are about to go under, due in no small part to the reluctance of parents to send their children to schools who similarly protected abusers.
August 8 2018 – “Bishop Bell wronged” – Daily Telegraph – Letters – Lord Lexden
Sir – Will “the wrongs done to the name of George Bell” (Charles Moore, Notebook, July 30) ever be corrected by the Church of England authorities who committed them nearly three years ago on the strength of a single, uncorroborated allegation by “a victim”, as they described her, against a great man who died 60 years ago?
They brushed aside the withering criticism of their conduct by Lord Carlile QC in his independent review last December, and then, disregarding his advice, began another secret investigation into a second complaint of sexual abuse which conveniently reached them in January. Its terms of reference remain unknown. Though highly placed Church sources originally gave June as the expected date of completion, it drags on, with a blackout on all news of its progress.
There was a possibility at one stage that the Rt Rev Martin Warner, the current Bishop of Chichester, might take charge of it. That he should even have been considered was astonishing.
It was Bishop Warner who in 2015 said, “we face with shame a story of abuse of a child” after an investigation which Lord Carlile later found to be fatally flawed. The Bishop ordered that his great predecessor’s name should be removed from buildings and institutions in the diocese. Yet, in his maiden speech in the House of Lords in July, he praised the very man to whom he has done such wrong for making Chichester “famous for its contribution to learning and the arts”.
Lord Lexden, London SW1
August 9 2018 – Unpublished Letter to Daily Telegraph (in response to Lord Lexden’s letter – above)
Dear Editor
Perhaps Archbishop Justin Welby should offer a formal apology to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Her Majesty The Queen, regarding George Bell Bishop of Chichester (“Bishop Bell wronged”, DT Letters, Aug 8)?
Sir, — Paul Vallely adds his voice (Comment, 3 August) to those calling for Lord Carey to be deprived of permission to officiate in church services. As one who worked with Lord Carey at Lambeth Palace in 1992 onwards, I have a different perspective.
By his own admission to the IICSA review, Lord Carey made serious errors of judgement in handling the Peter Ball case. Mr Vallely singles out the former Archbishop’s support for Ball after the latter accepted a caution for a single offence of gross indecency which the police and CPS decided did not warrant prosecution.
The Bishop resigned at once when the caution was accepted — and the resignation of a diocesan bishop was no small thing. Against that background, the voices of those suggesting that the Archbishop was treating Ball too harshly in subsequent years were probably louder than those who thought that he was being too lenient — until the eventual prosecution and conviction threw a radically different light on the matter.
It is a big jump of logic to say that, because an Archbishop made admitted serious errors of judgement (shared to a greater or lesser extent with many others at the time) in the Ball case, the Church should now regard him as soiled goods, unworthy to exercise the ministry of priest (or honorary assistant bishop).
Hands up, all bishops — indeed, all clergy — who have not made a serious error of judgement. How many would be left if they were all stripped of their priestly or episcopal ministry?
Ah, but this one is different, runs the argument, because this particular series of misjudgements, together with the mistakes and omissions of others, caused additional pain and suffering to those who had been abused by Ball. Moreover, it brought the Church into disrepute. It is so important to convey the message to suffering victims, and to society at large, that the Church is now fully aware of the horrors of abuse and heeding the voice of victims, that unfrocking, even a bit of rough justice to a former Archbishop, is a necessary price to pay.
I understand that way of thinking, but am unhappy with it for two reasons.
First, we should be consistent and fair about the criteria for exercising episcopal and priestly office. The desire to send a message to somebody else should not interfere with those criteria. It would be worrying if admitted errors of judgement in the past were to become a determining factor without the most careful qualification, because otherwise it won’t be the pews that are empty: it will be the pulpits and Bishops’ bench.
Second, it is wrong to define a whole person, even a whole archbishop, by a particular set of errors that he or she has made. It is an unjust way of “othering” and diminishing a human being, against which in other contexts the Church stands firm.
Lord Carey is not to be defined as the man who messed up aspects of the Ball case. He also led the Church into a definitive decision to ordain women to the priesthood. He led the Decade of Evangelism. He played his part in lifting the Church’s ambition in its place in the educational system. He led reforms of the Church Commissioners and what is now the Archbishops’ Council. He raised the spirits of Christian people in South Sudan and in many other troubled parts of the world. He helped keep alive the principles of restorative justice in the prison system in the dark days of “Prison Works”. He challenged the privatisation of morality.
There are many more examples. He worked his heart out for the Church, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing. Soiled goods?
But it is a mild taste of what it must be like, in reality, to face obdurate authority of this kind, nasty and dispiriting. It dims the sunshine, and nags at the mind….
Oddly, you can face the same problem in what appear to be wholly uncontentious areas. I once attempted to add a short reference to what I thought of as an important book, which had not been given much space, on the Wikipedia page about a favourite author. Again, my change was wiped out within minutes by a furious guardian, who seemed to think that she, and nobody else, should control the entry. Life’s too short to qyarrel with people like this….
have kept myself pretty strictly to correcting factual errors, which in some cases nobody else could possibly do. Who else knows when I joined and left the International Socialists? Who else would be troubled by, and put right, a foolish mistake about my late father’s naval career? Who else recalls the day I broke into a government fall-out shelter in Cambridge, more than 50 years ago? But then again, why let a silly mistake survive, where it might be believed, cited and repeated? One day it could just be important….
You can do these things if you’re more or less on the side of conventional wisdom and don’t work for the Mail on Sunday. My opponent on the Bishop George Bell’ entry (the source of all my troubles) is extraordinarily rude without provocation, calling me a ‘loudmouth’, describing my articles as ‘rants’, dismissing the highly distinguished, disinterested and multi-party group of people who seek basic due process for the late Bishop Bell as a ‘fan club’ and claiming wrongly that they are ‘right-wing’ in the clear belief that this would be a bad thing if so, (so simultaneously disclosing his own partiality and his ignorance of the subject). Nothing whatever happens to him for this behaviour. Indeed, he has a ‘Platinum medal’ for his services to Wikipedia….
. If you wish to discuss this matter with me, treat me fairly. If (as seems to be the case in some comments) you take a special pleasure in blocking a Mail on Sunday columnist, feel free. If that is your idea of a good time, then I can only say that we’re all different. But do not pretend you are doing this in pursuit of the truth. The fact remains that my much-frowned-on edits, though satirical and not intended to stand (I made their purpose plain on the talk page), were entirely factual, an undeniable truth which I have yet to get any administrator or editor to notice, acknowledge or address. Fact One: The police, in England, have precisely no statutory role in the investigation of crimes allegedly committed by the dead; Fact Two: it is a legal absurdity for any English tribunal to say it has found no reason to doubt an allegation. Reason to doubt is actively embodied in the principle of presumption of innocence, is the basis of jury trial and is embedded in both civil and criminal procedure. If you are ready to listen, then I’m ready to defend myself. If I am treated with fairness, an open mind and civility, you will find I respond in the same way. If I am muzzled and silenced, then I just remember how my English ancestors would have responded to such treatment. Please do not delete this. I have of course kept a copy.’….
The dispute is about the description of controversy about the late Bishop George Bell. My view is this. whatever anyone may have believed about this in the past (and the C of E made great efforts to persuade people that they had serious evidence against Bishop Bell when they did not), the charges were dealt a devastating blow (the lovely old English word ‘Whirret’ seems right in the circumstances) by the report of Lord Carlile QC, which you may read in full here.
Amazingly, until I put it there last week, the Wikipedia entry on the George Bell case did not even contain a direct link to this report.
Now, Lord Carlile was specifically debarred from giving any opinion on the charges against George Bell in his conclusions. Archbishop Welby put that in the terms of reference.
But that did not stop him giving an opinion elsewhere in the document. And lo:
Paragraph 171: ‘Had the evidence my review has obtained without any particular difficulty (see section[H] below) been available to the Church and the CPS, I doubt that the test for a prosecution would have been passed. Had a prosecution been brought on the basis of that evidence, founded upon my experience and observations I judge the prospect of a successful prosecution as low. I would have expected experienced criminal counsel to have advised accordingly.’
Lord Carlile must be one of the most experienced lawyers of his generation. Coming from him, this judgement is quite devastating, and only people who don’t understand English legal understatement could miss its import. I have known this since Christmas and waited for other Wikipedia editors, unburdened by being me, to discover it and include it, because I am aware of preposterous prejudices against anyone with knowledge of the matter, daring to tinker with the sacred Wikipedia.
Yet the Wikipedia version, while giving a wholly inadequate account of the Carlile Report, *still* contains tendentious rubbish, dating from the C of E’s original slippery attempt to smear Bishop Bell in the eyes of public and media, driven by the fact that it wasn’t anything like as sure of his guilt as it was claiming to be.
Most especially is the redundant, outdated, and discredited section about how the police had said they had enough evidence to arrest George Bell, had he not been dead for some decades. To my own direct and painful personal knowledge, this inaccurate claim poisoned the minds of many people, often highly educated ones, especially in the media, against George Bell. It created a great solidified wall of slime, which had to be cleared out of the way before the case could be properly debated. It should never have been said. Now that it is discredited, it has no place in a tightly-edited and concise account of the case *unless* it is qualified by a strong rebuttal. The questionable, indeed legally needless and ultra vires, involvement of the police should certainly not be the opening stage of the story.
This claim that Bell would have been arrested was clearly stated by Carlile to be wrong in law in his paragraph 167, which everyone interested in the case should read to the end, especially the bit about the C of E taking ‘ an exaggerated view’ of the use of the word ‘arrest’
The police have also admitted to me, in their formal response to a complaint I made to them on behalf of GB’s niece, that the C of E diocese persuaded them to get involved. Detective Superintendent J.D. Graves wrote :
‘… the Diocese of Chichester notified Sussex Police that they planned to release a statement to the media. It was never our intention to be proactive (my emphasis); in other words, there was no intention to release a police statement about the alleged criminality of Bishop Bell (my emphasis). However, we were asked by the Diocese to make a statement as they had decided to make this information public and so we provided them with a statement for inclusion in their press release on the basis that once the Diocese published their statement a natural consequence would be a media request to the police for comment’.
It later repeats ‘the press release was driven by the Diocese’.
This was an extraordinary admission, though of course one that could have been foreseen by any informed person, since the Police in England have absolutely no statutory role in the investigation of criminal allegations against the dead, who cannot, in English law, be prosecuted. Anyway, since ‘Carol’ first made her claim in 1995 (as Carlile records) her concern has always been to make a civil claim against the C of E, not a criminal charge against Bishop Bell.
As for the stuff about some secret tribunal ‘finding no reason’ to doubt the claims against George bell, that was just a confession of legal incompetence. The presumption of innocence is always a reason to doubt any charge. And there was a good deal more, as any reader of the long paragraph 178 shows.
That’s what it was all about. But at the end of it, the Wikipedia account is still hopelessly biased against the truth. Perhaps someone else unburdened by being me, is prepared to become as knowledgeable as I am about the case, and set the matter right. If they do, I warn them not to make any jokes.
“In regard to the Bishop Bell case, I have long thought that the CoE (at the behest of its lawyers) deliberately sacrificed Bishop Bell in order to protect the CoE from the possibility of a PR disaster that might end up in court. After all, Bishop Bell was dead. The accuser was alive. And the public is pre-disposed to believe accusations against clergy. Best to make it go away at the expense of a dead man”
Comments – ‘Happy Jack’
“One notes victims are considering legal action against Justin Welby for allegedly failing to act decisively enough after he was informed of the claims against Mr Smyth in 2013 and are also pursuing civil cases against the organisations involved”
Comments – Brian
“There is no “collective CoE ” just as there is no “collective Evangelicals “. But there is a collective of bishops- and their silence on Bell is culpable. Time for Welby to reveal his alleged information that prevented synod discussion”
Comments – Anton
Gavin Ashenden points out with his characteristic combination of unfailing courtesy and irrefutable logic that Justin Welby disciplined George Carey for his inactivity over Peter Ball yet was equally inactive over John Smyth:
Reports on death of John Smyth who was accused of brutally beating boys and young men linked with the Iwerne Trust between 1978-82 and died before police could question him. (See Statement from lead safeguarding bishop, above)
August 13 2018 – Statement regarding Smyth and Titus Trust
The statement below has been issued by three victims of the late John Smyth and the Titus Trust, and refers to a statement on the website of the Titus Trust, which is copied below the fold.
We are amongst the scores of victims viciously beaten by the late John Smyth QC whilst he was Chair of The Iwerne Trust.
We are appalled by the statement issued on Monday 13th August by the Titus Trust, which now runs the Iwerne network.
The statement says that the Titus Trust has “done all that [it] can to ensure the matter is properly investigated by the relevant authorities.” This is untrue.
The statement further says that the board of the Titus Trust was only informed of the allegations against John Smyth in 2014. This is also untrue.
The Revd The Hon David Fletcher was employed as the senior officer of the Iwerne Trust from 1967 until 1986, when he became a trustee. He served in that capacity continuously until August 2016, only resigning his post when the Iwerne Trust was closed in a bid to distance it from its successor. Revd Fletcher was also a trustee of the Titus Trust from its foundation in 1997 until the same date.
It is a matter of record that Revd Fletcher and numerous leaders of his movement have been fully aware of Smyth’s abuse for 36 years. Revd Fletcher commissioned a comprehensive report of Smyth’s abuses in the UK in March 1982. From 1993 he was in possession of a further report of Smyth’s abuse in Zimbabwe. These reports, which were stored in the loft of the Chair of the Titus Trust Giles Rawlinson, were not made available to any secular authorities until 2017, when they were requisitioned by Hampshire Police under warrant.
An earlier statement from the Titus Trust website says that Smyth’s abuse took place between 1978 and 1981. They know this to be untrue. Smyth’s abuse in the UK started in 1975 and continued until 1982 and probably until 1984. Rev Fletcher and other Iwerne Trustees then facilitated Smyth’s move to Africa, where he abused at least 60 children between 1985 and 2017.
The Titus Trust, under the leadership of Fletcher and Rawlinson, took over the Iwerne network in its entirety in 1997. Titus has continued to run holidays under the Iwerne brand until as recently as last week. To suggest that the two are completely separate is simply deceitful.
Since Smyth’s horrific abuses were publicly exposed in February 2017, the Titus Trust has flatly refused to engage with his victims, or even to enquire after our well-being, let alone to offer any form of support or redress. Their protestation of sympathy is cynical and disingenuous.
Had the Titus Trust acted on the information that was available to it since its foundation, Smyth’s abuse could have been stopped long ago. Our hearts go out to the 60 or more children of Zimbabwe and South Africa who suffered at the hands of John Smyth as we did, but needlessly.
We have no interest in the “thoughts and prayers” of the Titus Trust. We do not believe they are fit to work with children.
/ENDS
Statement from the Titus Trust
John Smyth “It is deeply regrettable that John Smyth’s death has robbed his victims of the opportunity to see justice done. Since 2014, when the board of the Titus Trust was informed of the allegations, we have done all we can to ensure the matter is properly investigated by the relevant authorities. We sympathise deeply with Smyth’s victims and continue to pray that they find healing and freedom from the harm that was so unjustly inflicted on them. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the news of John Smyth’s death.”
How can you be attacked by an encyclopaedia? Until last week I would have thought the idea as absurd as being savaged by a tree frog. Now I know better. Wikipedia bites. Fortunately it can only do so in the electronic dreamland of the internet. But as we all increasingly discover, that world is growing fast alongside the real one: millions spend much of their lives within it, and for many people it is almost as solid as reality.
I signed up some years ago as a Wikipedia ‘editor’, thinking that, as I knew a little about some subjects, I could help to straighten out the online encyclopaedia a bit. Heaven knows, it needs some help. Its worst failing, much like BBC Radio 4’s Todayprogramme, is to portray subjects that are racked with unresolved controversy as if they were settled.
But I soon found out why nobody else had managed to put this right. Almost every significant article is guarded by powerful forces that appear from nowhere if you dare to make changes. Unless you have unlimited time, and a squadron of determined helpers, they will simply remove any alterations you make, and put things back the way they were.
In the end, I did not care enough to fight these battles. And I made it hard for myself by being open about who I am. Most Wikipedia ‘editors’ use pseudonyms. I do not. I have always thought that anonymity, or pseudonymity, ensures that the internet is often spiteful and nasty. But the internet is also quite left-wing, so being the Hated Peter Hitchens makes anything I do a target.
Wikipedia’s rules, full of acronyms and jargon, are like four-dimensional algebra and often feel like the private language of a cult. I have the strictly limited computer skills of my newspaper generation — just enough to research, write and file copy. Wikipedia demands a familiarity with those worrying symbols at the edge of the keyboard, which in my experience should only be used if you actually want to delete everything you have written or turn it irrevocably into inch-high letters in lurid purple.
So for some years I have stuck almost entirely to correcting errors of fact in the entry about me. These were small matters where I, probably alone in the universe, knew the truth. But then came the terrible allegations of child sex abuse against the late Bishop George Bell, in which the Church of England and many others threw justice out of the window. Bishop Bell’s defenders know a lot about law, liturgy, politics, history, misericords, crocketed finials and rubrics, but not about computers. Among them, I was the nearest thing we had to an electronic wizard. The task of trying to keep Wikipedia fair fell to me.
This is the complicated bit. You can look up the George Bell affair somewhere else (I suggest, not Wikipedia), but the case against him made heavy (and mistaken) use of the police. It was of course a civil case, of a complainant against the church, and always has been. But the C of E, which for reasons of its own decided to trash the reputation of one of its greatest figures, persuaded the police to declare they would have arrested the bishop if he had not been dead since 1958. This was ridiculous in itself. Why say you would have done an impossible thing? Secondly, it wasn’t true and was wrong in law. But I know that the involvement of the police persuaded far too many people of Bishop Bell’s utterly unproven guilt.
For two years I tried to change the Wikipedia entry to remove this damaging stuff about the police and arrests. I argued, I pleaded, I waited. A rude pseudonymous person responded by calling me a ‘loudmouth’ and sneered at Bishop Bell’s defenders as a ‘fan club’ which he ignorantly judged was ‘right-wing’ and came from the ‘establishment’. These things were not just bad-mannered and untrue. They revealed my opponent as partial and obstructive. He was also unresponsive. When I tried to argue for alterations, he ignored my case and deleted my changes. Nothing happened to him. Thinking justice must be on my side, I precipitated a small crisis in the hope of bringing about a helpful intervention from the ‘Wikipedia community’. I added to the item, which continued to say absurdly that the police had not been called. I pointed out that of course they hadn’t — you might as well say the fire brigade, or Tesco, had not been called. This is, by the way, true and — in my view — obviously satirical. I appealed for help and was instantly kicked in the teeth, as if I had put in a good word for the Ku Klux Klan.
Some Wikicrat, armed with enormous powers, parachuted down from the Wikisphere and, having apparently examined the whole two-year quarrel for all of 90 seconds, pulled out bell, book and candle and banned me from further editing or from explaining my position. If this had been reality, instead of the internet, it would have been terrifying. I immediately became an unperson, unable to defend myself and told that any attempt to do so would make my position worse. Appealing for due process (I cited the Bill of Rights) was itself a further crime. I was told I must humbly confess before anyone would listen to me. No Englishman of my generation would consider such a surrender, so I am out of Wikipedia for ever. While it lasted, and while I was inside it, it was a tiny, infuriating nightmare of totalitarianism. One day soon, I suspect this particular dream is all too likely to come true in the solid world. As it happens, it has already come true for Bishop Bell, presumed guilty and cast into a pit of shame from which he cannot speak for himself. That is why I and others still fight for justice for him.
Peter Hitchens is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday.
The Church Times has mention it – in a staggeringly understated way – on page 5 of this week’s issue (“Smyth, accused of shed beatings, has died abroad”, Aug 17):
“Mr [Andrew] Morse said that he and other survivors were concerned about the position of the current Archbishop of Canterbury…”
“Allegations against Mr Smyth first emerged in the early 1980s in an internal report by the Iwerne Trust, which organised the camps – but the allegations were not reported to the police.
“An alleged victim went public with concerns that there had been no inquiry five years ago, but it was only after a TV investigation screened last February that police launched an investigation.
“Victims are considering legal action against the Archbishop for allegedly failing to act decisively enough after he was informed of the claims against Mr Smyth in 2013…
“Richard Scorer, a solicitor acting for the alleged victims, said: ‘I have been instructed by a number of Smyth’s victims to pursue civil cases against the organisations involved…”’
“Accusations, even if they be justified, that he left undone other things that he ought to have done will not do instead”
Pardon me. Are you saying if there is clear evidence that an Archbishop has repeatedly, deliberately and wilfully “left undone…things that he ought to have done” (ie took no action), then that does not count as evidence of a cover-up?
I didn’t say “repeatedly, deliberately and wilfully”; that is your gratuitous addition. IF he left undone OTHER things which he ought to have done – and I do stress IF – that does not of itself amount to evidence of a cover-up.
In fact, it is far from clear what Welby should or could have done in the case of John Smyth, over whom he had no jurisdiction. There was nothing whatever to stop the complainants from going directly to the police. They had nothing to gain by trying to use Welby as an intermediary since he had no responsibility of any kind for Smyth, who, unlike Peter Ball, was not a bishop or a priest of the Church of England, and held no official lay position either in that church, and in any case was no longer in the UK. Nor could Welby have supported their complaints with his own testimony, since he had not been a witness to Smyth’s misconduct and had previously been unaware of it.
Yeah, just another one who ‘passed by on the other side’ while victims were suffering…just another one who could have done something but did nothing…just another one
“Andrew Morse, who twice tried to take his own life after years of savage beatings, said: ‘I’m generally a very forgiving person, but Justin Welby was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Jesus would not have silently protected the abusers, he would have stood with the abused’”
Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson, has become the most senior Roman Catholic cleric to be convicted of covering up child sex abuse. The news of his sentencing was followed just days later by a grand jury report which documented how paedophile priests in the American state of Pennsylvania were often protected by church hierarchy. As the world looks on at yet more church abuse scandals, Phil Johnson and David Greenwood from Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors explain why they believe a change to UK law is urgently needed
This week’s news that a Grand Jury in Pennsylvania has identified more than 300 abusive priests from the Diocese is shocking but sadly it is not surprising.
The Catholic Church in particular has operated a system of secrecy when it hears about allegations of abuse. Clergy and complainants are often sworn to secrecy and action is decided on in Rome. This has allowed cover ups and clergy avoiding detection by the police and prosecutors for decades. And worse, it has allowed abusers to continue to abuse, unfettered and unpunished.
There is in many large established churches a culture of cover-up. A culture that is far more concerned with maintaining the image and power of the clergy than preventing abuse or addressing the needs of the victims.
We at MACSAS (Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors) have continually observed governments and law enforcement agencies avoid tackling church organisations partly through a sense of deference and disbelief that clergy would commit sexual abuse of children but mainly because so many allegations are not routinely passed to the police by churches.
Our work has exposed the movement of accused priests secretly between parishes, dioceses or even countries, with the slate being wiped clean with each move and new congregations having no idea that their new priest poses a risk.
Unbelievably there is no legal duty to report the sexual abuse of children in England and Wales
Successive Popes could have required all reports of abuse to be turned over by Rome and Bishops to the police, yet despite pressure from survivor groups and even the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child they have failed to do so, instead favouring the protection of clergy and Bishops rather than children and the vulnerable.
Sadly, the Anglican church in the UK is no different. At the recent IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) inquiry hearings the Church of England has been found to have covered up, burnt and destroyed files, moved priests around and even helped one Bishop, Peter Ball, back into public ministry despite him admitting his sex crimes to police and the church knowing about many more victims.
IICSA also showed us in March how numerous abusers were protected by the Diocese of Chichester and evidence of abuse was consistently withheld from the police by successive bishops.
Even more astounding is that no bishops in the UK have been held to account for their failures to report abuse or to protect children, not by the criminal justice system or even by the churches’ own disciplinary measures.
We are beginning to see state authorities attempting to address this issue in other territories such as Pennsylvania and in the recent prosecution of Archbishop Wilson in Australia but this simply cannot happen in this country.
The case for mandatory reporting
Unbelievably there is no legal duty to report the sexual abuse of children in England and Wales and withholding evidence and knowledge of abuse is not a crime either.
Throughout the IICSA hearings we have heard many times the call for ‘cultural change’ in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches and it is clear that without it there is nothing to stop abuse continuing to go unreported and there will always be an inclination for bishops to protect their friends, colleagues and their institution.
If one looks at other areas of dramatic shifts in culture in the secular world it is clear that the main motivator for change is legislation, this has been clearly demonstrated with issues such as the requirement to wear seat-belts, the banning of smoking in public places and, most recently, the law preventing drivers from using their mobile phones while at the wheel.
It seems that only when people are required by law to do something (and there is a penalty if they fail to do so) that real change is achieved and that change becomes permanent and part of the culture.
We at MACSAS believe that there needs to be the introduction of law to require those who are responsible for other people’s children to report suspicions or allegations of abuse to the statutory authorities, outside of their institutions.
The churches and their bishops have been a law unto themselves for far too long. It’s time for change
This would mean that the veracity of allegations are assessed by the police or safeguarding professionals and not bishops and their employees, it would also mean that those who fail to report abuse or cover it up could be readily prosecuted.
We believe that such a law would better protect children by uncovering abuse much sooner, bringing abusers to justice and thus preventing further abuse.
We applaud law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Australia for using the powers they have to seize documentation and to prosecute offenders and to go after those who have covered up for them but we fear that this will not happen here.
Failure to report abuse is not a crime, covering it up is not a crime and nobody can be held to account.
The churches and their bishops have been a law unto themselves for far too long. It’s time for change, it’s time for a change in the law, it’s time for Mandatory Reporting.
Children have suffered enough.
Phil Johnson and David Greenwood are members of MACSAS (Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors)
There is no end to the invention of new laws to cover perceived gaps. As the law stands, knowledge of an offence without the reporting of the offence is cooperation after the offence with the offender. It matters not what the offence is. In a hierarchical organisation, when a senior person knows his junior has committed an offence and fails to ensure that it is reported they should be prosecuted.
I agree, they should be prosecuted but under the current law NOBODY has been prosecuted despite the multitude of cases that have been exposed where bishops had knowledge of abuse and failed to report it.
“Meghan Markle’s dad has likened the Royal Family to Scientologists because of their ‘cult-like’ secrecy. Thomas Markle, 74, said the royals must become more modern and open to scrutiny…”
Lord Arbuthnot, a former Tory MP for Wanstead and Woodford, and then North East Hampshire, and chair of the defence select committee, was nominated for a peerage by David Cameron in 2015. He was until 31 December last year, three weeks after the start of Uber’s London appeal, a director of SC Strategy Ltd. Little is known about the private intelligence company, founded by Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and Sir John Scarlett, the head of MI6 between 2004 and 2009. It has no website and eschews publicity. One of its few known clients has been the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), the giant sovereign wealth fund that invests billions around the world.
“None so blind” – ‘Church Abuse’ – Private Eye – 24 August – 6 September 2018 [No. 1477] – Page 37
Two weeks ago, after 18 months of consideration, the Crown Prosecution Service instructed Hampshire Police to summon John Smyth QC for a formal interview about allegations that in the late 1970s he beat young men in his garden shed until they bled. Eight days later Smyth died, apparently of heart failure, in his Cape Town hiding place. His death robs 80 or more alleged victims of the chance to see him in court.
They are left asking why so many senior clergy who knew what Smyth was up to chose to do nothing to stop him. The abuse was documented in painful detail as long ago as 1982 by Revd Mark Ruston, who interviewed 19 victims and reported his findings to the Iwerne Trust, which Smyth had chaired between 1974 and 1981 (see “The C of E and the Sado-Evangelist”, Eye 1438). Ruston’s report made clear that Smyth’s actions were criminal. But instead of reporting him to the police, members of the Iwerne network facilitated him going to Africa. He went on to abuse scores of children there.
Despite their failure to deal with Smyth, several clergy who were on the distribution list for the Ruston report have gone on to enjoy high profile careers in the Church. Chief among them is Revd David Fletcher, who commissioned the report while he was senior officer at Iwerne Camps, where Smyth groomed his victims. He then became Rector of St Ebbe’s church in Oxford, and remained a trustee of Iwerne and its successor body [Titus Trust – Ed] until 2016.
Another recipient of the Ruston report, the Ven. Roger Combes, was mark Ruston’s curate in Cambridge at the time. He rose to become Archdeacon of Horsham, and is still ministering in retirement in the Chichester diocese.
Also on the distribution list was Revd Tim Sterry, a former prep school headmaster and a team leader in at Iwerne from 1981 until his retirement, who still has permission to officiate in Salisbury diocese.
Why did none of them think to speak out about their abusive colleague over 36 years?
The same question might be asked of the Very Revd David Connor. Now Dean of Windsor, he was senior chaplain at Winchester College when headmaster John Thorn was told of the abuse. Is it conceivable he didn’t know why Smyth had been banned from the college grounds and the Christian Forum group closed down?
Revd Hugh Palmer, currently rector at All Souls, Langham Place, must have had his suspicions too. He visited one of Smyth’s victims in hospital on the day he attempted suicide to avoid a beating by Smyth in 1982. This man’s suicide note was one of the triggers for the original inquiry.
The other trigger was a visit to Ruston by two Cambridge students who knew what was going on. One was Andrew Watson, now Bishop of Guildford. The other was Alasdair Paine who, ironically, now resides in the very vicarage where he disclosed the abuse, having succeeded Ruston as Vicar of St Andrew the Great in Cambridge.
Had any one of these good Christian men spoken out about what they knew, upwards of 60 African children might not have been viciously beaten, and Smyth might have faced the justice he deserved.
There is no possible explanation for their collective failure to deal appropriately with what they knew, except their blind loyalty to the elite evangelical club that was, and is, Iwerne.
Catholics can no longer ignore revelations of clerical sexual abuse, a Trinity College Dublin (TCD) expert has said. Fainche Ryan said she was shocked by the “cover-up” of abuse and called for a system of checks and balances…
The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland says meeting sexual abuse survivors is difficult for all involved, as victims do not trust the church.
Speaking at the World Meeting of Families media briefing on Thursday, Bishop Eamon Martin, the Archbishop of Armagh and the Primate of All Ireland, said he never doubted Pope Francis would meet with survivors of clerical abuse during his visit to Ireland this weekend.
He said: “Hearing Pope Francis speak on this issue, he has always been very clear that he wants to reach out to survivors.
“It is a difficult thing to do, as I have found in my own experience, while meeting with survivors is not easy for any of us, but survivors sometimes simply don’t trust us.
“I think it’s important that the meeting is seen as a sacred or special moment for the survivors and Pope Francis.Alongside Bishop Martin was Bishop of Chicago Blase Cupich, who referenced the recent Hollywood #MeToo movement in regards to the church’s own scandals which he labelled an infected boil.
“People are finding freedom to come forward when they see accusations against certain individuals.
“This might seem threatening to people within the church as it could prompt others to demand justice in their circumstances, but I feel this is the only way we can lance this boil that is so infected.
“This is a dark moment for the church, a black moment, it’s causing us shame.
“The real darkness is within the victims, that is where Jesus is, and we must always put the victims first.”
Pushed on the topic of LGBTQ+ people within the church, the bishops were asked their view of a recent speech by Father James Martin, who said those who promoted conversion therapy were wrong.
We’re all sexual beings, we want to make sure a so-called a conversion model doesn’t start from the premise that the individual is in some way deformed or sick
Bishop Blase Cupich
Bishop Martin said he was not aware of Catholic conversion therapy for LGBT people in Ireland.
“Conversion, change and repentance is something that is offered to all Christians but I don’t fully understand the idea of conversion therapy.
“I think a call to chastity, which is there for all Catholics with regard to sexual activity outside of marriage is something that is very real, but I wouldn’t support this idea of some kind of psychotherapy within a church setting.”
Bishop Cupich was in agreement with the Primate who said that adults who choose to “other” young people because of their sexuality are not living by the gospel.
“We want to make sure when we’re talking about people’s intimate sexual lives, and there are aspects in all of our lives that need redemption, that we need to make sure that we’re going to make sure to use the gift of our human sexuality which goes beyond genital experiences.
“We’re all sexual beings, we want to make sure a so-called a conversion model doesn’t start from the premise that the individual is in some way deformed or sick, like someone else who needs therapy.
“That’s a message that so often that in dealing with young people who are struggling with sexuality questions are so sensitive to.
“If that’s the first message that we as adults are giving to young people we’re setting them on the wrong path.
“Let’s make sure we’re very clear and sensitive to the fact everyone struggles with how they live out their sexuality and we are always in need of redemption, and that calls for chaste lifestyle, but to stigmatise one over the other is very damaging and is not the gospel.”
Survivors STILL receive similar versions, although superficially more polite, to this comment from bishops and others in positions of church leadership. Sadly, the shocking attitudes revealed at IICSA towards victims are still alive and well. I agree with Savi that they should be picked up and dealt with as they certainly are pastorally damaging behaviour – but the problem is that the senior leadership is unaccountable so dangerous attitudes and a dysfunctional system remain.
“I’m sure people like an Archbishop pray without ceasing, but it’s as if they pray for the miracle of being right. They can’t seem to admit to the possibility – especially in the Bishop Bell case – of being wrong”
~ Richard W. Symonds
August 24 2018 – Church Times – Letters
Review Smyth case, but not just ‘lessons learnt’
From Mr David Lamming
Sir, — The Bishop of Bath & Wells, the Rt Revd Peter Hancock, C of E lead bishop on safeguarding, in the statement he issued on 12 August after news of the death of John Smyth QC in Cape Town, said that it was “important now that those organisations linked with this case work together to look at a ‘lessons learnt’ review” (News, 17 August).
The Ruston report, now in the public domain after the Channel 4 documentary in February 2017, shows clearly that the criminal offences of malicious wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed by Smyth — namely, the beatings administered by Smyth in his garden shed — were known to the Iwerne Trustees in 1982. Instead of being reported to the police at the time, as they should have been, Smyth was effectively banished to Zimbabwe, where he was able to resume his abuse.
The lesson to be learned from the failure to report Smyth’s criminal abuse in and after 1982 (what, effectively, amounts to a cover-up) is surely obvious: never again must those who know of or suspect abuse of the kind perpetrated by Smyth fail to report it to the police or the appropriate authorities, whether out of intended kindness to the victims, mistaken or perverted theology, or concern to avoid reputational damage.
Sadly, Smyth cannot now face justice in a temporal court. Bishop Hancock is right to seek a review, but its focus should not be a “lessons learnt” review: rather, it should be one that enables those survivors of Smyth’s abuse who wish to do so to speak about their experiences, and also one where those responsible for the cover-up (in particular, those Iwerne Trust and Titus Trust trustees who are still alive) explain what they knew and when, and offer apologies for their conduct over the past 30-plus years,
DAVID LAMMING Member of the General Synod 20 Holbrook Barn Road, Boxford Suffolk CO10 5HU From Mr Steve Vince
The Vatican’s files should be opened to prove it is serious about tackling child abuse, a veteran campaigner has said.
Blue ribbons were tied on the Ha’penny Bridge over the River Liffey in Dublin city centre in a symbol of solidarity with victims and survivors of clerical wrongdoing, which has rocked the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Soline Humbert, 62, from Versailles, near Paris, said: “Unless the truth comes out, and we know that as Christians, and we know that as Catholics, there is no movement forward, there is no resurrection, there is no transformation and trust cannot be re-established until the truth is acknowledged.
“It is very painful and it will be very disturbing but the truth is buried in the bottom, in the secret archives, of a lot of dioceses and especially in the Vatican.”
Irish President Michael D Higgins has told Pope Francis of the anger felt by those in Ireland who were abused as children by Catholic clerics…
The Irish greeting party also included Irish government minister for children and youth affairs Katherine Zappone…
In a statement issued after the meeting, the spokesman said Mr Higgins also told Pope Francis of the “anger which had been conveyed to him at what was perceived to be the impunity enjoyed by those who had the responsibility of bringing such abuses for action by the appropriate authorities and have not done so”…
“He conveyed to Pope Francis the widely-held view that all would benefit from a set of actions that gave the necessary assurances to all citizens past, present and future, of all faiths and none.”
The two men also agreed on the importance of protecting vulnerable communities and individuals, and discussed issues including homelessness, health, education and nutrition…
The Pope has spoken of his pain and shame at the failure of church authorities to tackle the grave scandal of clerical abuse in Ireland.
On the first day of his historic Irish visit, the pontiff said people had a right to be outraged at the response of senior figures in the Catholic Church to the “repellent crimes” inflicted on young people.
In a speech at Dublin Castle, he also expressed hope that remaining obstacles to reconciliation in Northern Ireland could be overcome.
With the reverberations of a litany of church sex abuse scandals casting a shadow over the first papal visit to Ireland in almost 40 years, Francis confronted the issue in his address inside the castle’s St Patrick’s Hall…
“With regard to the most vulnerable, I cannot fail to acknowledge the grave scandal caused in Ireland by the abuse of young people by members of the church charged with responsibility for their protection and education,” he said.
“The failure of ecclesiastical authorities – bishops, religious superiors, priests and others – adequately to address these repellent crimes has rightly given rise to outrage and remains a source of pain and shame for the Catholic community.
“I myself share those sentiments.”
The pontiff’s predecessor, Pope Benedict, has also addressed the issue.
“His frank and decisive intervention continues to serve as an incentive for the efforts of the church’s leadership both to remedy past mistakes and to adopt stringent norms meant to ensure that they do not happen again,” Francis added.
He said the Church in Ireland had played a role in child welfare which could not be obscured.
“It is my hope that the gravity of the abuse scandals, which have cast light on the failings of many, will serve to emphasise the importance of the protection of minors and vulnerable adults on the part of society as a whole,” he said.
“In this regard, all of us are aware of how urgent it is to provide our young people with wise guidance and sound values on their journey to maturity.”
The Pope said he also wished to acknowledge women who in the past had “endured particularly difficult circumstances”…
In an apparent reference to the political deadlock in Northern Ireland, which has seen the region without a properly functioning devolved government for 20 months, Francis said: “We can give thanks for the two decades of peace that followed this historic agreement, while expressing firm hope that the peace process will overcome every remaining obstacle and help give birth to a future of harmony, reconciliation and mutual trust.”
The speech came after a private meeting with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, and later the Irish premier urged the Pope to “listen to the victims” in his own address at Dublin Castle…
In the coming 36 hours, the Pope will witness a country that has undergone seismic social changes in the four decades since the last papal visit in 1979, when John Paul II was lauded by a nation shaped by its relationship with an all-powerful Catholic Church...
While the Pope is sure to receive a warm reception from the thousands of pilgrims who have travelled to be part of the occasion, he will also be met by protesters angry at how the church dealt with the sex abuse scandals that have damaged trust in the religious institution and seriously weakened its influence on Irish society…
Mr Coveney acknowledged that many people had mixed feelings about the visit.
“I think it’s been difficult for many people, for victims, for Catholics and many of the clergy,” he said.
“But I hope and expect that this weekend will be a very powerful moment. He has a personality that can reach out to Irish people.”
At some point over the weekend, the Pope will meet a number of abuse victims in a private meeting.
Earlier this week, he wrote a 2,000-word letter to Catholics in which he condemned the crime of sexual abuse by priests and subsequent cover-ups.
He demanded accountability in response to fresh revelations in Pennsylvania in the United States of decades of misconduct by clerics…
One of a number of protests against clerical child sexual abuse was held near Dublin Castle on Saturday morning.
The protest was organised by Margaret McGuckan, a survivor of historic child abuse who spent years in the Nazareth House children’s home and helped campaign for the introduction of the Historical Institutional Abuse inquiry.
Ms McGuckan says the protest is a symbolic gesture to the Pope and the church that victims have not gone away.
She said: “The Pope now needs to stand up to the plate and do something for the survivors. We need redress, we need the church held to account.
“We want the bishops, Christian Brothers, nuns and anyone else who was involved in the abuse of children or covering up the abuse of children brought before the courts.
“We need zero tolerance, they cannot be allowed to investigate themselves. It should be zero tolerance, nothing more and nothing less.
“It’s not just Ireland, look what has happened in America, people fall away from the church because they don’t practice what they preach.”
During her time in Nazareth House, Ms McGuckan says she was beaten, starved, neglected, emotionally, physically and mentally abused at the hands of nuns charged with her care.
Banners were unfurled at Dublin’s Dame Street demanding redress for victims and an end to what they see as a Papal cover-up.
Many at the protest were from the global survivors network End Clergy Abuse who had baby shoes tied around their neck in protest for the children who died in the Mother and Baby Homes across Ireland.
Pete Saunders, a survivor who was abused in Jesuit school in London, travelled from England’s capital to attend the protest.
“I came to Ireland to give support to survivors here.
“If this was any other organisation in the world, the head of that organisation would be held to account to tackle the issue within his company.
“The people involved should be brought to justice. Words are very nice but we would like to see action.”
I have refrained from commenting on Roman Catholic issues to do with power abuse up till now. This is partly because I do not want to sound like a critical outsider taking aim at another church body. My reason now for wanting to refer to the Pope’s recent pronouncements on sexual abuse is to suggest that his recent statement is illustrating some fundamental failures of understanding as to how to deal with scandal. This is a problem for the whole Church, including the Church of England. Looking at what the Pope has said may help us to see our own Anglican problems a little clearer.
The recent 2000-word pronouncement about child sexual abuse from the Vatican seems to say, at first reading, all the right things. It lays blame on corrupt priests for taking advantage of the vulnerable and asks for prayers and fasting by the whole church for these ‘atrocities’. It sees the whole thing as a grievous stain on the Church.
The theologian Richard Sipe was a Catholic researcher who studied celibacy among Catholic priests in America and died quite recently. I have one of his books at home (I am away at present) and one of the striking claims he made which stuck in my memory was that only half the Catholic priests in his country were in fact celibate. To put it another way 50% of American Catholic priests are sexually active. I do not recall how this sexuality is normally expressed but one is reminded of the two French priests and their ‘arrangements’ in the pre-war comic French novel, Clochemerle. Each of the priests in the story had a compliant female housekeeper but they knew that their activities in bed were sinful. In the novel we hear the ways they arranged to confess to each other and receive absolution. This process involved each of them pedalling hard 20 km to each other’s village and picking up a penitence after a brief recital of their ‘delinquency’. The penitence required became ever more truncated and peremptory. This went on over several years. A sexually active priest is, by definition, having to carry out his activities in secret and this will frequently compromise any potential honesty and mutuality in the relationship. From the outside there may often appear to be a damaging element of control involved. A priest’s ‘lover’, male or female, will frequently end up damaged in the medium to long term.
A Catholic priest may of course act out his sexuality in ways that include criminal acts against children and young people. The law is clear that such relationships are not tolerated in any modern society. The law of the Catholic church, because all sexual activity by a priest is regarded as sin, may be less explicit in its utter revulsion for crimes against children. The Clochmerle relationships may or may not have had an abusive element in them but they were clearly far from being as culpable and damaging as the abuse of a child. Behind the prohibition of any sexual activity for a priest is the vexed issue of compulsory celibacy. This institution clearly does not serve the Church well. Nevertheless, the Church of Rome has shown itself unwilling to address the issue. In theory the Church expects all its clergy to control sexual longing. This enables it to present the priestly caste as somehow pure and holy, being removed from and above the distractions of carnal lust. Because this ideal is failing 50% of the time, the Church is in fact being deeply damaged in several ways. It is damaged by the creation of numerous victims, such as the 1000 children identified in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. It is damaged because clergy are forced into secretive liaisons that force many of them into a permanent state of hypocrisy. One of the most telling aspects of the Pennsylvania Report was the suggestion that cover-ups of the worst abuses were made possible because Catholic bishops in informal relationships felt unable to discipline their child-abusing priests because the latter had the power to blackmail them for their own sexual compromises.
I cannot tell the Pope what to do, as the task of cleaning up the Church of Rome is vast. Clearly a start has to be made in deciding what should be realistically asked of a young priest in terms of dealing with his sexual side. One way forward could be to allow priests to marry. The hypocrisy of expecting ‘purity’ from all priests can never completely work as it is in conflict with the normal functioning of human nature. Some may succeed following the path of celibacy but many will not. There is also always going to be a high cost that the institution has to pay each time a scandal emerges. The age of the Internet means that these scandals can never be easily be covered up in the future.
The Anglican Church in dealing with its own scandals has in some ways behaved like the Church of Rome in its desire to protect itself. For the Vatican the supposed ‘purity’ of priests and thus the blameless institution they serve, seems to have been an overarching preoccupation. This approach, resulting in secrecy and rampant hypocrisy, has had little regard for those who inevitably have been damaged by the system of celibacy, particularly the under-age targets of priestly desire. For some Anglican leaders there seems to be a preoccupation with preserving not purity, but the assets of the organisation. On many occasions when a victim of abuse approaches the centre he/she is pushed away, sometimes brutally, because it is assumed that they are only interested in financial compensation. From my own dealings with victims this is generally not the case. Survivors would like the courtesy of being heard, having letters answered and generally being allowed a voice. This ‘othering’ of abuse victims by bishops and senior officials is unbelievably cruel behaviour when applied to someone who has already had their life ruined by the original abuser. The way that Anglican and Vatican authorities seem to react and think alike is because everything is seen only within the perspective of the institution and its interests. Commentators, such as I, can see the situation from other vantage points. Of course, the interests of the institution have to be weighed up and respected. But other perspectives are needed to obtain a rounded picture of what is really going on. To some of these, church authorities seem sometimes to be deaf and blind. First, we have the legitimate and just rights of survivors. If these are not listened to then the central mission statement of any church is trampled under-foot. How can any church put up with a situation where someone ‘causes one of these little ones to sin’? We all know how the text continues. When the Church, the guardian of morality, is seen to fail one of these ‘little ones’ it is judged very harshly by the wider public.
The public relations impact of the recent child abuse scandals is wreaking enormous damage on both church bodies. The man on the Clapham omnibus is fast concluding that all churches are unsafe, even dangerous, places for children and young people. However good safeguarding practices are being put into place at present, failure to deal with past crimes will negate all the current good work.
In the past week social media has recorded the story of a survivor who was told by a Church of England clergyman to go back under a stone and that he had probably enjoyed his abuse. I normally double-check stories of this kind, but this report seems to chime in with the continuing revelation of how some senior clergy seemed to be uncaring and indifferent to the stories of survivors who disclose to them. The Smyth story has continued to reveal names of individuals who put the reputation of the Iwerne network above the protection of vulnerable young people.
When will the damaging stories about the Church of England and the Catholic Church stop? They will stop when there is a change of mindset. The mindset has to include the ability to embrace the full reality of the scandals so that the protection of the institution is never the only or even the main consideration. Church leaders must learn to see the whole picture. This will always involve acknowledging the pain of victims as well as the increasing righteous anger of all who witness what is going on. The Church of Rome and the Church of England seem to struggle in their ability to see what is there in front of them, so that the health of both bodies is profoundly damaged.
7 thoughts on “Defending the Church from Scandal -Catholic and Anglican Approaches”
Thank you Stephen. Yes, I think the man on the Clapham omnibus is right and the sooner the clergy and those in the pews also realise the continued dishonesty of the church leaders the better. They need to hear how the responses of some (many?) bishops and other clergy aren’t just uncaring to those who disclose abuse to them but actively hinder or obstruct victims’ recovery or healing, and they need to know that these sort of responses aren’t just from the past but are happening now. So far the mainstream media don’t seem to have focused on the fact that bishops and other leaders are actually making recovery almost impossible for victims in the church. I hope they pick up on the “crawl back under a stone” response and start to understand that this is just one part of a spectrum of continued harm being done. My message to the C of E bishops is “Stop the dishonesty and start taking responsibility to put things right for the victims. It’s not rocket science – in fact I think it emerges from the gospel.”
The problem I have experienced very recently is that church leaders, including the NST, in spite of having policies, which they have written, in front of them will not be consistent in acting as to what is in them. Point this out by literally copying and pasting and referencing the relevant part and they go silent. Press the point for a few months with no response then they turn round and say, ‘we don’t want to distress you any further so we won’t continue down this route’. I have even been told that policies are only very general guidelines and open to numerous interpretations based on the individuals case.
No! Be consistent do what is in the damn policy or don’t bother to write it.
Yet every time a case bubbles over into the media their wretched policies are the first thing they hold up as evidence of improvement and pastoral care. This, as JayKay says, makes any sort of healing almost impossible because the hypocrisy is sickening and the anger that often has to be swallowed makes you ill.
I’m so sorry you are experiencing this too, Trish. I’ve been experiencing it for years! We need to find some way to bring these responses to wider public attention, so people in the pews understand how appalling the responses can be and how they fail to comply with the church’s own policies. (Unfortunately failing to comply with policies doesn’t make for an eye-catching story in the media.) Truth is a pre-requisite for healing and I think the bishops and church leadership need to be strongly challenged on this basis. Incidentally, if you have some good examples of how the church leadership effectively denies that it needs to follow their own policies it might be worth sending them to IICSA in case they could be useful for the third stage of hearings.
Why does a third party have the right to decide what is distressing someone without reference to the person concerned? Rhetorical question. Having discussions like this with the princes of the church always leaves me open mouthed.
Sorry to hear that JayKay, we can scream in unison.
My diocese which has a stand alone safeguarding document written by a previous DSA actually has a complete section in it entitled ‘Acceptable behaviour by children and vulnerable adults,’ which then proceeds to discuss restraint and uses such forward thinking ideas as people with ‘mental illness’ are prone to be disruptive! Seriously I think Charles Dickens had more social awareness though in fairness to the diocese I think the section on sending people to the workhouse may just have been removed! Of course the brilliant independent audit declared the document as somewhat dated but still fit for purpose!
I will send examples to IICSA but responses trickle in so slowly that just as I think, that’s it, another delightful email plonks into my in-box. I never, ever read church emails unless I am in a safe space.
Richard W. Symonds (submitted) – “The Church of Rome and the Church of England seem to struggle in their ability to see what is there in front of them…”
Indeed. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.
“None so blind” – ‘Church Abuse’ – Private Eye – 24 August – 6 September 2018 [No. 1477] – Page 37
How can the Anglican and Catholic Churches solve the problem of abuse?
One solution is simple – an adaptation of the words of Noam Chomsky on terrorism:
“Everybody is worried about stopping abuse. Well, there’s a really easy way: Stop participating in it”
August 25 2018 [From The Archives – 1971 – Kincora, Northern Ireland, Cover-ups, Church, Colin Wallace, William McGrath & The Security Services]
John Colin Wallace (born c. 1943) is a former British member of Army Intelligence in Northern Ireland and a psychological warfare specialist. He was one of the members of the intelligence agency-led ‘Clockwork Orange’ project, alleged to have been an attempt to smear various individuals including a number of senior British politicians in the early 1970s. He also attempted to draw public attention to the Kincora Boys’ Home sexual abuse scandal several years before the Royal Ulster Constabulary finally intervened.
He was wrongly convicted of manslaughter in 1981, for which he spent six years in gaol, until 1987.[1] The conviction was later quashed in the light of new forensic and other evidence that raised serious questions about the dubious nature of the evidence used to convict Wallace initially. The journalist Paul Foot, in his book Who Framed Colin Wallace?,[2] suggested that Wallace may have been framed for the killing, possibly to discredit the allegations he was making. This view was similarly expressed by Alex CarlileQC (now Lord Carlile),[3] who later speculated that this may have been the motive not just for the alleged frameup, but also for murder.[4]
Service of Fellowship at St James’s Church Piccadilly, London Saturday 17th March, 2018
Page 21 FACTion – Vol 8.2- Summer 2018
Main Address by Professor Andrew Chandler
Professor of Modern History, University of Chichester. Chairman of Bishop George Bell Group
All of us, I imagine, feel that we have in many different ways tumbled into this – and now we find each other on very uncertain terms indeed. I feel I have tumbled into this address too. The reason that I am here is simply because I was kindly invited and I accepted. On the twenty second of October 2015, an organisation called the ‘Church of England’, made a statement that it had achieved an out of court settlement concerning an allegation of sexual abuse laid against Bishop George Bell, of Chichester; who died in 1958. The statement was devised in such a way as to incite a public judgment. This shocked all of those who knew something of George Bell, as he was a man regarded once as one of the great, compassionate and courageous figures of the twentieth century Christian Church. He had been the constant friend of refugees from tyranny. He had saved many lives, an honour unknown to any other Anglican Bishop. He had befriended those who had sought to resist Nazism in Germany and stood by them as they paid the price. This statement was an assault, premeditated and deliberately calculated, against the integrity of a man who was wholly absent, undefended, unrepresented. It was an assault against a particular Christian civilisation now virtually extinct in this country, which had lived by the highest moral standards and possessed the character to withstand the onslaught of totalitarianism abroad. It was an assault against the reality of knowledge itself, for no scholar who knew anything about this man, his patterns, his age, had been consulted: such knowledge evidently possessed no authority at all. Those of you who followed the story over the last two and half weary years will realise that it has now reached an interesting stage. All I can say today is that trying to rescue the figure of George Bell from this extraordinary situation is rather like trying to rescue a hapless British national who has fallen into the hands of a despotic foreign state. My stock in trade is teaching history and writing history and I often ask myself the question, ‘What actual use can a historian be now?’ What use can I be to you today? Many obvious things might well be said: political historians are predictable, after all, in pointing out that something apparently new has happened at least several times before. Social historians are familiar with denunciations and accusations: they are part of the currency of social life. They also know how a climate of public dread, inspired by all kinds of institutions, might foster such things. Historians are well placed to tell us that the integrity of a society is to be found in the testing of such things and not the making of them. The historians of oppressive states may offer little consolation. For them, by and large, the individual in any age makes their way as best they can through an ocean of arbitrariness, cruelty, irrational power, selfserving ambition, corporate indifference. There is little assurance of justice or vindication to be found in these places. Yet to any historian it is also clear that no individual is wholly alone: they can never be wholly isolated. They are always a part of a bigger picture and that is where the weight of judgement falls. The psalmist asked, “When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” [Psalm 11:3] This sense that the ground on which we tread daily has evaporated beneath us in many ways expresses the crucial moral crisis of the twentieth Century, a crisis in which the individual and society meet. It was an age which George Bell knew at very close quarters indeed. Many of those who were his friends knew it for themselves. In January 1943, three months before he was arrested, the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked if there had ever been any a generation with so little ground beneath its feet? We might well ask ourselves what has become of the Christian Church in such a world as this? Certainly, we cannot be sentimental. The Church, however we may try to define it, is certainly not a unique repository of righteousness. Since October 2015, I have often been struck by how people outside the Church of England have expressed dismay and anger at what has been done to George Bell. But there has been very little of this inside the Church itself, a church now with many official positions, all of them filled by people with a public responsibility. Only the other day, I heard from a Roman Catholic priest who had been approached by a woman after a Holocaust Memorial Day event in Westminster. ‘Are you Church of England?’ she had said to him. ‘No’, he replied, ‘I am a Roman Catholic priest.’ ‘Thank goodness’, she said, ‘George Bell helped to save my parents. He is our hero. It is shameful what has been done to him.’ Perhaps such a reproach hardly matters. That statement of 22 October 2015 was made to the press on behalf of a corporation. Any questions that were subsequently made were answered by an anonymous ‘spokesperson’ of the Church of England. Since then I have heard a succession of bishops speak on the matter, and they have always claimed to present the view of the Church itself. It is hardly surprising that many Christians have become sceptical about the church as a public corporation. The Roman Catholic priest, Peter Carr, whose trials and imprisonment and death seem to me as authentic a Christian martyrdom as anything I have seen in this country for the last half century, wrote towards the end of his shortened life, ‘Institutions have an amazing tendency to protect themselves. If an individual has to be sacrificed for that end, then so be it, justice and fair hearings for the individual take the back seat.’ I am not sure that anybody here today would feel able to challenge such a perception. But what is the Church? And who is the Church? Any historian knows that the Church is not a corporation, even if it is led by people who are prepared to proceed on the principle that it is. The Church is something greater and deeper, and something far more diverse. No authority, however it sets itself up, can in any meaningful way claim to represent this with a policy or a statement. It is irreducible to a simple formula or a doctrine. It is something known only to God. Today you are as much a part of the Christian Church as anyone else. There is an immeasurable reality at work in the Christian Church to which we must we must hold, because it is the reality in which we find our own place. And this is fundamental, as it was fundamental to George Bell in his own lifetime. Those who sought to maintain the Christian faith in the context of National Socialism seldom looked to bishops, senior clergy and Church bureaucracies for any consolation or support. They knew they were on their own. But what this produced was precious and rich with significance. The historian Klemens von Klemperer has written of an intensification of devotion and understanding, a ‘piety of resistance’. It was not a piety of the institution, but a piety found whenever two or three, men or women who pursued righteousess were to be found together. It was, at the last, the single possession of the man or woman who was betrayed, abandoned and abused, before execution. Then what has become of our sense of Christianity? How and where is it to be found? I am more than ever struck by the greatness of what we are all given in the wisdom of our scriptures, and in the prophetic life of a canon of ancient literature which was not given to a Church alone, but given to the world itself. It remains before us, whatever church authorities and the like may do. It is part of the birth right of every man or woman we shall see as we leave this church today. No one can define, or confine it. It is at large in the world. I once found myself sitting in a stall in the choir of Westminster Abbey between two elderly ladies. They had been widowed for half a century; both their husbands had been executed by the Nazi state. Neither was a regular churchgoer, or conventionally religious. We were attending a service of choral evensong. As the psalm of the day was sung one of them, Freya von Moltke, would simply nod in silent acknowledgement as a particular phrase touched her own experience and moved her. The source of Christianity is still to be found where it has always been, in the story of an innocent, wrongly accused man, abandoned by respectable company, tried by a secret political tribunal, judged by a class of arguments which no one with any independence of mind could credibly maintain, cast before crowds and taken away to be crucified. This stark narrative remains, perhaps, the central, crucial contribution made by Christianity to civilisation altogether. Because of it no one can really argue that such things denunciation, trial and judgement are merely peripheral matters and they can never be regarded with simple indifference. They are always fundamental, essential and inescapable. And the figure of Christ remains with us even when the corporation of the church disowns us. Father Peter Carr may have lost his ministry as a priest and been ejected from his Religious Order, but he knew that what lay before him was not oblivion but what he called ‘the Way of the Cross’. Those who endured the disaster of National Socialism chose their company very carefully after 1945 and remained very wary indeed of trusting anybody in public life. But in these years Freya von Moltke once wrote to Bell, ‘You are one of us’. Bell would certainly have cherished this. After his death, the German pastor Martin Niemöller, who spent seven years in a concentration camp, remarked on a radio programme that Bell was ‘a Christian who was led and driven by the love of Christ Jesus himself. He couldn’t see somebody suffering, without suffering himself. He could not see people left alone, without becoming their brother.’ George Bell today may well be claimed as a patron saint of those who are falsely accused, not simply and merely because he has been falsely accused himself, but because this figure offers so much that remains eloquent, resonant and encouraging. There is no doubt at all in my mind where to place him. He would readily have taken his place with us here with us today. He was one of those very rare individuals who are somehow able to hold together those disparate realities which are so rarely found in harmony: the dimensions of authority and powerlessness; the public word and the private intervention; an established religion and a confessing Christianity, the possession of privilege and security but the use of those things, daily, on behalf of those who knew only danger. W H Auden once wrote: ‘True, love finally is great, Greater than all, but large the hate, Far larger than Man can estimate. What is the price of such hate, in such a world as ours? And when we are failed by every principality and power, secular or ecclesiastical, to what assurance, if any at all, can we still lay claim? Bell certainly saw the destructive power of hatred; and he knew it for himself. But he also found what lay beyond it. In the Autumn of 1945 he visited two elderly people in a suburb of the ruined city of Berlin. They had never met before, but he had known one of their sons well and had loved him. In fact, Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer had now lost two sons and they had also lost two sons-in-law, all of them executed by the Nazi state. For years they had not seen once a daughter who had in earlier years married a Jew and who had lived safely, under Bell’s keeping, in exile. This must have been an intense, profound moment. The bishop and the bereaved couple spoke together only for half an hour but when Bell left they gave him a book which had belonged to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. It was The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis. In The Imitation of Christ I find these words: Let not therefore thy heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Trust in me, and put thy confidence in My mercy. When thou thinkest thyself farthest off from Me, oftentimes I am nearest unto thee. When thou judgest that almost all is lost, then oftentimes the greatest gain of reward is close at hand. All is not lost, when a thing falleth foul against thee. Thou must not judge according to present feeling; nor so take any grief, or give thyself over to it from whencesoever it cometh, as though all hopes of escape were quite taken away. Think not thyself wholly left although for a time I have sent thee some tribulation, or even have withdrawn thy desired comfort; for this is the way to the Kingdom of Heaven.’
Couldn’t agree more. Given the string of coverups — going right to the top of the CoE — the evidence is overwhelming that bishops can’t be trusted with discipline. It’s structural as much as it’s personal: even if a bishop wants to do the right thing, the conflict of interest is awesome (not that this absolves anyone of responsibility). Putting the organization first is an evil that bedevils all institutions.
I’ve previously gone further than saying that the disciplinary process should be made independent, to suggesting something like France’s juge d’instruction, a trained lawyer with sweeping powers to pursue complaints, gather evidence, and commit any priest or bishop to trial before a panel of laity. So entrenched is the coverup culture than I’m more convinced than ever that something this drastic is needed.
Bernard Silverman
It’s not (just) to do with whether bishops can or cannot be trusted. I’m surprised that they don’t themselves see how an independent complaints/discipline process would free them up to do what I imagine they would prefer to do with their time and energy. James is right: currently their various loyalties present irreconcilable conflicts of interest. We’ve seen the same self-regulation issue with the police, with parliamentary expenses, and so on. Perhaps the bishops who read this blog will comment? Of course the details would have to be worked out, but the principle is a clear one.
August 28 2018 – “Presumed Guilty” by Simon Warr [Biteback 2017]
“When Jimmy Savile died in 2011, I believe a collective insanity gripped sections of our society here in the UK, to the extent that anyone who was the target of alleged historical sexual abuse was immediately assumed to be guilty” – Page xi [Simon Warr]
35 Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.
2 Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.
3 Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.
4 Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.
5 Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the Lord chase them.
6 Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the Lord persecute them.
7 For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.
8 Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.
9 And my soul shall be joyful in the Lord: it shall rejoice in his salvation.
10 All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?
11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.
12 They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.
13 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.
14 I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.
15 But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:
16 With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.
17 Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.
18 I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.
19 Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.
21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.
22 This thou hast seen, O Lord: keep not silence: O Lord, be not far from me.
23 Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.
24 Judge me, O Lord my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.
25 Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.
26 Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.
27 Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the Lord be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.
28 And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.
Our Rome correspondent, Christopher Lamb, was sheltering from wind and rain in an airport hanger at Knock airport early last Sunday when he first read the explosive “testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. It might be some time before the storm in the Church abates. We give our assessment of Viganò’s allegations and the reaction to them. As we say in our leader, it seems the enemies of Francis and his reforms are using Vigano’s claims of a cover up of abuse that reaches to the top of the Church to support calls for the Pope to resign. They are manipulating the child abuse scandal – which has devastated so many lives – for their own political purposes. That is no way to make the Church well again. But if there’s one thing the Church should have learnt in recent years it’s that when serious allegations of misconduct or the covering-up of abuse are made, there should be an independent and transparent investigation.
Pope Francis’ brief visit to Ireland was almost overwhelmed by the abuse issue. It’s worth reading all he said in Dublin and Knock: the heartfelt pleas for forgiveness for the crimes of the Church, but also the words of tenderness and humility and humour in his meetings with families, the poor and the homeless. They give the Irish Church a template and a platform on which to rebuild for the future.
Some have reacted with fury to the Pope’s suggestion that the whole people of God atone for child abuse and its cover up by priests and bishops. In a striking meditation on the meaning of the Church as “one body”, Sara Maitland hopes that we will always have a Pope who dares to call on all in the Church to atone for the sins of some of its members.
Revelations of abuse by priests and monks invariably lead to people asking whether celibacy is at the root of the problem. Erik Varden, the abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Mount Saint Bernard, warns against a rush to judgement.
August 30 2018 – Letter to Henry Smith MP – The Henriques Report and Bishop Bell [and F.A.C.T.]
Henry Smith
MP for Crawley
House of Commons
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Dear Henry Smith MP
The Henriques Report and George Bell, Bishop of Chichester.
I am writing to you to express my deep concerns about the growing number of false and wrongful allegations of sexual abuse – particularly regarding Bishop George Bell (a school which was named after him in Tilgate, but no longer now).
While Operation Midland – and others – have been the focus of criticism in the media, the same problems apply to many who are not celebrities. This is illustrated by an alarming increase in requests for help made to various organisations which support the falsely and wrongfully accused.
False and Wrongful allegations have a traumatic, devastating and long lasting effect on innocent lives and this has been evidenced in a recent research paper produced by the Oxford Centre for Criminology.
The Henriques report has illustrated many problems in Operation Midland. We would hope that all the recommendations in the Henriques report would be implemented but the following are of particular importance in avoiding miscarriages of justice:
Recommendation 1. Throughout both the investigative and judicial process those who make complaints should be referred to as ‘complainants’ and not as ‘victims’.
Recommendation 2. The instruction to ‘believe a ‘victim’s account’ should cease. Instead an officer interviewing a complainant should investigate the facts objectively and impartially and with an open mind from the outset.
Recommendation 4. Investigators should be informed that false and wrongful complaints are made from time to time and should not be regarded as a remote possibility.
Please may I urge you to consider taking steps to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Henriques report as a matter of urgency to prevent further miscarriages of justice and to help the public regain trust in the police and justice system.
FACT’s Submission to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Miscarriages of Justice, 2018
FACT was founded 18 years ago as a voluntary charitable organisation to support, advise and campaign on behalf of teachers, carers and other professionals (including volunteers) who have been falsely accused of abuse throughout the UK and who are defending their innocence.
We are run by a national committee and are supported in expertise by an international voluntary advisory group made up of experts (details appended to this document). FACT started as a response to the decisions of various police forces throughout the UK to undertake investigations into alleged historical child abuse in many institutions, initially in former children’s homes and residential schools.
The first police force to do this on a significant scale was North Wales in 1991. The police were widely criticised for using trawling methods to increase allegations and many innocent people were caught up in these investigations. Some were wrongfully convicted. All suffered serious consequences, and needed an organisation that could support them and, just as importantly, their families. It soon became clear that how false or wrongful allegations are dealt with is absolutely crucial and cannot be viewed as something to be acted upon on a trial and error basis until it is got right.
The lifelong effects on both the accused and their family are devastating regardless of how far the allegation goes through the system. Even ‘just’ being investigated leaves a blot on a person’s record (DBS and employment), often a loss of career, and deep trauma. There is also significant damage to children within the accused’s own family. Often prior to any verdict of guilt the accused is removed from their home and not allowed to live with their own children, with access only under supervision!
We received much feedback from a growing membership such as: “This is a country where innocent people are being thrown in prison for crime where no witnesses, in fact no evidence of a crime taking place [other than the accusation] was ever found, and yet, they were arrested and questioned as if they were guilty, all because of an ill-conceived promise by the government and the police of that nation to would-be victims that “If you come forward, we WILL believe you. Some stories sounded believable, others were fantastical, and yet the accused, because of that very promise, was assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise”.
It was initially thought FACT would only be needed for two or three years as its voice would be heard. Shockingly some 18 years later the problem has not been reduced but gone the other way and reached epidemic proportions. In a 2016 House of Lords debate it was stated that the Chief constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for child protection, reported there had been an 80% rise in child sex offence allegations in the three years to 2015 and that there were 70,000 investigations in just the past year alone! Most alarmingly he said to the Times newspaper that if that rate of increase continues they could be investigating 200,000 cases by 2020!
What is not recorded or made available to the public is how many innocent people are included in those figures (not charged/acquitted) and what lasting effect that has on them and their family. If an accused is not charged or acquitted due to a false or wrongful allegation the court system and police do not record that as a false or wrongful allegation, leading to an incorrect assumption that the number of false allegations are few. What is true is that the act of recording of false or wrongful allegations is low! This is a really important point as false or wrongful allegations are notoriously difficult to collect figures on.
It is only organisations specialising in this field who experience the reality on a daily basis as they are contacted by people in need of support. The numbers of innocent people being affected and in need of help is substantial. Experience has shown that not all allegations of abuse are true. And indeed, wrongful allegations are made alongside false allegations. Some people may deliberately lie, motivated by revenge or the possibility of financial compensation or by the need for attention (False Allegations). Others may not knowingly lie, but may have a false memory of an event in the distant past or may have misinterpreted something that took place several decades earlier (Wrongful Allegations).
It is important to realise that 30 or 40 years ago people were not so aware of the prevalence of child sexual abuse and the risk of wrongful allegations, and what was then perfectly acceptable behaviour could be misinterpreted decades later as complainants are asked to come forward with anything that might have constituted sexual abuse by today’s standard. We wish to make it clear from the outset that we have no doubt that some children and adults are abused by carers, teachers and other professionals employed in positions of trust and that this has occurred in both historical and a contemporary context. However, we believe that the extent to which this is said to have occurred is exaggerated. We fully accept, and wholeheartedly support, that all complaints of abuse must be thoroughly and properly investigated and that any form of abuse perpetrated on children and other vulnerable groups is wrong and that the police and investigative agencies have a difficult but essential job to do. We also know failure to do that job correctly destroys lives.
In 2015 we worked in cooperation with The University of Oxford as they undertook a study on the impact of being wrongly accused in occupations of trust: Victims’ Voices. The report clearly demonstrates the destruction of the accused’s and their family’s prior life, including: suicide; suicidal thoughts; stigma; trauma and stress; insomnia; family break up; loss of work/career; financial loss; permanent psychological damage; loss of reputation and standing; victimisation and discrimination; loss of home.
Oxford University study report, https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/impact-being-wrongly-accused-abuse-occupationstrust-victims-voice Why is it too easy to be falsely accused and convicted of abuse when factually innocent? Genuine concerns to protect children has spawned a massive child protection industry. The term industry being used because it has a part of it based on power and financial motivation. An industry made up of organisations with considerable influence and power (both at home and abroad) and which are viewed as being the unquestionable leading experts and preferred advisors to the government. Public accounts show there is even one organisation with annual turnover in excess of £100m per year with thousands of employees/volunteers. This industry does not want to see its power decline and few dare to speak out against it to insist on balance. The emperor’s clothes syndrome. This is an area the government does not want to openly discuss as it will open a can of worms on all its past decisions, but one that is a significant contributory part of the problem we now face, whether we want to hear it or not.
Since the early 90’s there has also been a steady series of individual changes brought about which have compounded to create the situation we have today these include the growth of the child protection ‘industry’, social changes, the Internet and changes in the law and policing policy.… ■ The full letter (9 pages) can be downloaded from our websitehttps://factuk.org/
Regarding “pre-emptive reconciliation”, may I suggest Archbishop Justin Welby practises what he preaches with an apology for his “significant cloud” remark against Bishop George Bell, before the latter’s 60th Anniversary this October
Except there’s nobody to pre-empt, Bell having been dead for so long along with most other people who were around at the time when the alleged events supposedly took place. The ball is firmly in Welby’s court to show some humility and common sense.
“There are scandals; the principle scandal I’ve been involved in exposing was the besmirching of the name of Bishop George Bell. That’s scandal. But it’s been shown to be a scandal by the Carlile report and I was right to do it”
“The one thing I think, if you are building bridges, and here I draw on my jurisprudence, you were saying there is right and there is the rights culture and you rather impugned Justin Welby as being a post‑modernist. I think that is unfair. The worst case is, the most complex cases are where everyone has a point. And there is no doubt that Justin Welby has a point when he says: I want to treat victims better than they did in the past.
“The trouble is, he is treating the accused worse than in the past and that is a legitimate point.
“But I don’t think it is fair to him to chacterise him as a post‑truth, post‑modernist, that is not right.I have heard Archbishop Justin Welby speak passionately about his love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and anything we say must not suggest that he has given over to post‑modernism because he hasn’t, he is on the horns of a dilemma.I was asked:Are you saying he is incompetent by a journalist and my answer was, why would I expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to be competent in the field of safeguarding law?That is the problem.He hasn’t grasped how we do things properly.But he is passionate that we should not repeat the errors of the past”
“I am sorry to say that I shall not be able to attend next month’s meeting after all…[Archbishop] Welby and [Bishop] Warner are persisting in a monstrous miscarriage of justice. Every – legal – polemical means to ensure their dismissal is what’s required if [Bishop] Bell is ever to have his name cleared. I’m sorry but – from what I have read of your output – I don’t think your group is up for this sort of street-fighting”
The other, which appears to be previously unpublished, appears below.
What can we hope for?
I have been inveigled – I don’t know what else to say – into the Bishop George Bell Society. I have already written vigorously about the scandalous behaviour by the church hierarchy which has so tarnished the reputation of this noble and innocent man. So when the chairman of the Bell Society invited me to speak at their October meeting in Westminster, I was delighted to accept. Subsequent communications with the chairman of the Society have been far from encouraging. (Imagine the atmosphere of a Sunday School outing on a very damp day) I suggested that a key aim should be to get rid of the liars and traducers of George Bell – that is Welby of Canterbury and Warner of Chichester. These “men” are clearly guilty and so should be exposed as such and by that means compelled to resign. I further suggested to the chairman that for this purpose rottweilers and terriers were needed in the form of big name public figures and high powered journalists to take up the cudgels. Whereupon the gentle chairman backed off and said he would leave the rottweilers and terriers to get on with the job. (But there aren’t any). Moreover he was convinced that Welby and Warner will have been despatched by October. By whom, then? He wants all the speakers at his October conference to be part of a consensual team to “build bridges” And we are all to agree in advance as to what we shall say. Those who acknowledge the great injustice that has been done to George Bell have no need to build bridges with anyone. And of course it is unthinkable that we should build bridges with Welby and Warner – who have revealed themselves as two of the most treacherous episcopal specimens of recent times . (And the competition is not negligible). This dear chairman is no doubt a delightful man and mush-loved by old ladies of both sexes. He is, I suspect, sensationally ineffectual. I don’t say he wouldn’t say boo to a goose, but he would make sure before he did say boo that there was a psychiatrist on hand to treat the goose for post-traumatic stress disorder. What George Bell needs is people who will fight his corner for him – and bugger “building bridges”. I suspect I am wasting my time with this lot: nice as they sound, with their meeting in Church House – what you might call the “away” ground. Advice please. Peter PS Chap goes into a pub and asks for a Welby. “A Welby, Sir?” “Yes, a Noilly Prat”.
“Hung out to dry,” those are the words of Lord Carlile in his judgment on how the Church of England authorities treated Bishop George Bell
The Church operated a kangaroo court. Here are the facts…
Bishop George Bell (1883-1958), Bishop of Chichester, has been judged and condemned without any case brought for his defence. An elderly woman came forward in 1995 and claimed that Bishop Bell had sexually abused her fifty years earlier. The authorities took no action. The woman complained again in 2013, by which time Bishop Bell had been dead for fifty-five years. The police concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify their questioning Bishop Bell, had he been still alive. Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester, discussed the matter with Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and in 2015 the Church of England offered a formal apology to Bishop Bell’s accuser, paid her an undisclosed sum in compensation – now revealed to have been £31,000 – and allowed her to remain anonymous. Memorials to Bishop Bell were removed and institutions – such as the Bishop Bell School, Eastbourne – changed their names.
Unsurprisingly, there was outrage. On 13th November 2015, Judge Alan Pardoe QC described the way the allegations against Bishop Bell had been handled as “slipshod and muddled.” Judge Pardoe’s criticisms were followed by further censure from a group of historians and theologians led by Jeremy Morris, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
The Bishop of Chichester replied with insouciance and a volley of jargon to these criticisms: “The Church is seeking to move on from a culture in which manipulation of power meant that victims were too afraid to make allegations, or allegations were easily dismissed. We must provide safeguards of truth and justice for all, victim and accused alike.”
But there were no “safeguards of truth and justice” for Bishop Bell who was condemned without a hearing.
The outrage did not subside and a committee of senior church people, distinguished lawyers and members of both the Lords and the Commons calling itself The George Bell Group was formed. On 20thMarch 2016, this group published a review in which they challenged the Church’s evidence against Bishop Bell and attacked it for failing to find or interview a key witness or examine Bell’s own extensive personal archive.
On 30th June 2016, the case formed a large part of a debate in the House of Lords on historical child sex abuse.
On 28th June 2016, the Church of England announced that it would hold an independent review of the procedure used. On 22nd November 2016 it announced that Lord Carlile QC would chair this review
Meanwhile, the George Bell Group declared that they had discovered in the Church’s initial case against Bishop Bell “…enough to establish its severe limitations which render it quite inadequate as a basis for assessing the probability of Bishop Bell’s guilt. The scope of the independent experts’ inquiries was limited to a degree that made a proper analysis of the complainant’s allegations virtually impossible. What is more, little or no respect seems to have been paid to the unheard interests of Bishop Bell or his surviving family – a serious breach of natural justice.”
“In view of the evidence that we have gathered and examined, we have concluded that the allegation made against Bishop Bell cannot be upheld in terms of actual evidence or historical probability.”
Lord Carlile’s report was handed to the Church authorities two months ago and they kicked it into the long grass until last Friday.
So much for Bishop Martin Warner’s vaunted “…safeguards of truth and justice for all, victim and accused alike.” All along, the only interests being safeguarded here were those of the Church’s highest authorities in Chichester and Canterbury. We know very well why these authorities leapt so precipitately to condemn Bishop Bell out of hand: it was because they had previously had to admit to the existence of so many perpetrators of sexual abuse among the senior clergy they wanted desperately to appear to be doing something.
Thus the reputation of Bishop George Bell was tarnished because the Church’s highest authorities are seeking to cover their own backs.
Let us be in no doubt as to the seriousness of the Church’s conduct so eloquently set out in Lord Carlile’s report. To that phrase “hung out to dry,” he adds that the Church’s procedures were “deficient, inappropriate and impermissible”; “obvious lines of enquiry were not followed” and there was “a rush to judgement.”
In the light of this scandalously incompetent behaviour, the least that might be expected from the Archbishop of Canterbury is a profuse apology to Bishop Bell’s descendants, family, friends and numerous supporters for the distress his decisions have caused them. Is such an apology forthcoming? It is not. Instead Justin Welby persists in his mood of arrogant vindictiveness, saying, “……..A significant cloud is left over George Bell’s name. No human being is entirely good or bad. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. Good acts do not diminish evil ones…”
This is outrageous. True, Bishop Bell was “accused of great wickedness” – but he was not found guilty of any wrongdoing. And there is no “significant cloud” over his name. There is, however, certainly a very dark cloud over Welby’s name after his lamentable performance in this matter.
Well, there is still time: a whole week in which Justin Welby has opportunity to make his Confession before he celebrates Christmas Holy Communion.
Sept 3 2018 – RWS Note
“Wheels appear to be falling off the Archbishop’s Bus – the one which the late Bishop Bell was thrown under at Lambeth”
“Since October 15…some aspects of the way he [Bishop Bell] is remembered have been called into question. An investigation into a claim of child abuse concluded that the allegations, whilst not tested in a court of law, are nonetheless plausible…it now seems entirely possible that the same man who showed moral courage in opposing saturation bombing was also responsible for the devastating abuse of a child. As Bell himself recognised, few people are wholly good or wholly evil, and supoorting victims is always the right thing to do”
[Attrib. to The Very Reverend Stephen Waine, Dean of Chichester – “Chichester Cathedral. Society and Faith” – Pitkin Publishing/The History Press. January 2016 – Page 37]
Sept 5 2018 – From The Archives [Oct 22 2015 – “I would be grateful…if you could refrain from including George Bell in your guided tours and external presentations” – Dean of Chichester Cathedral, The Very Reverend Stephen Waine – to Cathedral Guides]
Sept 5 2018 – From The Archives [Jan 14 2016 – “This text is intended to give clear guidance on tone and content…if you prefer to leave Bishop Bell out of your conversation or guided tour, this is perfectly acceptable” – Dean of Chichester Cathedral, The Very Reverend Stephen Waine – to Cathedral Guides]
Sept 6 2018 – Random Thoughts
“It’s not possible to build a bridge when one side is built on sand, gravel and worse”
~ ‘LW’
Sept 6 2018 – Letter from ‘A’
Sept 6 2018 – The Tablet
“Luigi Gioia…reminds us that the rush to blame and scapegoat others and the urge to expel “impure” individuals or groups is as old as the Church itself”
“Short of flying a helicopter over his grave in Chichester Cathedral, how does what the BBC inflicted upon the good name of Sir Cliff Richard differ from the disgrace and dishonour the Church of England has heaped upon the reputation of Bishop George Bell?” ~ ‘Archbishop Cranmer’
Comments 1 – ‘Not a machine’
“The judge is at least mindful that in most cases there is no public interest in guilt or innocence, until the courts have concluded or judgment given”
Comments 2 – ‘Father David’
I’m delighted that Sir Cliff has been cleared of any alleged misdemeanor or indiscretion. The former Director General of the BBC – Fat Pang says that Auntie would be mad to make an expensive appeal against this sage judicial decision. Now we await the judgement of the second Core Group examining the allegation against Bishop George Bell – hopefully we can look forward to a similar exoneration and the lifting over the “significant cloud” being lifted from his reputation.
Sept 7 2018 – RWS Letter Submission in response to “Parsons’ Pleasures”, Private Eye
Dear Letters Editor
Initiation into the 218-year-old ecclesiastical men’s club ‘Nobody’s Friends’ [“Parsons’ Pleasures”, Eye 1478] is by way of a speech in which the newly-elected male justifies his attendance by presenting his career qualifications as a Nobody.
The present host of this thrice-yearly “perfectly ordinary dining club” at Lambeth Palace is Archbishop Justin Welby who, presumably, justified his first attendance by eloquently and convincingly presenting his career qualifications as a Nobody.
Wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell, for whom the present “Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word” Archbishop has a serious problem, made his justification in verse:
‘Keep Rebuilding Bridges’ will take place at Church House Westminster next month – Friday October 5 – one of a number of events to mark the 60th Anniversary of Bishop George Bell [1883-1958]
Sept 7 2018 – From The Archives [August 30 2018 – Letter to Henry Smith MP – The Henriques Report and Bishop Bell – and F.A.C.T.]
Henry Smith
MP for Crawley
House of Commons
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Dear Henry Smith MP
The Henriques Report and George Bell, Bishop of Chichester.
I am writing to you to express my deep concerns about the growing number of false and wrongful allegations of sexual abuse – particularly regarding Bishop George Bell (a school which was named after him in Tilgate, but no longer now).
While Operation Midland – and others – have been the focus of criticism in the media, the same problems apply to many who are not celebrities. This is illustrated by an alarming increase in requests for help made to various organisations which support the falsely and wrongfully accused.
False and Wrongful allegations have a traumatic, devastating and long lasting effect on innocent lives and this has been evidenced in a recent research paper produced by the Oxford Centre for Criminology.
The Henriques report has illustrated many problems in Operation Midland. We would hope that all the recommendations in the Henriques report would be implemented but the following are of particular importance in avoiding miscarriages of justice:
Recommendation 1. Throughout both the investigative and judicial process those who make complaints should be referred to as ‘complainants’ and not as ‘victims’.
Recommendation 2. The instruction to ‘believe a ‘victim’s account’ should cease. Instead an officer interviewing a complainant should investigate the facts objectively and impartially and with an open mind from the outset.
Recommendation 4. Investigators should be informed that false and wrongful complaints are made from time to time and should not be regarded as a remote possibility.
Please may I urge you to consider taking steps to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Henriques report as a matter of urgency to prevent further miscarriages of justice and to help the public regain trust in the police and justice system.
FACT’s Submission to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Miscarriages of Justice, 2018
FACT was founded 18 years ago as a voluntary charitable organisation to support, advise and campaign on behalf of teachers, carers and other professionals (including volunteers) who have been falsely accused of abuse throughout the UK and who are defending their innocence.
We are run by a national committee and are supported in expertise by an international voluntary advisory group made up of experts (details appended to this document). FACT started as a response to the decisions of various police forces throughout the UK to undertake investigations into alleged historical child abuse in many institutions, initially in former children’s homes and residential schools.
The first police force to do this on a significant scale was North Wales in 1991. The police were widely criticised for using trawling methods to increase allegations and many innocent people were caught up in these investigations. Some were wrongfully convicted. All suffered serious consequences, and needed an organisation that could support them and, just as importantly, their families. It soon became clear that how false or wrongful allegations are dealt with is absolutely crucial and cannot be viewed as something to be acted upon on a trial and error basis until it is got right.
The lifelong effects on both the accused and their family are devastating regardless of how far the allegation goes through the system. Even ‘just’ being investigated leaves a blot on a person’s record (DBS and employment), often a loss of career, and deep trauma. There is also significant damage to children within the accused’s own family. Often prior to any verdict of guilt the accused is removed from their home and not allowed to live with their own children, with access only under supervision!
We received much feedback from a growing membership such as: “This is a country where innocent people are being thrown in prison for crime where no witnesses, in fact no evidence of a crime taking place [other than the accusation] was ever found, and yet, they were arrested and questioned as if they were guilty, all because of an ill-conceived promise by the government and the police of that nation to would-be victims that “If you come forward, we WILL believe you. Some stories sounded believable, others were fantastical, and yet the accused, because of that very promise, was assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise”.
It was initially thought FACT would only be needed for two or three years as its voice would be heard. Shockingly some 18 years later the problem has not been reduced but gone the other way and reached epidemic proportions. In a 2016 House of Lords debate it was stated that the Chief constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for child protection, reported there had been an 80% rise in child sex offence allegations in the three years to 2015 and that there were 70,000 investigations in just the past year alone! Most alarmingly he said to the Times newspaper that if that rate of increase continues they could be investigating 200,000 cases by 2020!
What is not recorded or made available to the public is how many innocent people are included in those figures (not charged/acquitted) and what lasting effect that has on them and their family. If an accused is not charged or acquitted due to a false or wrongful allegation the court system and police do not record that as a false or wrongful allegation, leading to an incorrect assumption that the number of false allegations are few. What is true is that the act of recording of false or wrongful allegations is low! This is a really important point as false or wrongful allegations are notoriously difficult to collect figures on.
It is only organisations specialising in this field who experience the reality on a daily basis as they are contacted by people in need of support. The numbers of innocent people being affected and in need of help is substantial. Experience has shown that not all allegations of abuse are true. And indeed, wrongful allegations are made alongside false allegations. Some people may deliberately lie, motivated by revenge or the possibility of financial compensation or by the need for attention (False Allegations). Others may not knowingly lie, but may have a false memory of an event in the distant past or may have misinterpreted something that took place several decades earlier (Wrongful Allegations).
It is important to realise that 30 or 40 years ago people were not so aware of the prevalence of child sexual abuse and the risk of wrongful allegations, and what was then perfectly acceptable behaviour could be misinterpreted decades later as complainants are asked to come forward with anything that might have constituted sexual abuse by today’s standard. We wish to make it clear from the outset that we have no doubt that some children and adults are abused by carers, teachers and other professionals employed in positions of trust and that this has occurred in both historical and a contemporary context. However, we believe that the extent to which this is said to have occurred is exaggerated. We fully accept, and wholeheartedly support, that all complaints of abuse must be thoroughly and properly investigated and that any form of abuse perpetrated on children and other vulnerable groups is wrong and that the police and investigative agencies have a difficult but essential job to do. We also know failure to do that job correctly destroys lives.
In 2015 we worked in cooperation with The University of Oxford as they undertook a study on the impact of being wrongly accused in occupations of trust: Victims’ Voices. The report clearly demonstrates the destruction of the accused’s and their family’s prior life, including: suicide; suicidal thoughts; stigma; trauma and stress; insomnia; family break up; loss of work/career; financial loss; permanent psychological damage; loss of reputation and standing; victimisation and discrimination; loss of home.
Oxford University study report, https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/impact-being-wrongly-accused-abuse-occupationstrust-victims-voice Why is it too easy to be falsely accused and convicted of abuse when factually innocent? Genuine concerns to protect children has spawned a massive child protection industry. The term industry being used because it has a part of it based on power and financial motivation. An industry made up of organisations with considerable influence and power (both at home and abroad) and which are viewed as being the unquestionable leading experts and preferred advisors to the government. Public accounts show there is even one organisation with annual turnover in excess of £100m per year with thousands of employees/volunteers. This industry does not want to see its power decline and few dare to speak out against it to insist on balance. The emperor’s clothes syndrome. This is an area the government does not want to openly discuss as it will open a can of worms on all its past decisions, but one that is a significant contributory part of the problem we now face, whether we want to hear it or not.
Since the early 90’s there has also been a steady series of individual changes brought about which have compounded to create the situation we have today these include the growth of the child protection ‘industry’, social changes, the Internet and changes in the law and policing policy.… ■ The full letter (9 pages) can be downloaded from our websitehttps://factuk.org/
Sept 7 2018 – Letter from Crawley MP Henry Smith [Re: The Henriques Report]
Dear Richard
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns over false and wrongful allegations of sexual abuse, with particular reference to former Chichester Diocese Church of England Bishop, George Bell.
I will write to the Justice Secretary, Rt Hon David Gauke MP, to ask him to address the recommendations you have mentioned following publication in November 2016 of Sir Richard Henriques’ report on the Metropolitan Police’s handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations.
Please be assured I will be in contact when my office receives a response.
“….In view of these legal problems which Matt has brought to our attention in the past couple of days, it is hard to see how proper church legal processes can move forward smoothly towards resolution. Also, now that the civil authorities are becoming involved in the case, these CDM cases are less likely to disappear.
“The only logical defence for Bishop Croft is to attack the veracity of Matt and his claims of disclosure, in other words call him a liar – attack the victim. Whatever the final outcome of these sorry episodes, it will have the consequence of a victim going once more through the mill of being disbelieved, facing the power of senior churchmen, lawyers and others trying to undermine his narrative.
“Having studied Matt’s case, I have to say that my assessment points to his complete truthfulness and honesty. He deserves to win through, even though the full weight of the establishment is being wheeled on in an attempt to crush and discredit him.
“The proliferation of legal cases, civil and ecclesiastical is likely to end up costing the Church of England a great deal of money, reputation and time. One cannot help but think that had there been professional standards of procedure as well as good ethical behaviour at the beginning, the Church would have saved itself much grief.
“Even now there is room for apology to the victim by the church for what he has suffered. He deserves that far more than being the object of vilification in what is probably now a vain attempt to protect the Church institution. How much do we keep hearing about institutional reputation being chosen in preference to truth, honesty and compassion?”
It reads like a catalogue of failure. I know Matt from 3 protests and much shared work in campaigning and raising of issues. I hope he won’t mind my saying this – he’s blunt, awkward at times. But he’s Yorkshire! And my experience of him (I know this can only be my opinion) – leads me to say this:
Had this bishop, and other bishops in this case, plus the NST – all said across the last two or three years – “we’re really sorry, we loused up, we didn’t respond in ways that we now know we should have done, what can do now to put this right” — I am quite sure that Matt would have accepted this and moved forward. Indeed, everyone would have moved forward with grace. The failure has to be put down to current culture amongst too many senior bishops, and to absymal failure and culture of their NST. There has not been straightforward honesty, decency, and compassion. That bishops have dug themselves so deep into an ugly and unnecessary hole is their own fault. They could have dug themselves out a year ago at least. It seems like the last gasp of the ‘purple circle’ that another survivor described at IICSA hearings. This self-protecting culture needs to die. The need for the hierarchy to run for the hills, or rely on the deferential cultures of an NST or their lawyers to provide blankets to hide in. It’s had its day.
We now see that one of the chief figures in all this – a senior CofE lawyer and Provincial Registrar to Archbishop Welby & Canterbury Diocese as well as Oxford Diocese – has conflict of interest by the shedload. How can survivors have any trust in any part of this structure when their lawyers and advisors behave in this underhand furtive way. Enough! Remove the response to survivors from the hands of this structure – and hand it over to independent management. Remove DSA’s from the patronage of bishops and diocesan emplyoment and TUPE them over to independent employment structure. Ditto the NST which is beyond salvage in current form.
Incidentally – can I offer a correction to the article. Other serving bishops have been subject to CDM complaints. Bishop Wallace Benn (Lewes, now retired) was subject of 2 CDM complaints made by Diocese of Chichester’s safeguarding officials. Both CDMs were dismissed by Archbishop Sentamu. And in 2016 Bishop Paul Butler (Durham) was subject to a CDM made by myself. It was dismissed by Archbishop Sentamu. But not before Butler felt it incumbent upon him to offer a 20 page report. His response was highly revealing – he showed the extent of the brazen dishonesty and legal games of the church’s insurer in the process. Quite whether he intended to do this – we’re not sure – but it was very revealing. And so it could be said that Bishop of Durham at last has been one bishop who HAS shown some measure of honesty in all this. I didn’t bother to take out a CDM against Bishop Thornton (Truro, now Lambeth) as we already knew he would receive the protection of Archbishop Welby. And it’s a draining and time-consuming process. But I now wish I’d done so – despite knowing that it’s a broken and flawed bit of church parephenalia.
Firstly, my thoughts and good wishes are with Matt and I’d like to thank him for standing up to “the usual treatment” that senior church leaders give to those who bring to light cases of abuse. It is worth repeating here that Steven Croft’s statement in July about giving PTO to George Carey demonstrated his attempt to mislead the public, by implying (“no legal reasons to deny..”) that he didn’t really have the choice to deny PTO to him, when it was completely within his powers to withhold PTO from Carey. I hope the police who question him are aware of this and what it might say about the reliability of what Steven Croft says to them. I would like to report, Stephen, that I think a number of CDM complaints have been taken out against serving bishops. I seem to remember seeing a document online from the Clergy Discipline Commission which recorded how many CDM complaints had been made by year, split between those made against bishops and other clergy. (I don’t know how many would have been serving bishops.) I made a CDM complaint against the former serving bishop of Winchester in 2009 for the way he choose to (mis)handle information, which culminated in his refusal to open a parcel sent to him containing sworn statements. (What’s the betting he chose to open the garden party invitations though?!) I only made my complaint after my MP had written to the bishop to point out that his justification for not opening the parcel was spurious and contrary to the CDM Code of Practice, but to no avail. Unsurprisingly, my complaint was dismissed not because it was out-of-time but because – according to John Rees – “it was not of sufficient substance” to justify proceeding with it. So, if anyone has any doubts that bishops can turn a blind eye to abuse with impunity I would be happy to share my evidence with them. It is also worth noting that the Bishop’s choosing not to open some of his post happened at the very time as the Past Cases Review! I’ve still not received any apology for the response I received to my complaint, despite a number of recent requests for an apology, but I’m wondering if one might suddenly be forthcoming before the next IICSA hearings. (Hint to Bishop Tim Thornton and those in Comms – you’d look less bad if you apologise immediately.) Like Matt’s, my story will come out one way or another and I wonder who in the church wants to apologise and be, belatedly, on the right side of the story?
I pray every day for Archbishop Justin Welby, though with no very great hope of success. Christians are supposed to pray for their enemies, and he seems to be one of those.
I will never forget the panic-stricken look on his face when I said a friendly hello to him at a Lambeth Palace reception, to which I had obviously been invited by mistake. I suspect – judging by his open dismay – that he would have preferred to have had Satan at his party. I left very soon afterwards.
And later I came to have a really low opinion of his abilities, and of his interest in justice, as I and others battled to get such justice for the truly great Bishop George Bell of Chichester, who died 60 years ago.
Under Archbishop Welby’s leadership, Bishop Bell was publicly denounced by his own Church as a paedophile after a miserable secret kangaroo court. The evidence against him was ancient, thin and uncorroborated, and no defence had even been heard. Yet, now that this process has been exposed as the unfair botch it was, the Archbishop still won’t accept he made a mistake.
And his endorsement of last week’s wild Blairite demand for more taxes and a severe assault on our freedom to pass on our hard-earned life savings to our children, did nothing to improve my opinion.
Christians can be socialists or conservatives, or liberals in politics. Or they can be none of these things. It is their personal actions, not their views, that matter. It is absolutely not the task of the religious leader of England to take sides on political and economic quarrels of which he plainly knows little and understands less…
Sept 9 2018 – RWS on Archbishop Welby
“It seems the problem with Archbishop Welby lies in his unwarranted and illegitimate moral certainty he is right about Bishop Bell. This astonishing inability to admit he might be wrong – very wrong – shows a deep lack of humility. It is deeply disturbing – especially in the run-up to the ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ at Church House Westminster next month. The Archbishop has now become a major stumbling-block to this initiative”
[B] SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS TO BE LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10. I was asked to look at the way in which the Church of England treated these allegations. As a result, I have considered the process; it was not part of my task to consider the truth of the allegations and I have not done so.
11. I have concluded that the Church of England acted throughout in good faith. It was motivated by a desire to do what it perceived to be the right thing by the complainant.
12. Its actions were informed by history in which the Church has been, at best, slow to acknowledge abuse by its clergy and, at worst, believed to have turned a blind eye.
13. I have concluded that the process followed by the Church in this case was deficient in a number of respects.
14. The most significant was that the Core Group which it established failed to follow a process that was fair and equitable to both sides.
15. It is axiomatic that, in appropriate cases, the Church should be ready to acknowledge sexual abuse committed by the clergy.
16. However, that does not mean that the reputations of the dead are without value.
17. It follows that, even when the alleged perpetrators have died, there should be methodical and sufficient investigations into accusations levelled against them. Where, as in this case, it is clear that the Crown Prosecution Service evidential charging standard (a realistic prospect of conviction) would not have been met, that should be a material consideration in the case.
18. I have concluded that the Church of England failed to institute or follow a procedure which respected the rights of both sides. The Church, understandably concerned not to repeat the mistakes of the past when it had been too slow to recognise that abuse had been perpetrated by clergy and to recognise the pain and damage caused to victims, has in effect oversteered in this case. In other words, there was a rush to judgement: the Church, feeling it should be both supportive of the complainant and transparent in its dealings, failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the Bishop. Such rights should not be treated as having been extinguished on death.
19. My recommendations are as follows.
20. Core Groups are necessary for the scrutiny of cases, not least in order to ensure that decisions are taken consistently. Each such group should have one person nominated at the beginning as Chair who is expected to chair all meetings throughout. Groups should be established with as continuous and permanent a membership as possible.
21. The Core Group should have, in addition to someone advocating for the complainant, someone assigned to it to represent the interests of the accused person and his or her descendants.
22. Core Group members should ensure that they are able to attend meetings, at the very least by conference telephone or video link, but generally in person. If they are unable to attend, there should be pre-selected and named substitutes to stand in for them.
23. For the purpose of making informed and legally compliant decisions, all Core Group members (including named substitutes) should see the same documentary material and other evidence and correspondence. It should be provided to all members in the same format.
24. The whole Core Group must see all relevant material. This must include all items which have the potential materially to support complaints or to undermine them. This is consistent with the legal requirements of disclosure in criminal cases.
25. Proportionate and sympathetic assistance should be given to complainants at an early stage and, if appropriate, their families.
26. However, it should be made clear to complainants that their complaints are not considered to be proved until findings of fact have been made by the Core Group.
27. The Church should assume that complainants are entitled for all time to anonymity, unless they themselves choose to make their identities public.
28. Where the Core Group judges it to be appropriate, a call for evidence should be made, for example in an effort to identify other complainants. Whenever possible, such calls for evidence should not name the alleged perpetrator, but may refer to the city/town/parish, type of abuse etc. insofar as is necessary to achieve the objective of the call.
29. Subject to the above, alleged perpetrators, living or dead, should not be identified publicly unless or until the Core Group has (a) made adverse findings of fact, and (b) it has also been decided that making the identity public is required in the public interest.
30. Each Core Group should be assisted by a person who is qualified to give relevant legal advice. Advising lawyers should not be voting members of the Group. Decisions are for the members after taking into account legal and such other expert advice as may be required. A Core Group considering posthumous allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy should include someone with legal experience which must include practical and up-to-date knowledge of criminal law and procedure as it pertains to the investigation and determination of allegations of sexual assault. Whilst the standard of proof for civil claims is the balance of probabilities, where the allegations are of serious criminal offences a full understanding and estimation of the criminal process is an essential piece of information for a case: for example, if there is the clear conclusion that there would have been a criminal conviction, that would simplify the assessment of a civil claim.
31. It is unavoidable that, in the case of posthumous allegations, the Core Group will be required to make findings of fact. Determination of the truth or otherwise of such allegations is particularly difficult. The Church is likely to regard a requirement to find such allegations proved to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) as placing too heavy a burden on complainants. However, the rights of the dead should not be ignored. Irrespective of whether proceedings have been commenced, the reasonable compromise would be that the case must be proved to the civil standard – which of course is appropriate by definition when there are civil proceedings under consideration. The civil standard requires that the complainant must satisfy the Core Group that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is made out: in other words, that it is more likely than not that the alleged perpetrator behaved in the way the complainant alleges.
32. In cases where, following a proper and adequate investigation, they are settled with admission of liability, there should be a presumption that the perpetrator’s name will be published together with a description of the conduct concerned (unless the complainant objects on reasonable grounds).
33. Where as in this case the settlement is without admission of liability, the settlement generally should be with a confidentiality provision: there should be a presumption that the name of the alleged perpetrator should not be published, unless the alleged perpetrator agrees that it should be, or the circumstances are held to be wholly exceptional (on reasonable grounds).
34. The Church is currently developing Practice Guidance; I urge early production of the promised addendum to deal with posthumous allegations. It should state that there is a duty to disclose sufficient information to the representatives of the alleged perpetrator so that they know the case they have to meet.
273. Although the Henriques report post-dates the events material to this review, nevertheless it is worth citation as agreement with the view that the appropriate mind-set and designation where a complaint has been made is complainant until the matter is undisputed or proved in a court. Otherwise there is a danger of assuming that all complainants are victims therefore accurate and truthful. An acceptable alternative, given the intimation of civil proceedings in this case, would have been claimant.
274. In my judgement this is a case in which the use of terms such as survivor and victim contributed to decisions which might otherwise have been scrutinised with greater critical examination.
[Q] Lessons learned and changes made by the Church
283. These are set out in section [B] above. It is my ultimate conclusion any settlement of this case, in the light of the facts insofar as they were ascertainable, should have been with a clear denial of liability, and with a confidentiality clause with repayment in the event of breach.
284. I support the conclusions of the report for the Church of England by Dame Moira Gibb DBE in her report Independent Report into the Church’s Handling of the Peter Ball Case19.
285. I support too the changes in relation to safeguarding inquiries concerning living clergy set out in the Safeguarding (Clergy Risk Assessment) Regulations 2016, passed by the House of Bishops.
286. I have been provided with other recent documents, most notably several iterations of Practice Guidance: Responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against Church Officers20. The latest draft is detailed, running to 90 pages. It is intended to replace earlier guidance which, though moderately specific as to the establishment and nature of Core Groups, plainly did not provide sufficient guidance for the fair disposal of the Bishop Bell case.
287. That document is intended as a step by step guide for safeguarding concerns and cases arising in the Church of England, including complaints against priests.
288. Explicitly, the draft Practice Guidance cover situations where there are concerns or allegations that relate to someone who is deceased. An addendum is being developed to cover that situation.
289. That said, the document provides a carefully considered and structured system. The responsibilities of the Diocesan Bishops and Archbishops, and of the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers and others are described and clear.
290. Core Groups are provided for. The purpose of the Core Group is described as: To oversee and manage the response to a safeguarding concern or allegation in line with the House of Bishops policy and practice guidance, ensuring that the rights of the victim/survivor and the respondent to a fair and thorough investigation can be upheld.
291. In late 2016 a triage system for abuse related correspondence was introduced at Lambeth Palace. Emails concerning abuse are now referred immediately to the Provincial Safeguarding Adviser, a recently created role. I am confident that this system works.
292. Subject to the replacement throughout the text of ‘victim/survivor’ with ‘complainant’ consistent with the recommendation described above of Sir Richard Henriques, the document is sound for cases against living persons.
293. The text also provides for investigations to occur where required, including the provision of an assigned investigator; and sets out detailed steps for responding to complaints and allegations. Where apologies are required, formal advice is given in the document so that they are drafted and given in a careful and consistent way.
Alex Carlile Lord Carlile of Berriew, CBE, Q.C. October 2017
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“Without a shred of evidence, Welby maintained that the saintly and courageous Bishop George Bell had molested a little girl over half a century ago. Even after a high-level inquiry exonerated Bell, Welby failed to do justice to the dead bishop. In real life, Welby and justice have never been on talking terms.
“On the other hand, Welby and power have been closer than Biggles and Ginger. Time and again I have demonstrated how no organisation in the British Isles has its hierarchy as corrupted by power and as unaccountable to congregations or shareholders as the archbishops and bishops in the Church of England”.
‘If you don’t go to trial, you’re never found innocent,’ says Sister Frances Dominica, who was barred from the children’s hospice she founded but never prosecuted
Sister Frances Dominica is calling for the law to be changed to allow those accused of sexual abuse to have anonymity ‘until and if you are convicted’. Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian
For more than 30 years, Sister Frances Dominica was a constant presence at Helen House, the children’s hospice she founded in Oxford in 1982. To generations of ill children and their families, the slight, softly-spoken nun became a friend and a lifeline in the darkest of times, while the small centre built in the grounds of her convent inspired a growing network of similar refuges from Canada to South Africa to Japan. If the children’s hospice movement had a figurehead, it was the unimpeachable nun, who was awarded an OBE by the Queen, interviewed on Desert Island Discs and showered with honorary degrees and awards.
In 2013, however, her relationship with the hospice was abruptly severed. One July afternoon the charity’s chief executive contacted the Anglican sister, born Frances Ritchie, and said he had been told that two women had made allegations of historical sexual abuse against her. He told her she was immediately barred from having any contact with residents, family members or staff while the matter was investigated, and that she was not to set foot in Helen House or its sister hospice for young adults, Douglas House.
Sister Frances was never prosecuted over the allegations, which she wholly denies. In November 2013, four months after Oxfordshire county council first informed the hospice of the accusations, Thames Valley police interviewed her under caution and she was bailed. She heard nothing further, she says, until July 2014, a year after first coming under suspicion, when the Crown Prosecution Service informed her it would be taking no further action due to “insufficient evidence”.
“But if you don’t go to trial, you are never found innocent,” the 73-year-old now says. And so, after conducting a lengthy confidential risk assessment, the trustees of Helen and Douglas House announced in July 2015 they would be making her temporary ban from the hospices permanent. They said in a statement that though “no conclusions about the allegations could be made”, the safeguarding standards of their regulator, the Care Quality Commission, obliged them to continue to bar her permanently from the premises. “Our unswerving dedication to care and proper governance made any other course of action unthinkable,” the trustees said later.
Last December, Sister Frances reluctantly resigned as a trustee. The nun’s relationship with the hospices she founded is now conducted at a distance of several hundred metres, looking out across her convent’s carefully tended lawns at the centres she is officially deemed too risky to enter.
No one other than the nun and her accusers can be absolutely certain that she is telling the truth in insisting on her innocence, and the allegations do not relate to Helen and Douglas House or to children. Speaking to the Guardian in a small room in the clutch of modern buildings now occupied by the All Saints Sisters of the Poor, Sister Frances acknowledges that to some people her name will never be clear of the whiff of suspicion.
Her gender makes her case unusual, but she is far from alone in finding herself in a form of reputational limbo – publicly accused of serious crimes, but neither convicted of them by a jury nor able fully to clear her name.
The collapse last month of the Metropolitan police’s Operation Midland, investigating claims of a VIP paedophile ring made by a now adult man called “Nick”, means that the former MP Harvey Proctor has been added to the lengthening list of figures – including the DJ Paul Gambaccini, former armed forces chief Lord Bramall and TV personalities Jim Davidson, Freddie Starrand Jimmy Tarbuck – who have been investigated and publicly named over sexual abuse allegations, but seen their investigations dropped because of insufficient evidence.
“In this country you are supposed to be innocent until you are proved guilty,” Sister Frances says. “But in any kind of safeguarding issue, it feels as if you are guilty until proved innocent.”
That vexed issue is unlikely to be made any easier to resolve by the halting of Scotland Yard’s Operation Midland investigation. The force said in September that one of its senior officers was wrong to have said that he considered Nick’s claims to be “credible and true”. Three days before the Midland collapse, however, the College of Policing wrote to forces reiterating its guidance that complainants should be believed unless there was “credible” evidence to the contrary. A month earlier, writing in the Guardian, the chief constable of the Metropolitan police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, had said public confidence would only be restored if all alleged rape victims were not unconditionally believed by police.
Unlike many of her fellow accused, the investigation of Sister Frances was not immediately made public. Her name entered the public domain only when it was leaked to the Daily Telegraph in 2015, two years after she was first accused. She echoes Gambaccini and others in calling for the law to be changed to allow those accused of sexual abuse to have anonymity “until and if you are convicted. If you got through trial and are convicted then of course your name should be out there. Ninety percent of the time, though, I think we should have anonymity just as the alleged victims have anonymity.”
She says she agonises over questions of guilt and innocence in others. “You read reports, you hear people speak, and then you hear the very opposite from somebody else. All anyone can honestly know is their own involvement, either as victim or perpetrator. We will never know the truth about other people. It’s very, very complex.” Her own protestations of innocence, of course, fall into the same category. “I suppose I just have to carry on knowing in my heart that I am innocent and doing my best,” she says.
Born in Inverness to Church of Scotland parents, Sister Frances was working as a paediatric nurse at Great Ormond Street hospital when she experienced what she understood as a dramatic call from God to take holy orders. By the age of 35, she was mother superior of her convent. She founded Helen House after befriending the family of Helen Worswick, a very ill two-year-old who lived at home but required 24-hour care from her family. Douglas House followed in 2004.
Being separated from her work at the hospices has been immensely painful, she says, “because if you have journeyed with families through illness and death, and the funeral and the bereavement – and bereavement, as you can imagine, goes on for a long time after the child dies – you are very close to them.” Sebastian’s Action Trust, another charity of which the nun is a patron, offered her its full support after the investigation was dropped, saying it had found “absolutely no reason to exclude Sister Frances from our activities”.
In her own case, says the nun, the fact that her name is known in connection with the allegations is not her biggest concern. “I was nervous about it at the beginning, but I really don’t mind now that people know because I think it’s part of my role.”
That role, she says, is to become a voice for those in her position – particularly teachers, fellow carers or clergy – who find themselves similarly accused, often similarly excluded from their roles because of safeguarding concerns yet unable ever to prove their innocence.
“I think, without meaning to be arrogant, I think I want to be a voice for the voiceless. Because I have been … ” She trails off. “I was going to say I have been a victim.”
Is she uncomfortable with that word? “Yes, because I don’t feel it. But there are a lot of people in my situation who do feel they are victims, and feel very alone in it. And that’s where I am. I’d like to be alongside, in whatever way is appropriate.”
This article was amended on 4 April 2016. The College of Policing wrote to forces to reiterate its guidance on how to treat complainants. It did not issue new guidance. This has been corrected.
Sept 19 2018 – “Archbishop of Canterbury visit promoted unity, peace and reconciliation” – Crawley Observer
Crawley Observer – September 19 2018 – Photo: Steve Osborn
Sept 22 2018 – RWS Letter
Dear Editor
I struggled to be positive when the Most Reverend Justin Welby paid a visit earlier this month to my hometown – the local church of St John’s in the Parish of Crawley – where he was promoting unity, peace and reconciliation.
Why was I struggling?
Because Archbishop Welby – with his “significant cloud” remark against the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell – has become a major stumbling-block to reconciliation on the latter’s 60th Anniversary next month.***
It is hoped the Archbishop will withdraw his damaging remark sooner rather than later.
Sept 22 2018 – ‘Bell Portrait’ Letter from Richard Symonds to Chancellor Anthony Cane at Chichester Cathedral
Canon Dr Anthony Cane
Chancellor and Canon Librarian of Chichester Cathedral
The Royal Chantry, Cathedral Cloisters
Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1PX
Dear Canon Dr Anthony Cane
I hope you have already received the Invitation for the ‘Keep Rebuilding Bridges’ Conference at Church House Westminster next month – Friday Oct 5.
May I again ask you, as Canon Librarian of the Cathedral Library, for permission to collect and display the Bishop Bell portrait – still in storage within the Library.
No doubt there are certain procedures to follow to make this possible, and I will follow such procedures as required.
I hope you might feel able to grant permission to display this special Portrait, as we plan it to be the centrepiece at the Conference on that Friday.
Sept 22 2018 – From The Archives [May 10 2003 – “Warnings have been going on for 25 years” (page 2) – Chichester Observer (mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital)(Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014) ]
Sept 22 2018 – Excerpts from “No Smoke, No Fire” by Dave Jones (2009)
Page 136
“Then came the words that will live with me forever: ‘No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire,’ His Honour Judge David Clarke QC said. ‘I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong. No wrong-doing whatsoever on your part has been established”…[“You leave this court as you entered it – an innocent man”– ‘Presumed Guilty’ by Simon Warr on page 297]. In other words, there was no smoke and there was no fire”.
[I am reminded of Geoffrey Robertson’s words – quoted in “Presumed Guilty” by Simon Warr on page xi – “People believe that where there’s smoke, there’s always fire. Yet often nowadays there’s just a smoke machine”]
Pages 138-139
“What still rankles with me today is that under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 I am not allowed to name the four people who gave false statements to the police accusing me of these hideous crimes. I find it astonishing and absolutely disgraceful that, incredibly, the legislation affords total anonymity to anyone against whom it is alleged that sexual abuse has taken place – even if they have made up that allegation themselves. I can, of course, understand the need for genuine sufferers of abuse to remain unidentified, especially if they are still children, but that was just not the case here. Why is there no provision for those who concocted these horrendous false allegations about me to be named and shamed? Why was I not afforded that same anonymity? Why do I have to live with the after-effects of the trial still, a decade on, when my name was totally cleared, while my accusers can never suffer for their crimes? Why does this crass law continue to protect those who have lied in other similar cases? This seems to me a scandalous anomaly, a loophole, which needs to be closed, and soon…”
Page 145
“Not so long ago, I went to do a talk at Derby County FC and was asked the question by a worried youth team coach, what should we do if we are falsely accused? Find the best lawyer was my answer. For I have learned from bitter experience that for this type of accusation in this country you are guilty until proven innocent, even though it is supposed to be the other way round. Once you are tarred with that brush, it sticks”.
I think the best interpretation of ‘independent’ must be that she is someone entirely from outside the organisation and fresh blood who has the experience and expertise needed for this role (which were so sadly lacking in the handling of the Bishop Bell case). No one has seriously suggested that, of itself, being a Methodist was the basis of her appointment or independence. As Judith Maltby states below, she has an excellent CV.
~ Rowland Wateridge
Sept 23 2018 – Making a Case for Changes in the Law [and a Change of Attitude by Archbishop “Significant Cloud” Welby]
1. Anonymity
“Anonymity for complainants is a strongly held principle across the board…the anonymity law would not be changed as it is paramount that genuine victims can be assured of anonymity”
That is accepted, but can there be a change in the law to deal with the injustice raised by the legally-innocent Dave Jones who says: “Why was I not afforded that same anonymity” [‘No Smoke, No Fire’ – p. 139]
[“I agree that the same anonymity enjoyed by the complainant should be extended to the accused. The police oppose this because. they claim, revealing the name of the accused may draw in evidence from other complainants. Maybe so but it is unjust. Double anonymity is a requirement of justice and bugger what’s merely helpful (dubiously) to the police. I think the law on this will be revised; it’s very much a live issue and the case for protection of the accused in rape or other sexual abuse cases has such obvious merits” – ‘GT’]
2. Defamation
“it is a long held principle of law that defamation proceedings cannot be brought on behalf of a deceased person”
That is accepted, but can there be a change in the law to deal with the injustice raised by, for example, the damaged health to Bishop Bell’s 95-year-old niece because of that defamation (eg ++Welby’s “significant cloud” remark)?
3. Implementation of the Recommendations of Sir Richard Henriques – for example:
Dear Henry Smith MP
The Henriques Report and George Bell, Bishop of Chichester.
I am writing to you to express my deep concerns about the growing number of false and wrongful allegations of sexual abuse – particularly regarding Bishop George Bell (a school which was named after him in Tilgate, but no longer now).
While Operation Midland – and others – have been the focus of criticism in the media, the same problems apply to many who are not celebrities. This is illustrated by an alarming increase in requests for help made to various organisations which support the falsely and wrongfully accused.
False and Wrongful allegations have a traumatic, devastating and long lasting effect on innocent lives and this has been evidenced in a recent research paper produced by the Oxford Centre for Criminology.
The Henriques report has illustrated many problems in Operation Midland. We would hope that all the recommendations in the Henriques report would be implemented but the following are of particular importance in avoiding miscarriages of justice:
Recommendation 1. Throughout both the investigative and judicial process those who make complaints should be referred to as ‘complainants’ and not as ‘victims’.
Recommendation 2. The instruction to ‘believe a ‘victim’s account’ should cease. Instead an officer interviewing a complainant should investigate the facts objectively and impartially and with an open mind from the outset.
Recommendation 4. Investigators should be informed that false and wrongful complaints are made from time to time and should not be regarded as a remote possibility.
Please may I urge you to consider taking steps to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Henriques report as a matter of urgency to prevent further miscarriages of justice and to help the public regain trust in the police and justice system.
Richard W. Symonds
4. Implementation of the Recommendations of Lord Alex Carlile
[B] SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS TO BE LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10. I was asked to look at the way in which the Church of England treated these allegations. As a result, I have considered the process; it was not part of my task to consider the truth of the allegations and I have not done so.
11. I have concluded that the Church of England acted throughout in good faith. It was motivated by a desire to do what it perceived to be the right thing by the complainant.
12. Its actions were informed by history in which the Church has been, at best, slow to acknowledge abuse by its clergy and, at worst, believed to have turned a blind eye.
13. I have concluded that the process followed by the Church in this case was deficient in a number of respects.
14. The most significant was that the Core Group which it established failed to follow a process that was fair and equitable to both sides.
15. It is axiomatic that, in appropriate cases, the Church should be ready to acknowledge sexual abuse committed by the clergy.
16. However, that does not mean that the reputations of the dead are without value.
17. It follows that, even when the alleged perpetrators have died, there should be methodical and sufficient investigations into accusations levelled against them. Where, as in this case, it is clear that the Crown Prosecution Service evidential charging standard (a realistic prospect of conviction) would not have been met, that should be a material consideration in the case.
18. I have concluded that the Church of England failed to institute or follow a procedure which respected the rights of both sides. The Church, understandably concerned not to repeat the mistakes of the past when it had been too slow to recognise that abuse had been perpetrated by clergy and to recognise the pain and damage caused to victims, has in effect oversteered in this case. In other words, there was a rush to judgement: the Church, feeling it should be both supportive of the complainant and transparent in its dealings, failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the Bishop. Such rights should not be treated as having been extinguished on death.
19. My recommendations are as follows.
20. Core Groups are necessary for the scrutiny of cases, not least in order to ensure that decisions are taken consistently. Each such group should have one person nominated at the beginning as Chair who is expected to chair all meetings throughout. Groups should be established with as continuous and permanent a membership as possible.
RWS Note – Is the appointment of Meg Munn as ‘Independent’ Chair of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Panel a direct result of this recommendation (see Sept 23 2018)?
21. The Core Group should have, in addition to someone advocating for the complainant, someone assigned to it to represent the interests of the accused person and his or her descendants.
22. Core Group members should ensure that they are able to attend meetings, at the very least by conference telephone or video link, but generally in person. If they are unable to attend, there should be pre-selected and named substitutes to stand in for them.
23. For the purpose of making informed and legally compliant decisions, all Core Group members (including named substitutes) should see the same documentary material and other evidence and correspondence. It should be provided to all members in the same format.
24. The whole Core Group must see all relevant material. This must include all items which have the potential materially to support complaints or to undermine them. This is consistent with the legal requirements of disclosure in criminal cases.
25. Proportionate and sympathetic assistance should be given to complainants at an early stage and, if appropriate, their families.
26. However, it should be made clear to complainants that their complaints are not considered to be proved until findings of fact have been made by the Core Group.
27. The Church should assume that complainants are entitled for all time to anonymity, unless they themselves choose to make their identities public.
28. Where the Core Group judges it to be appropriate, a call for evidence should be made, for example in an effort to identify other complainants. Whenever possible, such calls for evidence should not name the alleged perpetrator, but may refer to the city/town/parish, type of abuse etc. insofar as is necessary to achieve the objective of the call.
29. Subject to the above, alleged perpetrators, living or dead, should not be identified publicly unless or until the Core Group has (a) made adverse findings of fact, and (b) it has also been decided that making the identity public is required in the public interest.
30. Each Core Group should be assisted by a person who is qualified to give relevant legal advice. Advising lawyers should not be voting members of the Group. Decisions are for the members after taking into account legal and such other expert advice as may be required. A Core Group considering posthumous allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy should include someone with legal experience which must include practical and up-to-date knowledge of criminal law and procedure as it pertains to the investigation and determination of allegations of sexual assault. Whilst the standard of proof for civil claims is the balance of probabilities, where the allegations are of serious criminal offences a full understanding and estimation of the criminal process is an essential piece of information for a case: for example, if there is the clear conclusion that there would have been a criminal conviction, that would simplify the assessment of a civil claim.
31. It is unavoidable that, in the case of posthumous allegations, the Core Group will be required to make findings of fact. Determination of the truth or otherwise of such allegations is particularly difficult. The Church is likely to regard a requirement to find such allegations proved to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) as placing too heavy a burden on complainants. However, the rights of the dead should not be ignored. Irrespective of whether proceedings have been commenced, the reasonable compromise would be that the case must be proved to the civil standard – which of course is appropriate by definition when there are civil proceedings under consideration. The civil standard requires that the complainant must satisfy the Core Group that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation is made out: in other words, that it is more likely than not that the alleged perpetrator behaved in the way the complainant alleges.
32. In cases where, following a proper and adequate investigation, they are settled with admission of liability, there should be a presumption that the perpetrator’s name will be published together with a description of the conduct concerned (unless the complainant objects on reasonable grounds).
33. Where as in this case the settlement is without admission of liability, the settlement generally should be with a confidentiality provision: there should be a presumption that the name of the alleged perpetrator should not be published, unless the alleged perpetrator agrees that it should be, or the circumstances are held to be wholly exceptional (on reasonable grounds).
34. The Church is currently developing Practice Guidance; I urge early production of the promised addendum to deal with posthumous allegations. It should state that there is a duty to disclose sufficient information to the representatives of the alleged perpetrator so that they know the case they have to meet.
273. Although the Henriques report post-dates the events material to this review, nevertheless it is worth citation as agreement with the view that the appropriate mind-set and designation where a complaint has been made is complainant until the matter is undisputed or proved in a court. Otherwise there is a danger of assuming that all complainants are victims therefore accurate and truthful. An acceptable alternative, given the intimation of civil proceedings in this case, would have been claimant.
274. In my judgement this is a case in which the use of terms such as survivor and victim contributed to decisions which might otherwise have been scrutinised with greater critical examination.
[Q] Lessons learned and changes made by the Church
283. These are set out in section [B] above. It is my ultimate conclusion any settlement of this case, in the light of the facts insofar as they were ascertainable, should have been with a clear denial of liability, and with a confidentiality clause with repayment in the event of breach.
284. I support the conclusions of the report for the Church of England by Dame Moira Gibb DBE in her report Independent Report into the Church’s Handling of the Peter Ball Case19.
285. I support too the changes in relation to safeguarding inquiries concerning living clergy set out in the Safeguarding (Clergy Risk Assessment) Regulations 2016, passed by the House of Bishops.
286. I have been provided with other recent documents, most notably several iterations of Practice Guidance: Responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against Church Officers20. The latest draft is detailed, running to 90 pages. It is intended to replace earlier guidance which, though moderately specific as to the establishment and nature of Core Groups, plainly did not provide sufficient guidance for the fair disposal of the Bishop Bell case.
287. That document is intended as a step by step guide for safeguarding concerns and cases arising in the Church of England, including complaints against priests.
288. Explicitly, the draft Practice Guidance cover situations where there are concerns or allegations that relate to someone who is deceased. An addendum is being developed to cover that situation.
289. That said, the document provides a carefully considered and structured system. The responsibilities of the Diocesan Bishops and Archbishops, and of the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers and others are described and clear.
290. Core Groups are provided for. The purpose of the Core Group is described as: To oversee and manage the response to a safeguarding concern or allegation in line with the House of Bishops policy and practice guidance, ensuring that the rights of the victim/survivor and the respondent to a fair and thorough investigation can be upheld.
291. In late 2016 a triage system for abuse related correspondence was introduced at Lambeth Palace. Emails concerning abuse are now referred immediately to the Provincial Safeguarding Adviser, a recently created role. I am confident that this system works.
292. Subject to the replacement throughout the text of ‘victim/survivor’ with ‘complainant’ consistent with the recommendation described above of Sir Richard Henriques, the document is sound for cases against living persons.
293. The text also provides for investigations to occur where required, including the provision of an assigned investigator; and sets out detailed steps for responding to complaints and allegations. Where apologies are required, formal advice is given in the document so that they are drafted and given in a careful and consistent way.
Alex Carlile Lord Carlile of Berriew, CBE, Q.C. October 2017
Stephen King aka Stephen Gosling – so called child expert was a member of P.I.E. His unbelievable role was to advise UK judges on sentencing for paedophiles
“Keep Rebuilding Bridges” – Photo by Gabriela Popa
Sept 28 2018 – A Short Visit to Chichester – Cathedral, Treasury and ‘Hut’
Oct 3-10 2018 – Bishop Bell Week – to mark the 60th Anniversary of the death of George Bell, Bishop of Chichester
Oct 3 2018 – ‘Bishop Bell’ Service in the City of London – 18.00
Oct 3 2018 – The Very Revd Professor Martyn Percy (Dean of Christ Church Oxford) on Bishop Bell’s 60th Anniversary – on Twitter
@MartynPercy
“Remembering with great gratitude today, the life and ministry of Bishop George Bell, one of the great peacemakers, ecumenists and ecclesiastical visionaries of the modern times. Bell died this day, 60 years ago. May he rest in peace and rise in glory”
George Bell Group – Our analysis of the way in which the allegation against Bishop Bell has been handled by the authorities of the Church georgebellgroup.org
“I must apologise for the recent lack of longer postings (though I have made many brief interventions in discussions here) . I have had an unusual large number of harangues and other commitments over the past week, from a speech on grammar schools at Eton College to a discussion of moral decline at Warwick University, and last night’s commemoration of the life and work of the late George Bell at the church of St Martin-within-Ludgate. And they have used up a great deal of time and energy”
~ Peter Hitchens
Oct 5 2018 – Private Eye – “Judge not…” – Winckworth Sherwood and Revd Canon John Rees
Left: Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton – Right: Bishop George Bell of Chichester
COMMENTS
Brian R
Archbishop Welby is still confident that other victims of the violent gang rapist George “Bart” Bell will come forward and has announced a series of séances where their testimony will be heard.
Call me Old-fashioned
I wish I could say that I find that funny – and on one level I do but the sort of double-standard that is being applied is so mind-boggling that it is almost believable that what you describe is indeed the strategy being employed by Lambeth.
What is especially galling about the “Welby approach” to the case of George Bell is that no one is allowed to use the same yardstick when it comes to ++Justin himself an the case of John Smyth. How so? you may enquire: well, if there are “credible” and “continuing” doubts about Bell, despite the clear evidence of so many that such doubts are, literally, incredible, then there are certainly far more “reasonable” and “on balance of probability” question marks over the archbishop when it comes to his protestations about being entirely and utterly ignorant of Smyth, his reputation, the original Iwerne investigation, the degree of his contact with Smyth, etc, etc, etc.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if there is a credible and reasonable “balance of probabilities” that Bell was a molester then it is equally credible and reasonable to believe that the current incumbent of the chair of St Augustine has not been entirely open, or believable, in his statements about Iwerne and Smyth.
One has only to cast ones eyes east towards Rome to see the damage that can be caused if a spiritual leader continues to hold a line of ignorance against all evidence and common sense. That the CofE – and the Anglican Communion, come to that – now has at its head someone of whom that may come to be true is a cause for grave concern.
Father David:
George Carey has just risen considerably in my estimation for his spirited defence of Bishop George Bell. When are we due to get wind of the current investigation by the second Core Group into this whole sad and sorry affair, it seems to be taking a very long time over its deliberations and in the publication of a report which I hope and pray will remove the “significant cloud” over the reputation of George Bell whose 60th anniversary of death was commemorated on October 3rd – as clearly defined in the Church of England’s 2018 Lectionary.
‘Call me Old-fashioned’
Within 3 weeks of the last-gasp announcement of a second allegation against George Bell, West Sussex Police issued a clear statement that as far as they were concerned there was nothing they could or would do: as far as they were concerned there was insufficient evidence for there to be a case of historic abuse and, in any case, since George Bell was dead there was absolutely no chance of properly investigating the allegation, never mind pronouncing whether or not, on the balance of probabilities an offence had been committed.
That the church should continue after such a statement shows that there is absolutely nothing in this case to do with justice, either for the alleged victim or for George Bell, but rather that there is an ongoing exercise to do all they can to bolster their support for the case of the original “victim” Carol.
And in deciding to go about matters with the type of core group that was not only found to be so unsatisfactory by Carlile but that has been criticised by the hearings at IICSA, shows just how little the church has learned (or is prepared to learn, for that matter) from events of the past – and that gives great cause for concern over the handling of any future allegations.
Bravo George Carey for being brave enough to stick your head above the parapet on this one.
‘dannyboy’
“I get so tired of hearing about George Bell and his “courageous” opposition to the bombing of Germany.” From what you have said about your family before I can understand why you might say that Carl. Even I as a Brit and erstwhile member of an Anglican parish church had never heard of Bishop George Bell, nor his opposition to carpet bombing, ’til I read it here on this blog. I would agree with you that he was wrong but sincere in his opposition. However that’s not the focus of the post. It’s the apparent willingness of supposedly godly men aka ‘Bishops’ to fudge the whole issue of sexual abuse within the Church, whilst continuing to enjoy the perks of the job.. George Bell has apparently been thrown to the wolves by ‘wimps in splendid attire’ curiously lacking in courage, integrity and a desire to stand for the truth, wherever it may lead. I expect obfuscation and cover-ups from the political state, but not from those who claim to represent and serve the Church of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. I think George Carey’s suggestion.. “I believe the George Bell case and also the Peter Ball investigation makes the argument for outsourcing investigations in the case of accusations of sexual misconduct. It is not because archbishops and bishops can’t be trusted to have an important role in safeguarding, rather it is because we are too close to the clergy concerned and very likely to defend instinctively the institution, rather than actively promote an unbiased and independent approach.” is an excellent one, and a policy that should have been adopted years ago. !st Peter 2:13-25
Marcus Stewart
It’s been said many times. George C is essentially a scapegoat, thrown under the bus (I guess escaping goats can be caught and thrown…) by virtue-signalling bishops (they know who they are…) content to sacrifice a retired AbC for the sake of their reputations. It’s sickeningly transparent. Ditto Bell, who was done by a combination of wickedness, incompetence, then intransigence and pride. Nice!
Heaven forfend clergy who are falsely accused of abuse, or of whom there’s little or no evidence, because the CofE will throw them under the bus (with the tag that ‘pastoral care’ is being offered the accused, which is the biggest joke since Balaclava…)
Brian R
Anybody else notice the weird resonances of this case with the Kavanaugh hearings? Vague and completely unsubstantiated allegations which cannot be disproved are repeated in both cases to promote a sociopolitical agenda. Nobody cares about the truth. Bearing false witness is no longer a sin. The biblical strictures on needing two witnesses are ignored. For the crowd to do this disgraceful but what we expect. For a churchman to act this way is utterly inexcusable. It was at this point that I lost what respect I still had for Welby.
Anton
It is inappropriate for George Carey, his apology notwithstanding, to criticise his successor over this issue. Perhaps he is a little sore at the treatment he received at his hands.
I have to criticise Lord Carlile, who failed by his own admission to follow up with sufficient energy the important second accusation made against Bell through a newspaper reporter. As for Bell’s first accuser, she should be (and should have been) told that for her claim to be taken seriously she must submit herself, as a first step at least, to sceptical cross-examination.
Richard W. Symonds
“I have to criticise Lord Carlile, who failed by his own admission to follow up with sufficient energy the important second accusation made against Bell through a newspaper reporter”
Anton, your criticism of Lord Carlile is not justified.
Here is what Lord Carlile actually said [Bishop George Bell Independent Review – 15 December 2017 – page 3 – Para 5]
“Shortly afterwards, a journalist claimed in a local newspaper article [Chichester Post – Ed] that she had had contact with an unnamed mental health nurse who had treated ‘numerous boys and girls’ in hospital, whom she said had been abused by Bishop Bell. I made considerable efforts to contact the journalist and test the substance of these allegations, but was unable to make contact. I left messages to which there was no response. During the months of my review, nobody has come forward to support the story. Given the circumstances, including the lack of any identification of those mentioned, and the possibility of confusion with others (including Bishop Peter Ball, who is mentioned in several places below), I have concluded that the story cannot be substantiated and I have therefore ignored it”
Anton
I based my comment on that paragraph. The claim is absolutely vital and I would not have let it rest at a few unreturned phone calls. I would have rung the editor and asked after the journalist in question. I would have requested an appointment at the newspaper office. Do you think the police would have ignored a lead like that if it were a murder investigation or a millions-of-pounds jewellery theft?
Richard W. Symonds
Anton, Lord Carlile did everything he could – as I did. If you want to chase it up yourself, do so. I can provide the Chichester Post article in question and the journalist’s name.
Ray Galloway, the Church’s Private Investigator for the Bell 2 Briden investigation, will have undoubtedly chased this up as it would be corroborative evidence backing up the claim of ‘Carol’.
I will be looking with great interest at the Briden Report (due next month).
Remember, the Sussex Police have already looked at this – provided for them by the Church – and thrown it out.
Look under the June 10 2016 entry in this Chronology: “I treated kids Bell ‘abused’. A young man tried to kill himself, says retired nurse” – Chichester Post (NOT Chichester Observer) – ‘Exclusive’ – Reporter: Sian Hewitt
How is a baby your enemy? There’s always an alternative to annihilating children. The truth is that the only consideration is to win at all costs, because some people are deemed to be less made in God’s image than others. A total perversion of the Gospel. Let’s not pretend that there is anything moral or noble about it: there’s nothing heroic in intentionally and horrifically killing women and children however you rationalise it. What profit is it to a man to gain the world but to lose his soul?
Oct 7 2018 – Chichester Cathedral’s ‘powers-that-be’ still make it very difficult to ‘rebuild bridges’ in a spirit of peace and reconciliation when it comes to wartime Bishop George Bell of Chichester…
Part of a glossy “Peace and Reconciliation’ A6 leaflet distributed amongst the congregation – including the Mayor and City Councillors – at Chichester Cathedral’s Dedication Sunday (Oct 6 2018)
An Opening Prayer was said by the Rev’d Ivor Cameron-Smith, who was made Deacon, and later ordained, by Bishop Bell, (and whom, as he said later, he had always revered).
As first Speaker, Bishop Dr Gavin Ashenden put, succinctly, the reason for this Conference, which was held in Church House, Westminster, on Friday, 5 October, 2018:
‘Our interest and concern today is the value and importance of reputation, specifically the reputation of Bishop George Bell.’
Significantly, during his speech*, Bishop Gavin said: ‘George Bell was not a saint. There is no movement to canonise him. Such mechanisms do not exist in the Church of England, but there is plenty of evidence that Bell himself was a Christian whose whole life was orientated to the practice of self-restraint, self-giving and self-sacrifice.’
This was agreed with, and expounded upon, by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey of Clifton,* and supported by the Rev’d Canon David Jasper, Professor of Literature and Theology, and Head of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Glasgow University. Indeed, Lord Carey noted, after the three had spoken, that the Conference had become more of a Seminar, with the interaction of comments.
That magical interaction of all the Speakers continued, with Questions and Answers throughout the proceedings, and with the contributions of Vasantha Gnanadoss, a former member of the General Synod, and the Rev’d Patsy Kettle, a former Minister in the Diocese of Guildford.
Rev’d Kettle made special mention of Richard Symonds who, from the time he organised, on 2 December 2017, a Bell Petition, supported not by hundreds, as he expected, but by thousands (see details on The Bell Society website), had worked tirelessly in the cause to remove the ‘significant cloud’ placed over Bishop Bell by the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, which he has never retracted.
The last speaker was Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson, whose father knew George Bell and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and she spoke of their friendship and work together. Mrs Grayson also spoke about ‘Sanctuary in Chichester’, the project to acquire a place in Chichester to act as a Centre for work with refugees and asylum seekers, and to commemorate Bishop Bell’s precedent of similar work in the years around WW2. Email (r.h.Grayson@hotmail.co.uk for information)
Lord Carey closed the gathering with a heartfelt Prayer.
Lord Carey of Clifton at Church House Westminster – Oct 5 2018
Chair Sandra Saer and Speaker Lord Carey
COMMENTS
Kate
With all the injustice in the world this group of Christians, including a former archbishop, have chosen to campaign for a long-dead bishop. Can you really not see how terrible that choice of priorities looks to anyone considering Christianity or the Church of England?
Richard W. Symonds
Kate, this is not just about a “long-dead bishop”. Do you not realise what is at stake here? The ‘golden thread’ of British justice, and international law, is now seriously under threat: the presumption of innocence. This is leading to gross miscarriages of justice not just for dead, but also for the living. And we are pitifully unaware of it.
Why? How? Can we turn things around?
We need to address these critical questions before it’s too late. For example:
Has the collective ‘infantilization’ of our society (and we as individuals within it) made us unaware of what is going on. Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves, and clearly – as individuals and as a society? Are we losing our ability to be caring human beings?
These questions need to be addressed – urgently – and not by quaint ‘soundbites’ in a mainstream media which appears incapable of telling the truth – let alone seeking and discerning it.
This presumption of guilt – without sufficient evidence – has crept up on us which is reminiscent, not just of the 1930’s in Nazi Germany but also the totalitarian regimes and systems which Orwell and Chomsky have already warned us about.
This issue is critical because what happened to Bishop Bell could happen to any one of us – living or dead. None of us are safe until we can turn things around – morally, legally, and politically.
Gavin Ashenden and Kevin Carlson discuss the ‘Bishop Bell’ issue, and its implications, in the wake of the ‘Rebuilding’ Conference at Church House Westminster
Oct 11 2018 – Rev’d Peter Mullen, Bishop Gavin Ashenden and Canon Professor David Jasper speak out
Rev’d Peter Mullen
Rev’d Dr Peter Mullen
You say you are surprised that there has been no reaction from the C. of E.
Allow me, please, to remove all causes for your surprise: it is simply and solely because the church authorities – Warner and Welby – rightly believe and feel they are under no pressure.to apologise for their atrocious defamation of Bishop George Bell
Such pressure could be applied at a stroke if “The Rebuilding Bridges Team” were to engage a competent journalist of national reputation to make Bell’s case and ensure its wide publication. I have in the past suggested such as Quentin Letts, Peter Hitchens, Rod Liddle, Ian Hislop and Christopher Booker. No doubt there are others. Besides enjoying pre-eminence in their profession, the men I have named are practising Christians
The authorities won’t budge unless and until they feel threatened by the nemesis they surely deserve and which is long overdue.
This is no small matter. It is a national scandal.
Bishop Gavin Ashenden
Bishop Gavin Ashenden
He (Rev’d Mullen) is exactly right.
They are advantaged by ignoring it and are doing so as a strategy.
Either Hitchens or Liddle might get through this barrier of silence, but Mullen is right;
“Unless the C of E bishops explain why they have expressed no support for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, there is a rebuttable presumption that there is something spiritually and morally amiss …..”
Canon Professor David Jasper
Canon Professor David Jasper
I agree. It is still a shame that considered theological discussion is met with silence in the church, however – and we are forced to apply to public journalists within the church.
Oct 11 2018 – Other ‘Voices’ speak out
‘Pierre’
The “significant cloud” remark was always a libel
The fact is, there is no evidence against George Bell
There is no such cloud except in the mind of the appalling Welby whose only determination is to save his own skin.
Oct 11 2018 – From The Archives [August 16 1940 – “Principles of Peace” by CEM Joad – The Spectator]
Bishop Gavin Ashenden on Oct 5 2018 at Church House:
“Perhaps one of the great gifts of Judaeo-Christian culture has been the presumption of innocence in our legal system...”
C.E.M. Joad on Aug 16 1940 – The Spectator
“There are certain principles which form the heritage of our Western civilisation, principles which are derived partly from ancient Greece, partly from Christianity…”.
Richard W. Symonds is currently (2018) co-writing a biography on CEM Joad, with particular focus on his ‘swansong’ – “The Recovery of Belief – A Restatement of Christian Philosophy” [Faber & Faber 1952]
Gathering: The Bell Society met in St Margaret’s Parish Rooms, Ifield
The Bell Society met on Monday in St Margaret’s Parish Rooms, Crawley, to “celebrate” the more than 2000 supporters to have signed its petition to investigate claims against the late Bishop Bell further.
Richard Symonds, who created the petition, told a small gathering: “There is little doubt Carol was sexually abused by a man of the cloth in Chichester, but was it Bishop Bell?”
The Bell Society is informally connected to the George Bell Group, formed in March by clergy, lawyers, MPs, and historians (News, 24 March 2016). The George Bell Group website openly questions the consistency and validity of Carol’s account of her ordeal (News, 5 February), and states: “It confirmed nothing, neither provided any proof of the allegations.”
But the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler, has rebuffed the demands of the group for a re-examination of the evidence. He wrote last week: “It is singularly unattractive to suggest that, because there might be no legal consequences to breaching Carol’s confidence, the Church should simply provide sensitive material to a group of individuals with a keen interest in, but no connection with, the case. The Church has a wider duty to Carol than that.”
Sir, — Either just before or just after the start of the Second World War in 1939, a group of Jewish refugee children were taken into the homes of Quaker and Labour Party families in the Crawley area.
The wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell — whose 60th anniversary was being celebrated last week — helped to organise the Kindertransport rescue of Jewish children from Nazi Germany.
A Crawley school was named after this great bishop after the war, in Tilgate, but has since been re-named. We need Bishop Bell well-remembered — not forgotten.
RICHARD W. SYMONDS The Bell Society 2 Lychgate Cottages Ifield Street, Ifield Village Crawley, West Sussex RH11 0NN
Bishop Bell Middle School, Tilgate, Crawley (re-named The Oaks Primary School)
A refugee charity is hoping to set up a centre in Chichester to help ‘desperate’ families who have nowhere to go. People from Syria or Afghanistan who have lost their homes and family members to conflict are now being supported by Sanctuary in Chichester.
To mark the anniversary of Bishop Bell’s death, last Wednesday the charity announced its aim of creating a centre to continue in the spirit of the late Bishop’s charitable work, which involved helping those fleeing Germany in the Second World War.
Roger Pask, from Sanctuary in Chichester, said: “These people are desperate and in need of some help and we want the centre, when we set it up, to focus primarily on their needs. “We hope that we can accommodate between six and eight people, or perhaps four individuals and a family of four Syrians.”
The organisation has said it will ‘take no position on the controversy surrounding the handling of the allegations against Bell’ of historic sexual abuse brought posthumously but it wanted to emulate his example of offering shelter to the poor and persecuted.
At present, people supported by the charity are housed in church or county council premises or privately by individuals giving them a home but the group wants to raise funds to lease or even buy a centre to give more effective outreach.
Roger said: “The vision is really to continue the tradition of Chichester as a compassionate, caring community that welcomes strangers. “It’s what Bell did during the war and it goes back to St Richard himself in the 11th century.”
Among the project’s supporters is Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson, whose father was a refugee helped by Bishop Bell in the 1930s. An active member of the church resistance against the Nazi regime and the son of a Jewish mother, Franz Hildebrandt was a close friend of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and George Bell, who personally advocated for Franz’s rights as an ‘enemy alien’ in the UK. Ruth said she wanted to help do the same for others today. “The fact that I’m a daughter of a refugee has never been far from my mind,” she said.
Oct 13 2018 – From The Archives [April 22 2018 – “The significant failure of Archbishop Welby’s ‘Smear No. 2’ against Bishop Bell” – Peter Hitchens – Mail on Sunday]
Bad news for Archbishop Welby’s continuing attempt to smear the name of the great Bishop George Bell, whose self-sacrificing courage in standing up for truth when it was unpopular utterly overshadows today’s trivial bishops.
Just after its kangaroo court condemnation of Bishop Bell was torn to pieces in a report in January, the Church proclaimed that new accusations against him had emerged.
What were they? Nobody would say.
To make these look important, the Church reported them to Sussex Police.
Justin Welby, pictured is continuing to try to smear the name of Bishop George Bell +5 Justin Welby, pictured is continuing to try to smear the name of Bishop George Bell
But Sussex Police, who made fools of themselves by getting too deeply involved in the first, discredited allegation, now tell me that they have finished their inquiries and the matter is closed.
Could this be because there is nothing to say?
Mr Welby’s spokesman cowers behind a wall of silence.
It would be bad if this were an oil company. But it is worse when it is a Christian church.
Poor Barbara Whitley, 93, the Bishop’s surviving niece, has had enough of this…
Oct 13 2018 – From The Archives [April 22 2018 – Reaction of ‘L’ to the Mail on Sunday article by Peter Hitchens (above) ]
“That mendacious spiritual and intellectual pygmy Welby …are there no depths to which he will not sink? How long has he known that the Sussex police have closed their inquiry into Smear 2? Why the **** has he not made a grovelling apology to Barbara Whitley for his vile behaviour and that of the cabal which supports him in the hierarchy? Do we infer that if Peter Hitchens had not approached the police we should never have learned the truth? Surely there must be some kind of legal action Mrs Whitley can take – and I hope that she does” ~ ‘L’
Cloud hanging over Bell’s name ‘should have been dispelled’
HOWARD COSTER
Bishop George Bell, pictured in 1953 [the last portrait picture before his death in 1958. The large portrait lies in storage within the Private Library of Chichester Cathedral – Ed]
A FORMER Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has criticised his successor over the treatment of George Bell, the former Bishop of Chichester accused of abusing a child in the 1940s and ’50s. Bell died in 1958.
Speaking at a conference organised by supporters of Bishop Bell in Westminster last Friday, Lord Carey referred to the official reaction to a review of the Bell case by Lord Carlile QC. Lord Carlile had criticised the conduct of the investigation into the allegations against Bishop Bell.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey
“Instead of this leading logically to the rehabilitation of George Bell’s reputation,” Lord Carey said, “the Church compounded the problem further by apologising for the procedures that had been found wanting by the Carlile review, but refusing to retract its conclusion that George Bell was in all probability guilty of the abuse.
“In the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a ‘significant cloud’ hangs over his name. The Archbishop bluntly added: ‘He is accused of great wickedness.’
“What is deeply unsatisfactory is that no explanation is given and no evidence for these conclusions. If the Carlile report revealed how biased and unjust were the conclusions of the Core Group, how can the Archbishop, the Bishop of Chichester, and Bishop of Bath & Wells continue to unblushingly assert that George Bell’s reputation remains under a cloud?”
Lord Carey went on: “Now, it gives me no pleasure to note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has received harsh criticism from a number of leading historians and theologians and, sadly, his response has been so far unsatisfactory. Those of us still committed to the national Church remain horrified that not more has been done to explain his remark that ‘a cloud remains’. At the very least, justice demands it.”
Lord Carey also criticised the lack of support for Bell among the other bishops. “Why the silence from the House of Bishops? Each member must know that he or she is implicated indirectly in this condemnation of Bell. Only one bishop has distanced himself from the Archbishop’s conclusion, but I understand that at least six others disagree with him.
“Unity and collegiality are good things, but never should they replace what is right and true. ‘Collegiality’ is not to be mistaken for ‘collective cabinet responsibility’ or ‘party discipline’.
“So it is right to press the Bishops to declare themselves. ‘Do you share the opinion that a “significant cloud” hangs over George Bell’s name? Do you agree that he is guilty of “great wickedness”? Please tell us what you think.’”
Lord Carey described the Church’s treatment of Bishop Bell as “shaming, because it is unjust”.
OTHER STORIES
Lord Carlile says new statement about Bishop George Bell is unwise and foolish
01 Feb 2018
Traducing George Bell’s name was ‘just wrong’ says Carlile review
15 Dec 2017
Angela Tilby: Even saints can cast shadows
16 Feb 2018
Andrew Brown: Lord Carey’s defenders take up their pens
21 Jul 2017
Former Archbishop Lord Carey calls pressure on him over Peter Ball inquiry unjust
21 Dec 2017
Press: Money and mores: a tale of two middle classes
We are approaching the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10.12.1948.) This ties in with George Bell’s role as of peacemaker in his post war years. Both the commission for creating the UDHR and Bishop Bell, shared values shaped by the extreme atrocities of WWII, especially the Holocaust.
Bishop Bell brought his faith, his determination and compassion to post war reconciliation, being amongst other roles, a founder of the World Council of Churches, (please refer to Andrew Chandler’s biography of George Bell.) It was during these years 1947 to 1950 that Bishop Bell. was also alleged to have been a child sex offender. Spiritual dissonance of this scale is exponentially implausible.
The first sentence of the Article of the UDHR is ‘All people are free and equal in rights and dignities’ This single sentence sums up why the ecclesiastical hierarchy need to change their minds about George Bell. One of the salient themes of the Independent Review by Lord Carlile is about dignity. The Archbishop of Canterbury should be the role model for how the Church of England bestows dignity to the dead. It his sacred duty is towards the deceased and their surviving family to honour the dead and recognise their contribution to the world. In his statements about George Bell (15.12.17 and 22.1.2018) the Archbishop appears to adopt the principles of Manichean radical dualism rather than those of the Christian Gospels. He has abandoned any attempt to value the reputation in George Bell and furthermore compounds this with misleading analogy with the proven crimes of Peter Ball. This insidious linking of the two cases detracts from the vast differences between the two men, who are unfortunately associated by location, similar names and having public announcements about each of them within a time scale of weeks, although they were separated by several decades.
At the heart of this is the massive problem of sexual abuse within the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury has decided that the reputation of George Bell is expendable, to satiate the demand for church action against perpetrators. However, by doing so he has exposed the very weaknesses that underlines the root problem, that for far too long safeguarding issues were handled incompetently in house.
The church hierarchy have up until recently been dismissive and secretive towards reported abuse. This is thankfully changing, as they have been taken to task by various bodies, mostly recently being the IICSA. However, as Lord Carlile states in his conclusions, the reaction is ‘oversteer,’ giving unbalanced credence to allegations.
The behaviour of senior clerics towards any criticism is understandably defensive. This attitude towards criticism extends to supporters of George Bell, akin to the reaction towards erstwhile reports of abuse; ignore criticism and hope it goes away. In this I am sympathetic towards those who have in the past reported abuse and were deliberately not heard or acknowledged. Myself and others … have not to date received replies from Lambeth Palace to our letters.
The current policy of the National Safeguarding Team is equally unjust, that all allegations of sexual abuse are to be believed. This policy does not serve either accusers or accused. It is not in keeping with the recommendations of Lord Carlile’s or the Henriques reviews and is not in keeping article 1 of the UDHR that all people are equal in rights, never mind the specific articles 10 and 11 about fair trails and presumption of innocence. Decision making based on a policy bias towards claimants will only deepen the problem and undermines legitimate and genuine cases.
George Bell fully deserves to have his wrecked reputation restored. The only person with the power to do this is the Archbishop of Canterbury. This will require moral courage and humility. I sincerely hope that Archbishop Welby demonstrates true leadership in graciously admitting his mistakes and apologising for his defamatory remarks from his previous statements.
Anne A Dawson 17.10.18
Oct 17 2018 – Letter (hand-written) from Mrs Peters to Mr Symonds – A memory of the Artist and German Jewish refugee, Hans Feibusch
Dear Mr Symonds
I read your letter printed in the Chichester Observer (11.10.18) about remembering Bishop Bell, and it brought back a couple of memories which I would like to share.
I worked in an ancillary position in an art gallery in Chichester 20 years ago, and some colleagues and I were invited to the Royal College of Art to celebrate the 100th birthday of the artist Hans Feibusch who had received help in the form of commission from Bishop Bell, and I remember this small man in a chair surrounded by people. Unfortunately, I did not get to speak to him. He died a short while later, just missing out on his 100th birthday.
A couple of years later, I moved to another part of the gallery which was given over to Feibusch’s studio which had been re-erected, and gave us the opportunity for about a year to highlight different paintings and sculptures, and shine a light on his work as well as the processes involved.
I think the amount of murals he undertook showed both the artist at work as well as his gratitude to Bishop Bell. Some of these have been lost and some forgotten, which is a shame.
There is at least ‘The Baptism of Christ’ in Chichester Cathedral which a lot of people would see and Bishop Bell would have known.
Thank you for allowing me to share memories.
I wish you and the [Bell] Society all the best.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Peters
‘Peace and Reconciliation’ Booklet (p. 2) – Chichester Cathedral
Oct 18 2018 – RWS on Lord Bishops
“Lord Bishops are in a privileged position to speak the truth and to expose the lies. Therefore, it is the responsibility of these privileged Bishops to speak the truth and to expose the lies”
~ Richard W. Symonds
Chichester Cathedral – RWS Photography
Oct 18 2018 – “Magical debate at conference” – Chichester Observer – Letters – Richard W. Symonds – The Bell Society
“Magical debate at conference” – Chichester Observer Letters – Richard W. Symonds
Oct 19 2018 – Spotlight on Dietrich Bonhoeffer
“If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction”
Oct 20 2018 – Bishop of Chester breaks ranks and silence in the Bishop Bell debacle which threatens to engulf Archbishop Welby – RWS Update
This letter was published in the Church of England
Newspaper [CEN] yesterday:
Sir,
I was grateful for Lord Carey’s article on George Bell (“Demanding justice for Bishop Bell”, Oct 11), and agree entirely with it, apart from the assertion that the House of Bishops has formally supported the decisions of the Diocese of Chichester, or the comment of the Archbishop of Canterbury that a significant cloud hangs over Bishop Bell. I am not aware that the House of Bishops has taken any position on the allegations against Bishop Bell. If it has done so, I would distance myself from it.
Legally, the only respondent to such allegations, in respect of civil litigation, is the current holder of the office of Bishop of Chichester, in his official capacity.
We await a proper response to Lord Carlile’s findings, which call for the original investigation to be fully reviewed.
Peter Forster
Bishop of Chester
Peter Forster is the only serving Church of England Bishop to publicly break ranks and silence – so far – in the ‘Bishop Bell’ debacle which threatens to overwhelm Archbishop Welby next week.
~ Richard W. Symonds
Oct 20 2018 – Principles of Peace built upon Greek and Judaeo-Christian foundations – RWS Notes
When Bishop Gavin Ashenden said this in his Address at Church House Westminster this month – Oct 5 2018:
“Perhaps one of the great gifts of Judaeo-Christian culture has been the presumption of innocence in our legal system“
“If the history of the last century teaches us anything, it teaches us that if youunderminethe integrity of each personas an individual, and theirpresumptionof innocenceuntil they are proved guilty, ultimately, no one ends up being safe”
“What are these principles? First, that the individual is entitled to respect as an end in himself, with a right to happiness in this life and a chance of salvation in the next. No claim of the State is entitled to override this right…all the principles are such as are consonant with Christian teaching, and the first we owe directly to Christ. Indeed, respect for the individual person as an end in himself constitutes the distinctive contribution of Christianity to political philosophy”
Oct 20 2018 – The Symonds Collection of Quotations
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Oct 21 2018 – An Evening of Poetry and Short Speeches from Great Plays – Chichester Friends’ Meeting House – 5pm to 6pm
A retiring collection will be held to support the work of Sanctuary in Chichester.
Oct 21 2018 – From The Archives [May 3 2001 – “Dean denies cover-up” (page 2) – Chichester Observer (mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital)(Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014)]
Oct 21 2018 – From The Archives [June 2001 – Edi Carmi is asked to review the Chichester case. The CARMI Report is completed in 2004, but only its Recommendations are published. In 2014 – 10 years later – the CARMI Report is published in full]
Oct 22 2018 – From The Archives [March 25 2018]
“If Archbishops and Bishops don’t have enough wisdom and prudence to discern justice from injustice, who the hell does? Thank God for the law and the philosophy of jurisprudence” ~ Richard W. Symonds]
Joanna: Now we have an opportunity for discussion, questions and answers.A number of people have indicated there are things they want to raise. Who wants to start?
Vasanthi Gnanadoss: My name is Vasanthi Gnanadoss, a former member of General Synod.I have been disappointed that until very recently, none of the other Church of England Bishops had expressed any concern about Justin Welby’s remarks following the publication of Lord Carlile’s report.In the past week or so, one Bishop spoke in the House of Lords in a way that the press called breaking ranks.’Another has differed from Justin Welby in an email to Richard.
Would the Bishop Bell Society consider writing to all members of the House of Bishops seeking their personal view?In the House of Lords on 30 June, 2016, the Bishop of Chelmsford, as the duty Bishop, spoke as if Bishop Bell was guilty of the actions that had been alleged.This is of course on record in Hansard.
Now that Lord Carlile’s report has shown that there is no case against Bishop Bell, it is important that there be another occasion when the record is set right in the House of Lords.This should include a clear reference to Lord Carlile’s report, which should be placed in the House of Lords library.Otherwise, someone researching this in the future would get quite the wrong impression.How might this correction of the record be achieved?Thank you.
Joanna:Anyone like to comment on that?I have a couple of things to say, would someone else like to chip in first?
Lord Dear: I sit as a cross‑bench peer and have been in the House of Lords for the past 12 years and I was a police officer for much of my early career.It is possible to raise a debate, which is I think what the last speaker has said, but with some difficulty because there is a great demand for topics for debate in the House of Lords, most of them are political, many of them preoccupied with Brexit, you wouldn’t be surprised to hear that.
But if one could engineer a debate, as has been suggested, then I think it could be fully debated for probably an hour.There are enough of us in the House of Lords to feel the same way as obviously we do and perhaps most people here and it would be in effect a re-run of what has been said to date, and I can help you with some of that as a member of the Bishop Bell Group, if you wish.The major problem is getting the time and getting past party whips who are preoccupied with current problems.
Joanna:Thank you very much.
Martin Sewell: I am Martin, member of General Synod at the moment, and I have probably been a thorn in the side of Church House and Lambeth Palace because one of my claims to contributions is that I was [inaudible] lawyer for many years and it is clear to me, and I don’t think it can be in doubt because Carlisle has done it brilliantly, that there have been very serious errors in this.
Some of you will know that we had thought that there would be a motion brought to Synod which couldn’t be debated in February, but perhaps for July.I have seen the text of it and had it been approved and had not recent events occurred, I would have read it to you.But I think first of all it had its block through the legal process, there was nothing untoward about that, I can tell you about it another time, but it hadn’t got there.
Now we have got these present the new allegations, David Lamming, who is the principle driver of that motion, has taken this theme that this would not be a prudent time to press on with it, not least because the chances of getting the requisite signatures would be very low for wholly understandable reasons, so that is a piece of information I give you.
I found your talk, Jules, fascinating and thank you for the theological part.There are a couple of things I will take issue with and one I’m sure we come from similar perspectives, first of all a correction is that Lord Carlile did not say that Bishop Bell was innocent, he couldn’t say that, he specifically says that.
Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes: He did find a way around it to indicate.
Martin Sewell: I wrote about that, I don’t know if you have seen it.Shall I deal with that point?What he did do, the only part of any of the reports that he quoted extensively is Professor Madden’s report where he brings to the table the possibility of retrospective re‑attribution, or false memory.Nobody asking about that, that was a fundamental question I would have expected, in fact I can tell you that when I made my submissions to Lord Carlile I said, talk about false memories, so it was known from there, they didn’t do that.
What he did was is to say:Here is what the experts said and you can almost imagine him pointing in the direction that they needed to go.So you had Madden doing the same, you had Carlile doing the same and they are gesticulating the direction of travel that they clearly expected.That is my interpretation.I think we have probably got that bit sorted out.
The one thing I think, if you are building bridges, and here I draw on my jurisprudence, you were saying there is right and there is the rights culture and you rather impugned Justin Welby as being a post‑modernist.I think that is unfair.The worst case is, the most complex cases are where everyone has a point.And there is no doubt that Justin Welby has a point when he says:I want to treat victims better than they did in the past.
The trouble is, he is treating the accused worse than in the past and that is a legitimate point.But I don’t think it is fair to him to chacterise him as a post‑truth, post‑modernist, that is not right.I have heard Archbishop Justin Welby speak passionately about his love for the Lord Jesus Christ, and anything we say must not suggest that he has given over to post‑modernism because he hasn’t, he is on the horns of a dilemma.I was asked:Are you saying he is incompetent by a journalist and my answer was, why would I expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to be competent in the field of safeguarding law?That is the problem.He hasn’t grasped how we do things properly.But he is passionate that we should not repeat the errors of the past.
Final point to make is, he has attached his, he has put his drive behind the notion of transparency.Well that is fine.I agree.But what we need is to see how the process unfolds with transparency, so it can be tracked.There is no reason why he can’t tell us how long it is likely to take.No reason why they can’t tell us what sort of experts we will go to, why they can’t tell us the sex of the victim, how many times the allegation was.All of this can be put in the public sphere exactly as Lord Carlile has done, and if the church fails to do that, it will cause immense frustration and the building bridges doesn’t need frustration on either side.
Joanna:I know Jules is about to comment.May I interject here, reference has been made, you will probably all know, to the latest news, and in today’s Daily Telegraph. [The] Church faces criticism over new Bishop Bell allegations.It has been announced by the Church of England that a further allegation has been made against Bishop Bell and that the Church of England safeguarding team is in contact with the Sussex police.Further to the Carlile report, there are questions to be asked about this.
The first and most obvious of which was that the Carlile report specifically said that if another, if an allegation was made the person involved should not necessarily be named.So, suddenly they are naming somebody.
Second, I’m completely baffled as to why the Sussex police should remotely be involved in this.It seems stupid, there is nothing for them to do, for if, and I don’t think they should have released the information, but if the person concerned is Bishop Bell and as I have indicated, they should not have said so, he is dead, there is nothing for the police to do.I don’t want to sound flippant, but this is getting silly, why don’t we look again at the prisoners in the tower?
I am very concerned and it is all very obvious that it is helpful to announce this a couple of weeks before a major Synod debate.I understand the information was available a couple of weeks ago but I find it odd that the next chapter that has been written, even as we speak, in this sad list of events, is something which is contrary to the recommendations of the Carlile report.There were, are, a great many other clergymen in the cathedral city of Chichester in addition to the Bishop.It is of course possible that any false memory could include the involvement of a person who is not the Bishop, for example.This would be another reason for not mentioning the name of the specific person.
I share the concern expressed by number of commentators including a distinguished historian, a biographer of Bell in today’s newspaper, I can’t see why a statement for naming Bell was made yesterday other than to try to muddy the waters of what is clearly a debate that is necessary.And I am genuinely puzzled about the police.I asked this because I cannot see why there is any remote involvement with the Sussex police.There is no point in doing so.So I suspect it is because I know this is a journalist, the words leap at you disagreeably from the headline.It seems very wrong.
Very grateful, to you Lord Dear for the information about the House of Lords and thank you to you for your two specific suggestions.One is writing to all members of the House of Bishops asking their views and then correcting the Hansard report.One possibility, perhaps Lord Dear could give more information, if at some point, probably some distance from now, because it may turn out to be longer than we wish, it would be relevant and useful to have meeting in the House of Lords, a meeting such as this.
Lord Dear:That would not be difficult.
Joanna:It wouldn’t, would it, and it might be an opportunity for members of the House of Lords who were unable to speak in the debate.It wouldn’t appear in Hansard in the same way but it would have greater status than anything else.
Lord Dear:As a steer, if the meeting were just before the debate, assuming one got one before the debate took place, that would be both tactical and appropriate.
Joanna: That would be something useful.I think a letter is useful, we must of course take into account these latest development:And it is certainly, I’m very interested because I have noted it down, in the interests of transparency, any new thing, how long will the process take, the sex of the alleged victim, complainant, and so forth would be relevant.
Again, I am very concerned, I don’t think I am alone in this, there is a genuine concern about the language used by the Church of England in all of this.The very basic law that you are taught as a journalist when you first do court reporting is that nobody is a criminal.The alleged, the defendant, the witness, it was alleged that he pointed a gun.It is alleged that she placed the items in her purse without paying.And I can remember this because a very early form of training as a journalist was how to write the necessary sentence.It isn’t particularly difficult but you have to write it in what initially feels a convoluted way.It was alleged that he…… I learned it in a morning, an essential law for journalists which one has to study made it clear how to do it and we did it.And I did that as a teenage reporter.
Alan: My name is Alan, just on a point of fact about what happened yesterday, as far as I understand there appeared on the Church of England website the statement that fresh information had come to the safeguarding, it didn’t say there was an allegation.Now the press is telling us there is an allegation, whether the press, perhaps I would share with Joanna as a journalist, where they have a way of finding out but they may be jumping to conclusions which may be very convenient for the Archbishop and others that the conclusion is jumped to.But the wording is careful: “There was fresh information,” it may be there was almost nothing.
Really it changes almost nothing at this moment.What has happened to this point remains the same, that it should not have been left there.So I feel in some ways not to get too excited at the moment about the new thing, it is insufficient to delay what is happening in Synod.
Joanna:Which is I presume the object.
Cathy, Conservative Woman:Thank you so much, Jules, that was an amazingly broad perspective on this and I think I would like to say it is very important that it is put in the current cultural context, and what I very much appreciate about your talk was that it wasn’t just a matter of this case, which is really a dramatic example of what you described as the battle for justice.
I think this is terribly important because if you look, this battle for justice is now raging in this country and it began mainly with the Equalities Act which is a very different form of law as it was instituted from the tradition of Common Law that has come in this country, and I do think it is impossible, I do think it is important, personally, to put this case in this context.
It maybe, given the history of this, the type of proof now, the corroboration or the non corroboration, will never be known, but this is an insult to the type of justice and tradition we have and the battle now is and the battle between right and rights, what is happening in this which is so grotesque is the exploitation of victimhood and it is the exploitation of victims and it doesn’t further their rights and this is an absolute myth that somehow what has happened at the moment is improving the justice – in your sense and our sense – for victims and I think we must be very careful not to fall into the trap.
It is not that people are malign, but a cultural change has happened, and there is, what happens when everybody around you is saying a certain sort of relativist thing, we are forced into thinking that is the moral right and that is a trap the journalists have fallen into.So all I can say is for you to continue to write and explain and even YouTube the broader points about the battle for justice.Thank you.
Jules:The bit about post modernism and Justin Welby, first of all it is such pleasure to see you in the flesh here, Martin, the work [word?] has been made flesh in your case because I have followed you very closely, you have the same surname as my tutor at Cambridge University and so I followed all, I have read everything you have written on the Bishop Bell case and I’m extremely grateful to you for setting it out so clearly, your fine legal mind, your argument, and particularly helping non specialists like me to understand the safeguarding nuances intricacies of this complex case.
Martin Sewell: It is not a complex case, that is what is so damnable about it.
Jules:I will take your word for it.I disagree with Justin and post‑modernism.Permit me to use my own experience here.I have worked very closely with Archbishop Justin Welby.He was my Dean at Liverpool Cathedral for 2 years. I have lived next to him, worked with him night and day, there is absolutely no doubt that he loves the Lord Jesus Christ, that he seeks to be a passionate disciple of the Lord Jesus.However, the two are not mutually incompatible in some sense.I have written about 25 articles on, published about 25 columns on Archbishop Justin Welby and demonstrated time and time and time again, not from [t]his – more what he has actually said and what is in print, that post modernism is one of his, perhaps it is unconscious, the template from which he operates.I hate to say this at the moment, because I thought it would remain a nice secret, the whole business of good disagreement, and I have read considerable literature on that and compared it to the Frankfurt school, particularly the writings of Jurgen Habermas, and the whole thing has been plagiarised from him, there very respectfully I would disagree. I would also add my own case, though I don’t won’t to dwell on it at all, it has shocked me utterly that facts, and I have put this on the website only yesterday, I have put original documents, very simple example, did I work as chaplain to the Oakington Detention Centre?GS4 paid me and told me my wages have gone up to something in an hour and yet the Church of England has chosen to make false accusations completely ignoring this evidence.
So what shocks me more and more, day after day, is the fact that facts are simply trashed, and feelings, the need to justify a particular victim just trumps facts almost entirely, and it sends shivers down my spine because I come from India where as a journalist in India I saw the most abominable corruption in the Anglican church there and in society and fought against it.
Now I see corruption in places, in corridors of power here of a completely different kind and it scandalises me to the core, because there are two different world views operating here.And to think that our world view, which is based on justice and truth is now sliding completely is something that I deeply lament, but thank you.
Olivia:My name is Olivia and I am correspondent at the Daily Telegraph.Thank you for letting me come.I wondered whether it is possible to get a sense from people in the room about the future position of the current Archbishop, whether or not you think it is a serious enough situation, whether he has acted in a serious enough way that it could potentially lead to him stepping down, or whether anyone here would want it to happen.
Joanna:I dare say people have views but this is about Bishop Bell and I am not prepared to have a discussion about the future of the Archbishop of Canterbury.I understand your desire for that, I absolutely understand that, but actually this is a meeting to discuss the Bishop Bell case.You may write what has been said about Dr. Welby, but we are not going to have a discussion on his future, it is quite beyond the competence of this meeting and certainly of its chairman.
Edmond Philmore: I’m a lay reader, my name is Edmond Philmore and I’m concerned about a current case where a clergyman who shall be nameless has been under suspension for a very long time and it looks as though that is going on and on.And I really want to say today, it is just not, I absolutely agree with you, this is not about the future of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is about justice, and what you are fighting for is defending Bishop Bell’s name, it is vitally important to the future of people.I have seen this person, I know his wife and family, and they are utterly distraught and demoralised by their inability to clear his name and we can’t do anything about that directly, because it is sub judice, but fighting for the reinstatement of Bishop Bell’s name is vitally important as a matter of principle that goes far beyond personalities and so on.Thank you.
Joanna:That is very helpful and I entirely agree.I would like to pick up the point about it not being a complex case.In one sense it is complex, years have elapsed, but I would like to add to this because this was my initial interest – I am an historian and most of my historical work has been the nineteenth and twentieth century and one of the interesting things is that with any major public figure of the 20th century, there is an enormous amount of, quite fantastic amount of paperwork available, because although a great deal was being done by telephone in the 1940s and 50s, a great deal more was done by letter.
The point I felt when all this story began to emerge was it is extremely easy, no, it is difficult but possible and very interesting to find out when Dr. Bell was in England and when he was in Germany, for example.When he was in Chichester and when he was out doing confirmations in some Sussex village, when he was in Chichester or London, because letters were written and train tickets were bought, and so on.And although a certain amount was done on my telephone this would tend to be annotated.I am speaking as one who has written up complex things about the Second World War but you can find out from a Royal Air Force squadron log which pilot crashed and you can find out from the Bishop’s diary whether he was at the Palace that day or somewhere else, so it is possible to discover what years and dates and even – up to a point – days thingswere happening.It is fiddly work and it is to that extent complex.It is quite satisfying, it is the work of an historian.
It is also very possible to discover about false memories also about good things actually, people surprisingly will be there hauling people out from the rubble of the blitz when in fact they were not, it was a later bombing, not the blitz itself, I am giving silly, not poignant examples I recall.1940 is a more emotive word than 1944, for example and it seems no effort was made at all to contact the Bishop’s papers which would be substantial and interesting and to some extent full of domestic, in the general sense of that word, and relevant material.
And although it is unfair to tax a very elderly person who might be rather confused about dates and times, it is awfully important, it really is.So it seems to me you are right, in one sense it was not a complex case.Above all you have to keep, when writing about it, the facts clear.Something is alleged or it did happen.Bishop Bell did champion the German opposition of Hitler, he did not, for example, no one is alleging he did, for example, go on 20 July 1944 to Germany and help Colonel Stauffenburg plant a bomb.
After the Second World War he spent a great deal of time in Germany building bridges and indeed we owe something of our modern strong relationship with west Germany and so on to his noble work, so it seems to me a lot of work wasn’t done.It was complex in one sense, fiddly perhaps, but in another way rather interesting since we have had a couple of sound bites, one extremely good of Bell, one realised the possibilities that exist.
As I know only too well and perhaps others in the room do too, ploughing your way through detailed archives can be dazzling, you get eye glaze, but if what is at stake is true, it really is important.This is particularly important, in the case of Bell, who was in Bishop’s House at any time with reasonable accuracy.It is not difficult.It is tricky, but not difficult in the sense of translating a very ancient document or, for example, finding out who was in the Bishop’s palace in 1459.
Modern life, it is incidentally for what it is worth, going to be much harder for those who come after us because of wretched emails! It is really annoying.The handwritten letter is helpful, the carbon copy filed and annotated, tickets bought, Bishops despatched to Stuttgart, well, you are right, to that extent it is not a complex case.I am also concerned that people who knew quite a lot about Bell were clearly not consulted and it includes his niece.That seems to me relevant.
[From the floor]: And his chaplain…
Joanna:…and his chaplain.
[From the floor]: Who was effectively the Pretorian Guard and knew every movement.
Joanna:This is what I was saying.As I said, my own experience from writing biographies is that you can place precisely this.And it is tricky, fiddly work but not difficult in the marathon sense, it is actually the stuff of the research you are doing and in its own way very satisfying when you produce something readable and interesting and relevant.I’m particularly interested in the comment that it was not to that extent a complex case.I am concerned about the new allegations for the same reason and your point about openness, how long it will take, seems to me very relevant to ask, and the case you mentioned the same, justice delayed is justice denied, isn’t that another tenet.And I think openness is very important.And I am absolutely unconvinced of any need to refer to Bishop Bell if new allegations to refer to him.I would have thought it important that his name is not mentioned, precisely in order that things can be looked appropriately.It would be better if people said further investigation about some historic cases would allow research to be done without prejudice in the first instance.
[unattributed]: Can I add on this business of delay:One of the curious, it is not curious but many people won’t realise, is that because I have argued very strongly for good process in the case of Bell, a number of victims of the church, if you like, have been in touch with me and I have received confidences and all sorts of stories and some of which I have brought to the church, and what is fascinating is that they actually say the same things.They say the delay is appalling.One of the worst things that I have heard is one or two of them have said it wasn’t the abuse that lost me my faith, it was how the church responded to the abuse that lost me my faith so this is, although we argue or criticise for the delay, it is not just for Bell, it is for the living people today.
Jules:If I may add to that, if my memory of Franz Kafka’s [book], The Trial, is correct, when you are accused of something, very often you are not even told what the accusations are and for example, when I asked if someone makes a complaint against you, can you show me the complaint, what the person has actually said, I was threatened with a clergy discipline measure if I did not co‑operate.It is absolutely ridiculous because it is a natural principle of justice.You are told who your accuser is and what precisely the complaint is.
[unattributed]: If you want Kafka, I can go beyond that:I have heard through a colleague, personal colleague, of a complaint where somebody allegedly misused social media.And many, many, many, weeks afterwards, they would not even tell him which of the social media communications was the offending one.Now, it is impossible to say that was a confidential communication because it had been put out through social media to the world, and he was the origin of it.So, why it could not have been identified makes no sense at all.This is a measure of the confusion that is on the ground.
Jules:There is also the sad collaboration, and here I’m speculating but on the basis of very good evidence, and thank God, The Telegraph seems to have been an exception to this, between the press boys of Lambeth Palace and between certain elements of shall we say the more scurrilous press, that when a judgment is made it is immediately released with the intention to defame the person, and it can get to be quite complex, what is released are the juicy bits that the press boys of Lambeth know that the secular press are going to run after and that completely destroys and defames the character of the person who has been accused and perhaps convicted and makes it difficult in this world where you can Google something about anybody and find how to clear your name….
Joanna:Thank you for your contribution.
Ivor Smith Cameron: My name is Ivor Smith Cameron and what I have to say may not be of much significance, but Mr George Bell was deeply significant in my life.He ordained me deacon in December 1954.In the parish church of Saint Georges Whyke in Chichester.He ordained me priest the following year in his cathedral.I knew him reasonably well, I was often in his home in Chichester Palace.His wife Henrietta, whom he called “Hetty” and he, were very kind hosts to me and on many occasions I was in and out of his home often.He was part of our church life on many occasions and for many events, confirmations and so on.
Never, ever, have I ever had the slightest whiff of anything other than being in the presence of a great man, a great humanist.I myself, a product of the Churches House India, was very much valued by him because of my connection.Members of the church of south India, and I remember well the moderator of the church of south India at that time, Bishop Michael Horitt, was often at the palace, and very often Bishop Bell would invite many of us with connections with the church of south India to a meal.
I deeply regret this traducing of a great man and I wish to add my own support to those who are trying now to remove and obliterate such an attempt.Thank you.
Christopher Hoare: My name is Christopher Hoare.I come from Chichester.I hesitate to enter the debate because it has been so big so far, but I wanted move it to Chichester.I gather the Registrar of the diocese is here to report back but we haven’t spoken about the vicious way in which the Dean and chapter obliterated all memorabilia of George Bell as soon as the announcement was made.We haven’t spoken about George Bell House. Dave Hopkins can’t be here but he was a trustee, there were only four left by the time he gave their last, just under a million pounds for the construction ofGeorge Bell House as it is now, and they would be turning in their grave if they thought the visitor who visited them regularly every single week when he was in England, and they loved him, if they thought it was called 4 Cannon Lane.I have actually changed my will: I left a legacy to the diocese, which has been removed until such time in my lifetime that 4 Cannon Lane will become George Bell House and they[‘ll] have to be quick because I’m 86, but I was hoping that we would also possibly try and get the Dean and Chapter of Chichester to apologise and restore so much of the memorabilia which was destroyed when the announcement was originally made.Thank you.
Joanna:We will come to the resolutions, it seems to be an appropriate guide in, it sounds perfectly dreadful but before anyone else leaves, would you mind if we have a collection.I know this sounds awful, but we have had to hire the room and it would be handy if we could have a collection. I thought we could use my make‑up bag.So if people would be kind, could we possibly have collection before everyone goes, otherwise it will be frightfully embarrassing. I don’t know what they make you do at Church House if you don’t pay, but they might make us stay and do the washing up for weeks and weeks, so could people be very kind and put money in the collection thing.
Meanwhile, we will come to the resolutions which are relevant to your helpful intervention.And one more question.
[unattributed]: I’m also from Chichester.We have heard that the Church of England’s announcement yesterday which used the word ‘information’ has been changed overnight to ‘allegation’.But I am concerned last night’s notice from the church said this information will be investigated by the core group.They are apparently going to investigate this new information.That seems to me very dangerous indeed.I don’t know where we make the point about that but it was definitely in last night’s statement that the core group are now involved.
Joanna:I hadn’t noticed the significance.
[unattributed]: It is not in today’s paper but it was in the statement last night.
Joanna:I was aware, it worries me because the core group will single out the criticism in the Carlile report
[unattributed]:And half didn’t attend the meetings anyhow.
Joanna:It was one of those bureaucratic meetings.
[unattributed]: I’m not sure it is the same group, it may be a different group, I don’t know but I think one has to.It could be the core group of the national safeguarding team rather than the core group at Chichester.
We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October 2015 statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the original story.
The George Bell Group, together with admirers of the Bishop worldwide, heartily welcomes Lord Carlile’s independent review of the process which led to the statement by the Church in October 2015 painting Bell as a paedophile. Lord Carlile deserves congratulations for producing such a comprehensive and authoritative report.
In his response to the report Archbishop Welby has chosen to emphasise that Lord Carlile has not sought to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the alleged assaults. That is not surprising, it was no part of Lord Carlile’s terms of reference from the Church to say whether Bell was innocent or not. But his devastating criticism of the Church’s process shows that Archbishop Welby was wrong in 2016 when he described the investigation as ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse as clearly correct on the balance of probabilities. A close reading of the detail of Lord Carlile’s report can only lead to the conclusion that he has thoroughly vindicated the reputation of man revered for his integrity across the Christian Church.
It is no wonder that the Church’s investigation has been compared by Lord Carlile to the discredited police investigation of Lords Brittan and Bramall. The Safeguarding Group appear to have gone about their work looking for reason to doubt the veracity of the complainant. A proper investigation would have looked to see whether they could find independent corroboration of the complaint. That Bishop Bell had been dead for over half a century did not justify depriving him of the presumption of innocence or of due process. As Sir Richard Henriques pointed out in his report for the Metropolitan Police on historic sex offence investigations, the policy of believing victims shifts the burden of proof onto the suspect and ‘has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale’.
The misconceived approach of the Safeguarding Group, described by Lord Carlile as neither fair nor equitable, was aggravated by the failure of their investigation to reveal easily discoverable evidence:
They failed to speak to Bell’s domestic chaplain during two of the four relevant years, who lived with the Bells in the Bishop’s Palace. He could have explained to them precisely why the complainant’s account did not add up; nor did they speak to Bell’s biographer, the historian Professor Andrew Chandler, who has studied the layout of the Bishop’s Palace at the relevant time; they did not interview former choristers of Chichester Cathedral who might be thought to have been aware if Bell had been a paedophile. Eleven of them wrote to The Times complaining that the Bishop had been smeared to suit a public relations need.
Lord Carlile’s report has now left the Church with many searching questions, including how best to remedy the many defects in the current Practice Guidance so as to ensure that such an injustice can never recur. But most important of all, the time has now come for the Church of England to redress, without hesitation or qualification, the immense damage done to the fine reputation of a man who served it for so long and with such courage and devotion. Those institutions which summarily removed Bell’s name from their titles should now fully restore it.
Archbishop Welby, who has said in his response to Lord Carlile that he realises that ‘a significant cloud’ is left over Bell’s name, should join with the Bishop of Chichester in removing that cloud. The Church deprived the Bishop of due process, they should not deprive him of the presumption of innocence. There is not just no fire, there is no smoke. We share Lord Carlile’s disappointment that the Church has rejected the protection of innocence as a clear and general principle.
As Bishop Bell said in a broadcast to the German people in December 1945, now engraved in the Bell Chapel at Christ Church in Oxford: ‘Without repentance and without forgiveness, there can be no regeneration.’
Archbishop Viganò, the retired nuncio to the United States, has now issued his third attack on the papacy of Pope Francis. In his first, in August, he called on the Pope to resign. Viganò alleges that Francis has deliberately facilitated the appointment of homosexual clergy to senior positions in the Catholic Church, and that the root cause of the sex abuse crisis is “the scourge of homosexuality”. The great majority of priests implicated in abuse are gay, he says, implying cause and effect; and they are protected from censure, civil or ecclesiastical, by their gay superiors.
“The great majority of priests implicated in abuse are gay, he says…”
I don’t have the statistics to judge whether or not that statement is correct, but the Diocese of Chichester seems to have had its fair share:
Oct 26 2018 – “Her Majesty has noted the content of your letter…” for an Apology from the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell.
Oct 28 2018 – “Truth matters, Archbishop. Don’t you think?” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Archbishop, your Church has gone from one extreme error to another. First, the alleged abuser is believed at the expense of the alleged abused; then, the alleged abused is believed at the expense of the alleged abuser. Both extremes have created, are creating and will create monstrous miscarriages of justice.
Archbishop, your Church cover-ups have been beyond disgraceful. Don’t add to that by your own cover-up of the serious mishandling of the Bishop Bell case – and your subsequent character assassination.
Archbishop, your Church has taken the Bishop Bell case above and beyond ineptitude and incompetence. Don’t raise it to a level of the near-criminal.
Archbishop, do you realise how much damage you have done, how much pain you have inflicted, how many wounds you have left unhealed? The Church followed your lead out of loyalty to you as Archbishop. You have a moral responsibility – a duty – to apologise for leading the Church down a wrong path
Archbishop, please go voluntarily to your ‘confessional’ and apologise. No-one wants to drag you there ‘kicking and screaming’.
Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]:
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin [“the flip side” ~ Revd Patsy Kettle – Ed], a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Oct 28 2018 – “The flip side” [“Two sides of the same coin”] ~ Revd Patsy Kettle
There was an invited visitor at the recent Rebuilding Bridges conference
at Church House, Westminster. She was from the False Allegations
Support Organisation - FASO - a voluntary organisation which is the equivalent of The Citizens advice Bureau, Victim Support and Samaritans rolled together, specifically for those who maintain innocence on sex allegations (and child protection issues) This Organisation began some years ago and recently, regrettably, has seen a marked increase in clergy approaching them for help.
We know that the attention of the Anglican Church today is rightly
focusing on their lamentable neglect to bring to justice clergy guilty
of inflicting abuse, and a raft of safeguarding structures are now in
place in the hope that such behaviour may never be possible again.
However, a serious flip side has arisen ["two sides of the same coin" ~ Martin Sewell - Ed] in response to the change of attitude: clergy are increasingly becoming victims of false allegations of being abusers.
Because of past failures, both the police and church hierarchy have
their balance of thinking in favour of the alleged abused. For too long
their support had been to the clergy and they want to avoid similar
injustice.
The result of this thinking is that there is now a growing number of
clergy who are being removed from post because of alleged misconduct,
but who are being given little or no support from their Bishop,
Archdeacon or Safeguarding Officer. They are being left in limbo, hence
their need to turn to the FASO.
The situation with the late Bishop George Bell compounds the issue. He
was an eminent Bishop who has been disgraced by one person alleging
abuse at his hands. The allegation was investigated so inadequately that
a further investigation is imminent.
It is bad enough to have a deceased Bishop facing what are almost
certainly false allegations: how much worse to suffer the same when living.
~ Revd Patsy Kettle
Oct 28 2018 – “In Remembrance”
Oct 30 2018 – Outside Chichester Cathedral – Statue of St Richard – RWS Photography
Statue of St Richard – RWS Photography
Dear Lord, of Thee, three things I pray. See Thee more clearly, Love Thee more dearly, Follow Thee more nearly, Day by Day
‘Day by Day’ – Godspell (1971) – RWS adaptation based upon the Prayer of St Richard
Oct 30 2018 – Inside Chichester Cathedral – Bishop Bell Plaque – RWS Photography
Bishop Bell Plaque – RWS Photography
Oct 31 2018 – Chichester Cathedral – RWS Photography
Archbishop of Canterbury apologises for ‘failures’ over Bishop Bell
(Pic: The Rt. Rev. G.K.A. Bell, Bishop of Chichester, with his wife Henrietta Livingstone at London Airport as, in a snowfall, he was about to leave for Frankfurt, Germany. The bishop was regarded as the Church of England’s “Foreign Secretary” owing to his interest in foreign affairs. Credit: PA Archives.)
The Archbishop of Canterbury today apologised for “failures” of process after the Church of England was criticised for a “rush to judgement” in the case of the late Bishop of Chichester, George Bell.
Archbishop Justin Welby apologised after a review of the Church’s handling of an allegation of historic child sexual abuse by Bishop Bell concluded that “the Church of England failed to institute or follow a procedure which respected the rights of both sides”.
Archbishop Welby said: “Bishop George Bell is one of the great Anglican heroes of the 20th century. The decision to publish his name was taken with immense reluctance, and all involved recognised the deep tragedy involved. However we have to differ from Lord Carlile’s point that ‘where as in this case the settlement is without admission of liability, the settlement generally should be with a confidentiality provision’. The C of E is committed to transparency and therefore we would take a different approach.
“Lord Carlile does not seek to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the acts about which the complaint was made. He does make significant comments on our processes, and we accept that improvement is necessary, in all cases including those where the person complained about is dead. We are utterly committed to seeking to ensure just outcomes for all. We apologise for the failures of the process.
“The complaint about Bishop Bell does not diminish the importance of his great achievement. We realise that a significant cloud is left over his name. Let us therefore remember his defence of Jewish victims of persecution, his moral stand against indiscriminate bombing, his personal risks in the cause of supporting the anti Hitler resistance, and his long service in the Diocese of Chichester. No human being is entirely good or bad. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. Good acts do not diminish evil ones, nor do evil ones make it right to forget the good. Whatever is thought about the accusations, the whole person and whole life should be kept in mind.”
He also concludes that the Church failed Carol when she first complained. No process of inquiry and assessment was begun.
In his review, Lord Carlile of Berriew, one of the country’s top QCs, writes: “The Church, understandably concerned not to repeat the mistakes of the past when it had been too slow to recognise that abuse had been perpetrated by clergy and to recognise the pain and damage caused to victims, has in effect oversteered in this case. In other words, there was a rush to judgement: the Church, feeling it should be both supportive of the complainant and transparent in its dealings, failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the Bishop. Such rights should not be treated as having been extinguished on death.”
He says it cannot be right that the reputations of the dead are “traduced” in order to protect the reputations of the living.
For Bishop Bell’s reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way that occurred was just wrong, he writes.
He adds: “In fact and in reality, his reputation was destroyed in the eyes of all but his strongest supporters.”
The complaint of sexual abuse against Bishop Bell was made by a woman known as “Carol”
The review of how the Church handled the case was commissioned a year after Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner issued an apology to Carol in September 2015. This was followed by a public statement made by the Church of England and in the same period, the Church paid her damages of £16,800 and £15,000 legal costs.
Lord Carlile writes that Bishop Bell was treated as having been guilty. He also notes that no-one other than Carol has come forward to make allegations against Bishop Bell, despite the widespread publicity which the case has received.
In the meantime, many journalists and commentators have written articles in support of Bishop Bell, including Charles Moore, former editor of The Telegraph.
Lord Carlile makes clear that the purpose of his review is not to determine the truthfulness of Carol, nor the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell.
The review was set up to examine the procedures followed by the Church of England, the way it obtained and assessed evidence in the case, and whether it was right to make a public statement of apology and pay damages.
Lord Carlile says the Church of England acted throughout in “good faith” and was motivated by a desire to do what it perceived to be the right thing by the complainant.
Bishop Bell was a figure of huge eminence. Among his many achievements, he was supported TS Eliot in his writing of Murder in the Cathedral. He was appointed Bishop of Chichester in 1929 and in the 1930s became an influential advocate for Christians and Jews in Germany, contributing to the work and survival of noted priests and to the exposure of Nazi atrocities. He died in 1958.
Lord Carlile writes: “After his death, his already considerable reputation soared. Various institutions and other things were named in his honour. Above all, he was given a ‘Name Day’ by the Church; this was described to me by current senior clergy as the nearest thing in the Church of England to beatification. No allegations of sexual or other impropriety were made against him during his lifetime. The first allegation was that made by Carol in 1995, 37 years after his death.”
Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England’s safeguarding bishop, responded: “We are enormously grateful to Lord Carlile for this ‘lessons learned’ review which examines how the Church handled the allegations made by Carol in the 1990s, and more recently. Lord Carlile makes a number of considered points as to how to handle such cases in future and we accept the main thrust of his recommendations.
“In responding to the report, we first want to acknowledge and publicly apologise again for the Church’s lamentable failure, as noted by Lord Carlile, to handle the case properly in 1995.”
Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner said: “The emotive principle of innocent until proven guilty is a standard by which our actions are judged and we have to ensure as best we can that justice is seen to be done. Irrespective of whether she is technically a complainant, survivor, or victim, ‘Carol’ emerges from this report as a person of dignity and integrity. It is essential that her right to privacy continues to be fully respected. The good deeds that Bishop George Bell did were recognised internationally. They will stand the test of time. In every other respect, we have all been diminished by the case that Lord Carlile has reviewed.”
In its own response the Bell Group, which has campaigned to restore the reputation of Bishop Bell, says: “His devastating criticism of the Church’s process shows that Archbishop Welby was wrong in 2016 when he described the investigation as ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse as clearly correct on the balance of probabilities. A close reading of the detail of Lord Carlile’s report can only lead to the conclusion that he has thoroughly vindicated the reputation of man revered for his integrity across the Christian Church.”
The group adds: “The time has now come for the Church of England to redress, without hesitation or qualification, the immense damage done to the fine reputation of a man who served it for so long and with such courage and devotion. Those institutions which summarily removed Bell’s name from their titles should now fully restore it.”
“Since its first shocking error of accusing the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, of child abuse without proper process nearly three years ago, the Church of England has waded deeper in. Even when the Carlile report it had itself commissioned showed how worthless its processes had been, it refused to back down.
“On 31 January this year, it suddenly produced ‘fresh’ allegations against Bell. It would not say what they were, but handed them to the police, who eventually admitted, under pressure, that they were not investigating, since Bishop Bell had died in 1958 (a fact widely known since 1958).
“The church then promised an inquiry into the new claims which would follow Carlile-compliant methods. It tried to insist, however, that the ‘decision-maker’ in the inquiry would be the present Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner. Since Dr Warner had effectively staked his reputation on the proposition that the first accusation against Bell was true, and was himself part of the unjust investigation, there could scarcely be anyone less impartial to preside over round two.
“At last, defenders of Bell’s cause have forced Dr Warner to step aside. He is to be replaced by Timothy Briden, who has led a quiet life as a church lawyer, and editor, since 1989, of Macmorran’s ‘Handbook for Churchwardens and Parochial Church Councillors’.
“Since Mr Briden is vice-chancellor of the Province of Canterbury, one hopes he will find the courage to be independent of his Archbishop, who made such a bad mistake by rushing to judgment against Bell. On Tuesday, the inquiry’s investigator, a retired North Yorkshire detective superintendent, Ray Galloway, began work. Please can the world be told the inquiry’s terms of reference and whether any of the ‘core group’ that got it so wrong last time will be involved?”
~ Charles Moore
Nov 2 2018 – From The Archives [June 2 2018 – RWS Note]
“Since its first shocking error of accusing the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, of child abuse without proper process nearly three years ago, the Church of England has waded deeper in. Even when the Carlile report it had itself commissioned showed how worthless its processes had been, it refused to back down. On 31 January this year, it suddenly produced ‘fresh’ allegations against Bell. It would not say what they were, but handed them to the police, who eventually admitted, under pressure, that they were not investigating, since Bishop Bell had died in 1958 (a fact widely known since 1958). The church then promised an inquiry into the new claims which would follow Carlile-compliant methods. It tried to insist, however, that the ‘decision-maker’ in the inquiry would be the present Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner. Since Dr Warner had effectively staked his reputation on the proposition that the first accusation against Bell was true, and was himself part of the unjust investigation, there could scarcely be anyone less impartial to preside over round two. At last, defenders of Bell’s cause have forced Dr Warner to step aside. He is to be replaced by Timothy Briden, who has led a quiet life as a church lawyer, and editor, since 1989, of Macmorran’s Handbook for Churchwardens and Parochial Church Councillors. Since Mr Briden is vice-chancellor of the Province of Canterbury, one hopes he will find the courage to be independent of his Archbishop, who made such a bad mistake by rushing to judgment against Bell. On Tuesday, the inquiry’s investigator, a retired North Yorkshire detective superintendent, Ray Galloway, began work. Please can the world be told the inquiry’s terms of reference and whether any of the ‘core group’ that got it so wrong last time will be involved?”
I’m not at all sure how Private Investigator Galloway is earning his money, given that Sussex Police completed a “proportionate investigation…thoroughly and sensitively” last March, and notified the Church authorities they would no longer be investigating the case.
The Church of England hierarchy is creating the unseemly impression of pursuing an unhealthy ‘witch-hunt’ against Bishop Bell – an impression it needs to correct before the General Synod early next month.
Not only does the Church of England hierarchy – led by Archbishop Justin Welby – continue to suspect Bishop George Bell ‘guilty until proven innocent’, they recruit a private detective, apparently, tomake the former Bishop of Chichester ‘guilty until proven guiltier’.
This moral and legal disgrace by the Church must stop now.
Nov 2 2018 – From The Archives [June 16 2018 – RWS Note]
May I bring to your attention what I believe to be the most dangerously ignored aspect of child sex abuse allegations – the lack of due process for wrongfully accused clergy.
I believe we are witnessing an abuse of power and privilege in which wrongfully accused clergy are not only given inadequate pastoral support, but also given inadequate protection under canon law and the laws of natural justice.
What can a local vicar do if wrongfully accused of child sexual abuse? Precious little it seems to me. The pastoral support and legal protection is simply inadequate.
In the rush to ensure a child is never sexually abused, another form of abuse has been allowed to surface – the abuse of wrongfully accused clergy by certain factions within the Church hierarchy.
There will be little to no improvements in ‘Safeguarding’ until we raise our voices to say we will not tolerate abuse in any form.
~ Richard W. Symonds
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
“The topic of safeguarding adults from false allegations of abuse is the flip side of safeguarding children from adult abuse. It needs to be acknowledged that both exist and both cause deep suffering”
The present preoccupation with sex crime and victims of crime has given rise to a new type of victim: the falsely accused…I believe that victims of false accusations now deserve more consideration…Various victims of false accusations, of whom the most high profile and outspoken is the well-known BBC radio presenter Paul Gambaccini (& Sir Cliff Richard – Ed) have voiced dismay at the authorities’ willingness to entertain complaints that in the past would have been seen as outlandish, even vexatious…Its star witness is an anonymous accuser, whose multiple personalities include ‘Nick’, ‘Carl Survivor’ and ‘Stephen’…It’s time for a much more rigorous and open discussion about why some people…make false accusations. But first I should clarify what is meant by ‘false’. The word is ambiguous, covering a spectrum of claims that are simply unfounded, to those that are mistakes, to those that are dishonest.
In their 2012 paper, Jessica Engle and William O’Donoghue proposed 11 pathways to false accusations of sexual assault. These are: 1. Lying 2. Implied consent 3. False memories 4. Intoxication 5. Antisocial personality disorder 6. Borderline personality disorder 7. Histrionic personality disorder 8. Delirium 9. Psychotic disorder 10. Disassociation 11. Intellectual disability.
Crucially, they omit ‘the honest but mistaken person’: Pathway 12. A classic example of this is the rape victim who misidentifies her assailant in an identity parade (or the elderly ‘Carol’ who mistakenly identified Bishop Bell when she was very young? – Ed)…
People can also develop false memories of abuse, for example as a result of contact with therapists, pressure from peers or from significant others (such as partners or parents), or even from reading stories in the media. There is no space here to discuss this important topic in detail.
It is a sad fact that those with mental disorders or learning disabilities are disproportionately vulnerable to sexual assault. But it should also be recognised that third parties – such as care providers – may stand to benefit from a false allegation.
That mental problems could potentially lead to false allegations is rarely discussed. But it is a very serious issue, which would benefit from wider debate. Those with personality disorders may be motivated to make false accusations out of motives of revenge, ot attention-seeking. Some may misperceive non-sexual events as sexual. Those who are delusional may also make false accusations of sexual misconduct….”Testifiers do not inevitably speak the truth, as virtuous as they may perceive themselves to be” [Professor Janice Haaken]
~ Barbara Hewson
Nov 2 2018 – ‘Rebuilding Bridges’
“For me, this ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ project has become more an inner journey than anything else” – Richard W. Symonds
Sir, — Clergy are not above the law or beyond scrutiny when they have acted improperly or unprofessionally, but the present Clergy Discipline Measure is not the answer (Features, 19 October). I disagree with Archdeacon Cherry Vann: if a cleric has broken the law or is suspected of having committed a crime, be it fraud or theft or worse, then the police should be notified without hesitation. But diocesan support should be paramount, in case the charges are not upheld. Every step should be taken, however, to conceal their identity so as to protect the cleric’s family.
In respect of the CDM, the case should not be examined by the cleric’s home diocese, but by another, to allow for a fair examination of the accusations and papers relating to the complaints and defending submissions. Furthermore, if the accusations prove false, then what recourse has the cleric to prevent such attacks’ happening again? It is usually an accuser who makes these things public and crows about it. This is not about seeking revenge, but enabling a cleric to rebuild his or her career and well-being, while apportioning responsibility for the situation.
A few years ago, I was subjected to an orchestrated series of CDMs by a group of parishioners who conspired with one another as each one failed. When each of the letters arrived advising me of these complaints, I was given no warning or hint. Yet it was blatantly obvious that the whole situation had been planned, as the last complainant referred to the whole scenario.
Not one of the complainants supplied supporting evidence, and yet I had to defend myself, with written evidence, against a raft of accusations, which ranged from false expenses claims to having something in my eye at a meeting which caused it to twitch. Apart from having something in my eye, mea culpa, all the accusations were proved false by supporting documentation — from PCC minutes to third-party statements. And yet I was put through hell, and two of the complainants seem never to have let up in a whispering campaign against me.
One lay officer told me that it was easier for her to believe and support the gossip than endorse me as being innocent. I can identify with so much of “Matthew’s” story. The sense of isolation never goes away. My confidence and trust in others has been all but destroyed.
In all this time, not one senior diocesan member of staff has ever talked to me in support, or afterwards expressed concern for my well-being. It would seem that senior staff are afraid of the power of the laity.
The CDM is being openly abused. It should be drastically revised, or replaced with a more efficient and fairer system. Consideration should be given to allowing clergy to challenge vindictive laity and defend themselves.
“I was too angry to cry. Anger management is the big challenge….I don’t want to imagine what it would have been like not having a loving spouse through all of this”
Sister Frances was never prosecuted over the allegations, which she wholly denies. In November 2013, four months after Oxfordshire county council first informed the hospice of the accusations, Thames Valley police interviewed her under caution and she was bailed.
She heard nothing further, she says, until July 2014, a year after first coming under suspicion, whenthe Crown Prosecution Service informed her it would be taking no further action due to “insufficient evidence”.
“But if you don’t go to trial, you are never found innocent,” the 73-year-old now says.
And so, after conducting a lengthy confidential risk assessment, the trustees of Helen and Douglas House announced in July 2015 they would be making her temporary ban from the hospices permanent. They said in a statement that though “no conclusions about the allegations could be made”, the safeguarding standards of their regulator, the Care Quality Commission, obliged them to continue to bar her permanently from the premises.
No one other than the nun and her accusers can be absolutely certain that she is telling the truth in insisting on her innocence, and the allegations do not relate to Helen and Douglas House or to children. Speaking to the Guardian in a small room in the clutch of modern buildings now occupied by the All Saints Sisters of the Poor, Sister Frances acknowledges that to some people her name will never be clear of the whiff of suspicion.
Her gender makes her case unusual, but she is far from alone in finding herself in a form of reputational limbo – publicly accused of serious crimes, but neither convicted of them by a jury nor able fully to clear her name.
The collapse last month of the Metropolitan police’s Operation Midland, investigating claims of a VIP paedophile ring made by a now adult man called “Nick”, means that the former MP Harvey Proctor has been added to the lengthening list of figures – including the DJ Paul Gambaccini, former armed forces chief Lord Bramall and TV personalities Jim Davidson, Freddie Starrand Jimmy Tarbuck – who have been investigated and publicly named over sexual abuse allegations, but seen their investigations dropped because of insufficient evidence.
“In this country you are supposed to be innocent until you are proved guilty,” Sister Frances says. “But in any kind of safeguarding issue, it feels as if you are guilty until proved innocent.”
That vexed issue is unlikely to be made any easier to resolve by the halting of Scotland Yard’s Operation Midland investigation. The force said in September that one of its senior officers was wrong to have said that he considered Nick’s claims to be “credible and true”. Three days before the Midland collapse, however, the College of Policing wrote to forces reiterating its guidance that complainants should be believed unless there was “credible” evidence to the contrary. A month earlier, writing in the Guardian, the chief constable of the Metropolitan police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, had said public confidence would only be restored if all alleged rape victims were not unconditionally believed by police.
Unlike many of her fellow accused, the investigation of Sister Frances was not immediately made public. Her name entered the public domain only when it was leaked to the Daily Telegraph in 2015, two years after she was first accused. She echoes Gambaccini and others in calling for the law to be changed to allow those accused of sexual abuse to have anonymity “until and if you are convicted. If you got through trial and are convicted then of course your name should be out there. Ninety percent of the time, though, I think we should have anonymity just as the alleged victims have anonymity.”
She says she agonises over questions of guilt and innocence in others. “You read reports, you hear people speak, and then you hear the very opposite from somebody else. All anyone can honestly know is their own involvement, either as victim or perpetrator. We will never know the truth about other people. It’s very, very complex.” Her own protestations of innocence, of course, fall into the same category. “I suppose I just have to carry on knowing in my heart that I am innocent and doing my best,” she says…
Being separated from her work at the hospices has been immensely painful, she says, “because if you have journeyed with families through illness and death, and the funeral and the bereavement – and bereavement, as you can imagine, goes on for a long time after the child dies – you are very close to them.” Sebastian’s Action Trust, another charity of which the nun is a patron, offered her its full support after the investigation was dropped, saying it had found “absolutely no reason to exclude Sister Frances from our activities”.
In her own case, says the nun, the fact that her name is known in connection with the allegations is not her biggest concern. “I was nervous about it at the beginning, but I really don’t mind now that people know because I think it’s part of my role.”
That role, she says, is to become a voice for those in her position – particularly teachers, fellow carers or clergy – who find themselves similarly accused, often similarly excluded from their roles because of safeguarding concerns yet unable ever to prove their innocence.
“I think, without meaning to be arrogant, I think I want to be a voice for the voiceless. Because I have been … ” She trails off. “I was going to say I have been a victim.”
Is she uncomfortable with that word? “Yes, because I don’t feel it. But there are a lot of people in my situation who do feel they are victims, and feel very alone in it. And that’s where I am. I’d like to be alongside, in whatever way is appropriate.”
This article was amended on 4 April 2016. The College of Policing wrote to forces to reiterate its guidance on how to treat complainants. It did not issue new guidance. This has been corrected.
This morning, I was struck by the words of the CPS ‘spokeswoman’ in the Paul Gambaccini case:
“We have reached an agreement without admission of liability”
This reminded me of the words of Sister Frances Dominica, when the CPS stated they would be taking no further action against her – due to “insufficient evidence”:
“But if you don’t go to trial, you are never found innocent”
This reminded me that Bishop Bell will never be found innocent – whatever the conclusions in the Briden report and beyond.
Much has been said about the ‘Presumption of Innocence’ – innocent until proven guilty – and the critical need for its preservation in law.
But it seems to me that if someone is accused of sexual abuse – and that accused person cannot afford to go to trial to prove their innocence – there is a Presumption of Guilt.
~ Richard W. Symonds
Nov 3 2018 – “Responding Badly” – ‘Church and Institutional Cover-up of Child Sex Abuse Allegations’ by David Greenwood [Switalskis Solicitors]
“A Cover-up is a Cover-up, whatever form it takes. The Church has made it into an art form over the centuries” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Sir – The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, is not alone in being ashamed of the Church in its handling of child abuse cases in the Diocese of Chichester (report, March 22). So are quite a few others. And some of us would add that we are ashamed of Archbishop Welby too.
At the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse hearing on Wednesday, the Archbishop was questioned about his continuing attack on the late Bishop George Bell, whose reputation has been besmirched by what Lord Carlile, the Church’s own eminent appointee to examine its legal processes, has described as a very misguided rush to judgement on a single accusation of historic child sexual abuse.
The continued anger that the case has aroused has nothing to do with Bishop Bell’s eminent reputation. It has everything to do with the fact that no one has ever been allowed to present a case in his defence.
The recent effort by the family to appoint its own lawyer in a new investigation has been turned down by the Chichester authorities. And once again, the Archbishop missed a chance to affirm his belief in Bishop Bell’s innocence as presumed by the law.
When will the Archbishop have the grace to admit that the Church leaders responsible for handling the George Bell case – including himself – have made the most colossal error of judgement in this instance?
Here is a possible counterblast to the Church of England’s horrible Stalinist attempt to suppress and obscure the memory of the late Bishop George Bell, whose memorial in Chichester Cathedral was for some months disfigured with prejudicial ‘safeguarding’ notices, whose name has been stripped from several institutions and schools which it used to adorn and whose statue lies unfinished in a stoneyard at Canterbury cathedral, where he was for some years a most distinguished Dean. All this without anything remotely resembling a fair trial, let alone a finding of guilt.
If you dislike this sort of behaviour, you can do something constructive and rather wonderful, by helping to preserve some unique and rather lovely wall-paintings at the Church of St Michael and All Angels at Berwick (no, not that one) a village in East Sussex close to Virginia Woolf’s old home at Charleston. The Virginia Woolf detail is important, as you will see.
For some months now the campaign to get justice for George Bell has been treading water. Many of you will remember the devastating verdict which Lord Carlile QC pronounced on the Church of England’s kangaroo-court condemnation of the late Bishop.
For anyone unfamiliar with the case, the neccessary information is here . To begin with for the really keen, are almost all the necessary documents
Here is an account (in a newspaper which initially wrongly assumed Bell’s guilt) of the vindication, and of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s miserable failure to accept it
And here is the report by Lord Carlile QC, after which Lord Carlile said to me that, having reviewed the case very thoroughly, this distinguished advocate did not believe he could have won a prosecution on the evidence provided. This is as near as he could come to saying he thought Bell not guilty (since he was specifically not asked to rule on Bell’s guilt or innocence, I wonder why?)
Nov 5 2018 – RWS Email to the PA of the two Acting Archdeacons in the Chichester Diocese [Revd Canon Mark Standen/Angmering and Revd David Twinley/Arundel]
“We may not currently know definitively who knew what and when, but there is plain documentary evidence, notably the Ruston Report, bearing the identifiable initials of its distribution list. Those individuals plainly knew the full extent of the problem yet closed ranks…….After his testimony about Peter Ball at IICSA, Lord Carey came under criticism and even ridicule because as a Christian gentleman he just could not believe that a bishop could look him in the eye and lie about such matters. In these more informed times, we ought at the very least to be confident that the modern Church addresses any denials with good prior preparation and a robust scepticism. We surely cannot simply accept the answer: “Well, we asked him, and he assures us he knew nothing.” Maybe he didn’t, which is absolutely a possible outcome, but we will look foolish and disingenuous if we we are seen to be less than assiduous in our preparation and execution of the inquiry. The Church of England cannot implicitly criticise Lord Carey, and then exactly replicate the error…….With legal liability looming, church administrators, legal advisors and insurers all have professional duties and legitimate parts to play in addressing the story,
~ Martin Sewell
Matters are looking rather concerning. We have a number of bishops we know to have ‘swerved’ the CDM – reported in this [Archbishop Cranmer’s] blog – on a technicality (the complaint against them was out of time) – who if they were setting an example as ‘leaders’ and had nothing to fear would have submitted to investigation. Doubly concerning is that that they (diocesans) will judge the cases of diocesan clergy similarly accused (in cases that don’t go to Tribunal) when penalty is imposed. There’s a stinking hypocrisy here…
Now we have other senior clergy over whom there are questions of knowledge of child abuse and remaining silent. Mr Sewell is surely right that the very decent George Carey has been thrown under the bus for doing just what others who (may) have yet to be fully exposed have done. Again, stinking hypocrisy from so-called ‘leaders’ is in the air.
I hope those who have judged others adversely will themselves come to be judged soon, to say nothing of failure to expose – and perhaps thereby curtail – the suffering of young people.
‘MS’
This is not really on topic, but of all the top clergy I have met ( and I have met a few, mainly before they reached the giddy heights of titles ), George Carey struck me as the most genuine. Some of the others, I wouldnt be surprised to hear all sorts of naughtiness being revealed in future.
Abbie
Re Lord Carey:
“he just could not believe that a bishop could look him in the eye and lie about such matters.”
Lord Carey was right that a Bishop should not be able to do this. It is a shocking multiple breaking of the 10 Commandments, from one who had the reputation of being more devout and committed than usual.
I find it deeply regrettable that Lord Carey was humiliated for assuming common decency in a Bishop. He should have been able to assume it, and it was not his fault that he was shown to have been inaccurate in retrospect to do so. It was predominantly, massively, inescapably Peter Ball’s fault. Has he made any act of reparation to Lord Carey for the grief he caused him? Somehow I doubt it…
‘Magnolia’
I think George was shabbily treated and scapegoated by Justin Welby principally. You’re right: he OUGHT to have been able to assume decency and honesty: his worst ‘sin’ – naivety. Disgracefully he’s been treated almost as badly as the perpetrator… by another Archbishop (who has shown himself to be an embarrassing fool in much he says.)
Martin,
Thank you for this article. This blog, and your contributions, have played no small part in airing fact and exposing hypocrisy.
What I hope is that ‘senior’ clergy who knew or suspected abuse – particularly those quick to point the finger at, and stick the knife in, others are exposed. You may be instrumental in that. Their action or inaction may not be able to reach a disciplinary threshold given lapse of time, etc, but resignation – increasingly rare these days – is the next best thing.
Keep up the good work and best wishes.
‘MS’
Both Bishop George Carey and Bishop George Bell have been “thrown under the bus” and “shabbily treated and scapegoated” by the present Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.
Matthew 7 v 5 comes to mind – roughly translated by the less-Biblical as ‘Point A Finger and Three Are Pointing Back’.
Those who are protecting Archbishop Welby from criticism and accountability appear to be well-versed in the art of cover-ups….and well-practised in the science of cock-ups.
We still await the release of the long-delayed Tim Briden report on the continuing Bishop Bell debacle [‘Bell 2’] – just as we awaited the long-delayed Carlile Review.
– Winckworth Sherwood – Chaplain to Her Majesty The Queen – Legal Adviser to the worldwide Anglican Consultative Council – Provincial Registrar to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
Nov 8 2018 – From The Archives [Oct 5 2018 – Private Eye – “Judge not…” – Winckworth Sherwood and Revd Canon John Rees]
“I have little doubt that the truth will be revealed, and those responsible for the cover-up will be identified. Private Eye* [”Church News – Judge not…” – No.1480 5 Oct-18 Oct 2018] has already published some names behind their paywall. The sooner this is faced, the healthier it will be for everyone. I would urge all those closely associated with the Iwerne and Titus trusts and their associated projects to be asked by their followers: ‘What did you know, when did you know it, and with whom did you share the information?’”
* The Private Eye article relates to Revd Canon John Rees of Winckworth Sherwood, Chaplain to Her Majesty The Queen, Legal Adviser to the worldwide Anglican Consultative Council, and Provincial Registrar to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
COVER-UPS – JOHN SMYTH & IWERNE, PETER BALL, BISHOP GEORGE CAREY, BISHOP GEORGE BELL, MARTIN SEWELL, PRIVATE EYE AND ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY
Call me Old-fashioned
Have you understood nothing from the revelations of the past 10-15 years vis-a-vis the ignoring of abuse and the damage caused not just to the victims but also the corrupting influence it has had on so many institutions.
Yes, Mr Smyth is dead, but that doesn’t mean that the evil perpetrated by him has ceased to have an effect, not only on those he directly abused but on those who (at the very least) suspected that something was amiss and chose to look the other way.
You say “nobody enabled him” (Smyth) but that is not true: by keeping silent when this man moved to Africa and began again his “work” with adolescent boys more children were harmed – in fact one died from his injuries. Had people and institutions in Africa been aware of his history in the UK they might not have been so quick to allow this warped individual untrammelled access to young people.
“The good men who ran Iwerne simply lacked the power to stop him”: perhaps. But the fact that they made no attempt is shameful: people from Iwerne were aware that he had become involved in “work” with adolescents in Zimbabwe and South Africa, countries where Iwerne had links, yet no attempt was made to at least caution that it might be a good idea to see what was going on.
This is absolutely nothing to do with CofE politics, liberal or catholic: this is to do with decency, with justice and with protecting the vulnerable. Much is made in some circles that we should attempt to walk with God, to follow in the footsteps of Christ: by sheer inaction and choosing to look the other way people at Iwerne stood still, self-blinkered. For them now to try to say “there was nothing we could do” shows a complacency that is breathtaking.
To quote Mill “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” – and that is what the good people at Iwerne (and elsewhere) did – nothing. You are saying that because the sin (and you question whether it happened) was one of omission, rather than commission, it doesn’t matter. That is the same as saying it is forgivable not to shout a warning to a man standing in the path of an oncoming train because it “isn’t your place” to police safety on the railway. Well, quoting Mill once more, “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
What is gobsmacking is that there seems to be a need for this to be pointed out – and that the idea of collective responsibility seems so alien: It would appear that there is a strand in the church (of all types of churchmanship) which clings firmly to the values of Cain when questioning the validity of responsibility for others as a Christian duty.
We should ALL be our brother’s keeper – and that includes calling out those who stray to protect others from harm.
alfredo
‘After his testimony about Peter Ball at IICSA, Lord Carey came under criticism and even ridicule because as a Christian gentleman he just could not believe that a bishop could look him in the eye and lie about such matters.’ As I’m collecting material for a study of Peter Ball’s case, I would be grateful if you could be more specific about the occasion on which PB ‘looked’ Carey ‘in the eye’ and lied to him, and about what exactly these ‘matters’ were which were the subject of these lies. I’ve been unable to obtain any verification of Mr Sewell’s claim, and it would appear that the one witness who could have confirmed that such a scene ever took place is now dead, so it would be interesting to know how Mr Sewell came to think that it did.
RichardWSymonds
Alfredo, the IICSA has collected enough material regarding Peter Ball, George Carey….and George Bell.
“I have been accused many times over the past few years of presiding over a ‘cover-up’ of Bishop Peter Ball’s crimes. Peter Ball misused his office as a bishop to abuse, and indecently assault young people who were exploring vocations into Christian ministry. There was, of course, no cover-up. We now know that the police at the time examined many allegations against Ball and together with prosecutors only charged him with a caution. This decision was very much of its time. But later even after I had left office other people, including police, had an opportunity to look at all the evidence that was in our hands at Lambeth to bring Peter Ball to justice, yet they did not do so until Chichester Diocese passed on its files and Peter Ball was finally brought to justice in 2015. I and my colleagues at the time did make mistakes and rightly my actions are being subjected to public scrutiny – a review by Dame Moira Gibb and the IICSA Inquiry. I have cooperated willingly, openly and honestly with this scrutiny at every stage. I will take every opportunity I can to publicly apologise to the victims of Peter Ball for the mistakes I made in the 1990s which have caused them such pain to this day. I will say no more about this matter because IICSA is still to report on this next year”
~ Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey – Oct 5 2018 [‘Keep Rebuilding Bridges’ Conference at Church House Westminster]
Michael
Why did you add the words “…and George Bell” to your first sentence?
Alfredo
This says nothing at all about Peter Ball lying to George Carey, still less ‘looking him in the eye’ while doing so. How could you possibly have thought that this was relevant?
RichardWSymonds
Alfredo, I’m struggling to understand why you think your line of inquiry is “relevant”.
Martin Sewell – Laity Member of General Synod & Retired Child Protection Lawyer – seems to me a ‘good egg’ who earnestly seeks the truth in this matter, but in a conciliatory way which doesn’t seriously damage the Church of which he is part. He appears to be pleading with his ‘superiors’ (eg the present Archbishop of Canterbury) to be more honest and truthful before further – and possible irretrievable – moral and legal damage is done:
“I have little doubt that the truth will be revealed, and those responsible for the cover-up will be identified. Private Eye* has already published some names behind their paywall. The sooner this is faced, the healthier it will be for everyone. I would urge all those closely associated with the Iwerne and Titus trusts and their associated projects to be asked by their followers: ‘What did you know, when did you know it, and with whom did you share the information?’ We cannot close this tragic story until those questions have been conclusively and convincingly answered. Anyone unwilling to develop and engage in a timely and comprehensive process for truth and reconciliation for the victims should seriously consider their leadership priorities. Followers should carefully evaluate any reluctance in such leadership”
* The Private Eye article relates to Revd Canon John Rees of Winckworth Sherwood, Chaplain to Her Majesty The Queen, Legal Adviser to the worldwide Anglican Consultative Council, and Provincial Registrar to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
And I, for one, was flagging up the NYT interview and the holes it punched in the wall JW was attempting to build between himself and Smyth some months ago on this site.
JW has been “economical” not only over his knowledge of Smyth but aso about his friendship with [Mark] Ruston. This issue is NOT going to go away and it is beyond time that the archbishop realised that there are people out here who will remember previous interviews and will add two and two together.
As I understand it from previous articles, the offences mainly concerned violence that was supposedly spiritual discipline. I don’t approve – *at all* – of what took place, or the reactions to it, but the contemporary reactions to it should not be judged by 2018 standards.
The very fact that, at least initially, the victims submitted to this supposedly spiritual discipline, tells us a lot about the previous culture to which they had been exposed – it was not immediately out of line with their previous experience.
Boys schools had long been very violent – both in terms of boy/boy conflict, and in terms of the use of physical force as a routine means of school discipline. When I was at such a school in the 1960s, physical punishment by masters was in decline, well down on what was routinely imposed a generation earlier, but boy on boy violence was frequent, serious, and largely unchecked. Boys were expected to find their own ways of dealing with it. The police and criminal justice system did not then get involved in what happened in schools.
By the time of the offences under consideration, that culture was still not extinguished.
The people who made the decisions about how to respond to the offending were most likely in their 60s, and they had themselves probably experienced as boys, if not exactly this sort of treatment, at least treatment that they could compare with it. But they also knew that this was no longer acceptable in England.
They probably saw the offences in terms of the offender as having (by the standards that were now current) “gone too far”, but perhaps as well-intentioned. Having experienced such treatment themselves as schoolboys, and perhaps done similar (if less bad) things as masters themselves in the past, they did not consider it as being as serious as people would now. Yes, the man would have to go – times had changed and he had gone too far – but they knew the outlooks that led to it, and, in deflecting him elsewhere, they may have believed that other less advanced cultures would still find his “old-fashioned” “robust” approach acceptable.
Let me say again, I don’t approve of what happened, having myself suffered from violence at school, but I do think it important to understand the culture, and hence the responses made.
I fully agree it was morally wrong, but you can only break a law “legally”, not morally.
The legal situation *at the time* was less clear cut than you may think.
Firstly there seems to be evidence that the victims were, at least initially, compliant, and agreed to the procedures proposed. By that time an 18 or 19 year old was an adult, and expected to be able look after his own interests. If I agree to let you hit me, it is then not an assault if you do hit me. In terms of their relative physical powers, I would rate an 18 or 19 year old as more than a match in a contest against an adult, so there was no real prospect of Smyth having such physical dominance as to invalidate such a consent.
Secondly at the time, even where victims were legally children, corporal punishments carried out on children by teachers were *not illegal*, because they were seen as acting “in loco parentis” – in the place of parents. Parents had the right in law to punish their children physically, so anyone who was for the time being “in loco parentis” who used corporal punishment was not performing a criminal act, though the punishment did have to be “reasonable”. What is “reasonable” is something that changes over time.
Smyth’s undoubtedly immoral actions lay in a somewhat grey area legally.
Was there consent? If not, and they were still children, corporal punishment as discipline, to improve a boy’s moral condition was then normal in boy’s schools. Given what he was doing, he arguably also had this “in loco parentis” status, as he claimed the punishments were also to improve his victims’ moral and spiritual state. The question then would be whether it was “reasonable”. Probably not, but it needed a court case to test that, and it would have been contested.
All this background suggests it would have been much harder to secure a conviction than it would be now. And is probably one reason why, at the time, the victims chose not to go to court.
Rowland Wateridge
…. This whole subject has been debated in great detail and at great length with chapter and verse in earlier TA threads, but some people are still talking about a spurious power of lawful punishment ‘in loco parentis’ which simply does not exist, and are equally missing the point that a victim, irrespective of the victim’s age, cannot give consent to the crimes of common assault or causing actual or grievous bodily harm.
1) The trial would have been a criminal prosecution in which they would have been witnesses. It would have not cost them anything, apart maybe for the cost of getting there, and the opportunity cost of the loss of time.
2) They chose not to press charges (and hence not go to court). There may have been all sorts of reasons at the time – I have no idea what they were, but I can think of others besides your suggestion. The law court is not a place for a prosecution witness to go to “be believed”, strangely enough it is a place to test whether what is claimed by such a witness is true, and if it is true whether it establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3) I doubt that was, at the time, any material consideration. They had families, and other support networks.
How someone looks at a situation in retrospect is to a large extent his own choice – we do not have to be defined by our past experiences, however bad. People who have lived through war are generally much more realistic.
Clearly you and I have very different and irreconcilable conceptions of what can and should be achieved by a crown court trial.
There has been precious little consideration for genuine victims – often cruel, callous, uncaring indifference – and your comments appear to confirm that.
From my (very limited) experience, many genuine victims – whether of abuse or wrongfully accused of abuse – just want an acknowledgement of what happened. Many such victims want this justice to be done – often not seeking financial compensation or retribution – but simply seeking an acknowledgement of what took place and wanting ‘closure’ – especially psychologically.
But even such an acknowledgement is denied to them by the Church hierarchy which seems to be in collective denial. Thus, justice is denied.
In the past, such victims have had to ‘grim and bear it’ alone. But not now.
The Church – represented by Archbishop Welby – needs to wake up and wise up to these new realities…and fast.
I am sorry you think that. I see it as being realistic.
As earlier hinted, I suffered years of abuse myself, but I don’t see myself as a victim. It is not a healthy mindset – indeed it will eat your heart out.
Hope deferred makes the heart sick. What anyone who has suffered has to consider is what in reality is going to make them recover from what happened? What do they want? Is it a realistic goal? Human justice does not *put things right* – it really won’t make you feel better. That is not what it is designed for – it is a deterrent and intended to avoid repeat behaviour. And it never works very well.
People often think, “If only the perpetrator is gaoled then I will have closure”. It rarely turns out that way, and the longer the time between the crime and conviction the less satisfactory it gets, because not only have they suffered from the crime, but they have spent years wasting time thinking about getting justice – in reality compounding hugely the impact upon them of the original offence, so that whatever sentence is finally passed it is never enough.
So people who encourage victims to go on pursuing claims for years do them no favours. They add to their pain, needlessly.
No, the only way to get closure is to love your enemies, release them from your judgement (forgive them) and leave it to God’s justice to deal with (if you believe in Him), or if you don’t, then accept that some people are bad people and the best thing to do is avoid getting tangled up with them. Both are life lessons – don’t spend your life concentrating on the past, especially the bad stuff.
Set your mind on what is good. Put the past behind you (you can’t change it) and get on with the rest of your life.
As an individual you can’t enforce justice on other people.
“As an individual you can’t enforce justice on other people”
Nor, as an individual, can you enforce forgiveness on other people. Each individual has to work through to a healing in their own way and move on – but this may take years.
But your point about the “unhealthy mindset” of a victim is a good one – even though easier said than done.
I remember reading about those who brought to justice those Nazis who were responsible for the horrors in concentration camps. Those seeking justice fell into two visibly distinctive groups: those who were able to forgive and those who were not able to forgive.
But both groups knew it was critically important to bring the perpetrators of such crimes to justice.
In the case of many of those who have been abused, or wrongfully accused of abuse, they are made to feel they are the ones at fault; that they are the ones to blame, for what they did or didn’t do.
The upshot of that is the perpetrator of abuse, or the person who falsely accuses of abuse, gets away with it – and is often given a ‘green light’ to continue their wrong-doing.
BISHOP GEORGE CAREY, BISHOP GEORGE BELL, BRIDEN REPORT AND ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN WELBY
“he just could not believe that a bishop could look him in the eye and lie about such matters.”
Lord Carey was right that a Bishop should not be able to do this. It is a shocking multiple breaking of the 10 Commandments, from one who had the reputation of being more devout and committed than usual.
I find it deeply regrettable that Lord Carey was humiliated for assuming common decency in a Bishop. He should have been able to assume it, and it was not his fault that he was shown to have been inaccurate in retrospect to do so. It was predominantly, massively, inescapably Peter Ball’s fault. Has he made any act of reparation to Lord Carey for the grief he caused him? Somehow I doubt it…
This is not really on topic, but of all the top clergy I have met ( and I have met a few, mainly before they reached the giddy heights of titles ), George Carey struck me as the most genuine. Some of the others, I wouldnt be surprised to hear all sorts of naughtiness being revealed in future.
I think George was shabbily treated and scapegoated by Justin Welby principally. You’re right: he OUGHT to have been able to assume decency and honesty: his worst ‘sin’ – naivety. Disgracefully he’s been treated almost as badly as the perpetrator… by another Archbishop (who has shown himself to be an embarrassing fool in much he says.)
Both Bishop George Carey and Bishop George Bell have been “thrown under the bus” and “shabbily treated and scapegoated” by the present Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.
Matthew 7 v 5 comes to mind – roughly translated by the less-Biblical as ‘Point A Finger and Three Are Pointing Back’.
Those who are protecting Archbishop Welby from criticism and accountability appear to be well-versed in the art of cover-ups….and well-practised in the science of cock-ups.
We still await the release of the long-delayed Tim Briden report on the continuing Bishop Bell debacle [‘Bell 2’] – just as we awaited the long-delayed Carlile Review.
Martin Sewell’s piece is well worth reading. It spends rather longer than is needed musing on “who knew, and when did they know?”, but it’s musing that needs to be mused. It’s worth reading. Skim down to “After his testimony about Peter Ball at IICSA, Lord Carey came under criticism”, and stop when it mentions GAFCON, that will get you the heart of it.
The comments, as is usual on Cranmer, are a cesspit.
Richard W. Symonds
I would not call the Comments on Cranmer a “cesspit” (especially as contributions have been made by someone I’ve known well all my life;) – more a ‘Curate’s Egg’. But, of course, there is a way of raising the standard of debate here: just make it a single item to discuss on TA (not 1 of 7)
John Roch
But a ‘curate’s egg’ IS a cesspit. That’s the whole point of the cartoon: it was a bad egg. Mutatis mutandis with ‘bad apples’.
Richard W. Symonds
Dictionary definition: ‘A Curate’s Egg’:
“A thing that is partly good and partly bad”
Origin Early 20th century: from a cartoon in Punch (1895) depicting a meek curate who, given a stale egg at the bishop’s table, assures his host that ‘parts of it are excellent’.
Interested Observer
Yes, but it’s a rather slippery metaphor and hence idiom. As OED points out, concurring with John, “Originating in a story of a meek curate who, having been given a stale egg by his episcopal host, stated that ‘parts of it’ were ‘excellent’ “. He _says_ parts of it are excellent, but in fact it’s all stale. I’m always careful about using that phrase for precisely this reason: it’s a multi-layered trope, about the unwillingness of the curate to actually tell the truth, and therefore finding a way to try to mute his disappointment. There’s a lesson for us all, I think.
Janet Fife
I thought the point was not the curate’s unwillingness to face the truth, but his fear of causing offence? He was junior, socially ‘inferior’, and expected to show deference. In some ways the Church hasn’t changed all that much!
Interested Observer
Indeed. Note I said “tell the truth”, not “face the truth”.
Grumpy High Churchwoman
When was the piece Martin Sewell refers to published in Private Eye?
Richard W. Symonds
“Church News – Judge not…” – Private Eye No 1480 5 October-18 October 2018
Richard W. Symonds
“I have little doubt that the truth will be revealed, and those responsible for the cover-up will be identified. Private Eye [”Church News – Judge not…” – No.1480 5 Oct-18 Oct 2018] has already published some names behind their paywall. The sooner this is faced, the healthier it will be for everyone. I would urge all those closely associated with the Iwerne and Titus trusts and their associated projects to be asked by their followers: ‘What did you know, when did you know it, and with whom did you share the information?’”
~ Martin Sewell
Richard W. Symonds
The Private Eye article (Oct 5) relates to Revd Canon John Rees of Winckworth Sherwood, Chaplain to Her Majesty The Queen, Legal Adviser to the worldwide Anglican Consultative Council, and Provincial Registrar to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up. It’s beyond belief that Welby didn’t know.
It’s possible that amongst the credulous and uncritical HTB crowd the “John Smythe was an honourable man and I didn’t know any better and anyway I didn’t see anything untoward happen” defence is workable, but to anyone outside it looks silly.
One might also think that post-Ball, Welby, having seen one ABC’s unconvincing protestations of innocence torch a reputation, a little humility might be in order. But no. Deny. Deflect.
The Church of England is led by people with a lot of letters after their name from our better universities who are entirely intellectually incurious. It is also led by people who claim to speak as a conscience of our country, but have the moral discernment of the terminally naive. Smythe and Ball were bad men, and there were so many red flags that May the 1st in Moscow looks restrained. Welby, and Carey before him, chose to ignore those red flags for the sake of their career and the reputation of the church. Now they, and the church itself, look like people who covered up sadistic abuse. Why? Because they either covered up sadistic abuse, or were so careless of inquiry that the effect is the same.
Kate
Can one bear false witness, contrary to the Commandment, by staying silent?
Every so often I become weary with the cause of reporting and discussing power abuse and the effect that it has on people’s lives. And then I realise very quickly that I, in fact, have a choice in my involvement. As someone who has never known the worst kinds of abuse, I could walk away and think about and study other things. Such choices are not available to those who have, through no fault of their own, joined the ranks of being a survivor or a victim. They are compelled to carry the burden of past horrors every day of their lives. They need other people, whether professionals or amateurs like me, to listen to some of the terrible things that have happened to them. My readiness to write about this community is my small contribution towards helping this group to move towards the healing they need.
After writing this blog for four and half years, I was gratified to meet a few people outside General Synod last February who knew about my efforts on Surviving Church and who wanted to offer encouragement. This was a great help to me. I found myself newly energised and wanting to provide a personal commentary on the IICSA hearings in March and July to help readers understand better the topic of Anglican sexual abuse issues. My viewing figures started to go up, not least because some of my contributions and reflections were being shared more widely on the Internet. I began to feel that this task of reflecting on power/abuse issues was moving from being just a personal interest to becoming a kind of vocation on behalf of the wider Church.
What are my conclusions about the current state of play in the Church of England over abuse and power issues? I wish I could say that the shocks to the system, caused by the revelations at the IICSA hearings earlier this year, had created a humbler, more penitent and open Church. The Church will, when the written conclusions appear, receive a fairly negative verdict from both sets of IICSA hearings. The levels of incompetence, bad faith and behaviours verging on evil have been breath-taking. My impression now is that, in certain areas, things are still not changing. In spite of all the safeguarding structures and training that been put in place over the past years, there are unacceptable levels of secrecy among those who manage the church.
One problem now facing the bishops and everyone else involved, is that it is far harder in these days of instant communication and networking to preserve secrets in the church. Today someone has drawn my attention to a new organization in the States called Faithleaks. Its stated aim is to be an ‘organization founded on the belief that increased transparency within religious organizations results in fewer untruths, less corruption, and less abuse’. Initiatives like this will gradually undermine the ability of any church to bury episodes from the past which still have the capacity to shock. The desire to hold on to secrets would appear to be more and more difficult as well as increasingly damaging.
One of the most extraordinary revelations of the past 12 months was the information that was shared in Sir Roger Singleton’s Report on the Past Cases Review (PCR). The PCR was an attempt by the Church of England in 2008-9 to go through all their personnel files to make sure that they had not missed any historic cases of abuse. Singleton’s report showed that whatever was intended by this Review, it was a massive waste of money. While some dioceses may have scrutinised their files thoroughly, others seemed to have done their examination in a very haphazard way. The final total of 13 outstanding cases, from the examination of the files in all 43 dioceses, was laughable in its underestimation of the problem of past abuse. Chichester alone had over 30 cases outstanding and these were, for some reason, not added to the national total.In 2010 when the report appeared, the Church of England were in strong denial about the whole issue. Roger Singleton’s Report seems now to have disappeared from view, as though it too is another piece of paper which needs to be buried because of its capacity to cause embarrassment [+NYT/Smyth piece – Ed)
When I reflect in these posts the unhappiness on the part of survivors towards bishops and national safeguarding institutions, I naturally look for an explanation for why this should be so. Why is there tension, defensiveness and secrecy among those who run the church on safeguarding issues? The short answer seems to be that the institution, here the Church of England, feels compelled to defend itself from reputational damage. Stories from the past about abuse undermine the desired narrative of a godly caring body of people who follow Christ. If even a fraction of these stories of abuse were to be true, consequences follow. The general public begins to regard the church as a place of danger because they can no longer trust its servants and representatives to protect the vulnerable. If the PCR had been a properly conducted exercise which squarely faced up to the cases of abuse from the past, the church would no doubt have had a huge crisis to overcome. But that crisis would have been survivable. With the help of large doses of honesty and humility, together with financial provision for survivors, the Church would have pulled through. But the Church chose the path of defensive denial so that even now the full truth of past abuses remains an untold story except to the actual survivors. Secrecy and suppression of truth then, as today, prevailed over openness and honesty.
The picture I have in my mind as I write these words is the picture of a town in a volcanic region. The townspeople worry that there is a danger of an eruption, but its mayor and councillors have told them not to be concerned about the odd rumble that is heard in the ground beneath them. Everything is under control they are told. The volcano will never erupt. But of course, the volcano eventually does erupt. Fortunately, the people of the town have time to flee but the houses and all their possessions have to be left behind. They only escape with their lives.
I believe that in the absence of honesty, repentance and a genuine compassion and care for survivors, the Church is going to be threatened for many years to come by the possibility of a volcanic explosion of truth. As long the Church tries to control the narrative of parts of its history by secrecy, cover-up and the evasion of truth, it risks its future. Last week the Smyth story appeared once more on the net in a perceptive article by Martin Sewell. There are still many unanswered questions. The Singleton Report, the Smyth story and all the individual narratives of survivors speak of an institution sitting on a volcano of Truth. It is, I repeat, not the abuse events themselves that are the real problem; rather the collusion and cover-up perpetrated by church leaders will be felt to be even more shocking. Figures in senior positions in the Church even now know things that disgrace the institution. Perhaps they genuinely believe that suppression will somehow make these go away. That is never true. Meanwhile, every time we fail to own up fully to the past, we exacerbate the pain of survivors. Humility, honesty and Christian charity would genuinely act together to promote healing, not only for the survivors, but for everyone who wants to find wholeness and shalom in the Church of Christ. There is nothing covered up that will not uncovered, nothing hidden that will not be made known. Mat 10.26
Comments
JayKay8
I am very grateful, Stephen, that you are following this vocation. In all my dealings with the institutional church about the concealment, cover-up, attempts to mislead and untruths I have experienced it feels as if there is no concept that “The truth will set you free”. It feels as if the bishops, and especially their advisors, simply don’t have this faith and understanding that it is a pre-requisite for healing.
Nov 10 2018 – RWS Note
I very strongly disagree with an accusation that I am manufacturing ‘fake news’ by expressing a view that Archbishop Welby is “now in trouble”.
I repeat: ++Welby is now in trouble.
There are at least 6 reasons why Archbishop Welby has a case to answer:
1. ++Welby has besmirched former ++George Carey by essentially ‘de-frocking’ him over the Peter Ball case. No apology is forthcoming.
2. ++Welby has besmirched wartime +George Bell by his “significant cloud” remark. No apology is forthcoming.
3. ++Welby passed the complaint of ‘Carol’ to police in 2013 – alleging sexual abuse by Bishop Bell. In 1995, her complaint had already been made to the then Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp, who investigated and dismissed it.
4. ++Welby has at least one senior serving bishop [Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester] who is seriously questioning – publicly – his line on Bishop Bell.
5. ++Welby has been ‘economical with the truth’, not only over his knowledge of John Smyth but also about his friendship with Mark Ruston.
6. ++Welby has presided over the delay of both the Carlile Review and the Briden Report, with confirmation this morning that the latter not beingreleased “for some months”.
Nov 10 2018 – From The Archives [July 24 2018 – David Lamming on the IICSA – ‘Thinking Anglicans’]
“In the wake of the £200,000 fine imposed on IICSA by the Information Commissioner (which, effectively, taxpayers will pay) for a serious breach of data protection laws, and for which the Inquiry Chairman, Professor Alexis Jay, failed to take the opportunity to issue a public apology at the outset of this morning’s first day of the ‘Bishop Peter Ball’ case study hearing, it takes the biscuit that, having thanked core participants and their legal teams for their assistance in preparing for the hearing, she then announced a ‘leak inquiry’ (a better description might be a witch hunt) to attempt to discover who leaked the contents of Prince Charles’s draft witness statement to the media, in particular The Times and the BBC: see transcript, 23 July 2018, page 2, line 21, to page 3, line 25. This follows Professor Jay’s ‘over the top’ public rebuke of the Archbishop of Canterbury in March for revealing in advance that he was to be a witness during the three-weeks Diocese of Chichester case study hearings: IICSA transcript, 5 March 2018, page 3, line 22, to page 4, line 10.
What today’s hearing also revealed was the lengths to which Prince Charles and/or his solicitors went to avoid providing a signed witness statement to the Inquiry (see transcript, 23 July 2018, page 86, line 21, to page 89, line 24.) Mr Scorer, in his opening statement, said that “with all due respect to His Royal Highness”, his clients (six survivors of abuse by Peter Ball) found the explanations for the Prince’s interactions with Ball “frankly astonishing.” (see transcript, page 83, line 24, to page 86, line 6). He urged that the panel hold to account “senior figures in the establishment [who] aided and cosseted a serial sex offender and in many cases did so with knowledge” (transcript, page 86, lines 13-19). The panel will need to consider whether or not, on the evidence, the Prince of Wales has shown himself to be a fit person to be a future Supreme Governor of the Church of England”
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave…It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”
~ Reverend Graham Sawyer
Nov 10 2018 – From The Archives [July 24 2018 – RWS Comment]
I think the words of Reverend Graham Sawyer are worth repeating here, shedding light not just on how the Church//CPS/Police have treated victims of sexual abuse (eg Neil Todd & Reverend Graham), but also how ‘they’ have treated victims who have been wrongfully/falsely accused of abuse (eg Lord Bishop Bell and Sir Cliff Richard):
Reverend Graham Sawyer: Let me make this very clear. The sexual abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Bishop Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the enduringly cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained, in the Church of England, and I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or ten years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others, and I use those words “cruel and sadistic”, because I think that’s how they behave.
Fiona Scolding QC How much of that do you attribute to the lingering effect, shall we say, of Peter Ball, because the events you describe sort of postdated Peter Ball’s caution and resignation?
Reverend Graham Sawyer Well, there’s an expression used in Australia to refer to the bench of bishops, they don’t refer to the bench of bishops, but they refer to the “purple circle”, and the purple circle exists pretty much in every national church within Anglicanism. It no doubt exists in other episcopally-led churches. They support one another in a sort of club-like way. If anyone attacks one of them, they will, as a group, as a sort of collective conscience and in action, seek to destroy the person who is making complaints about one individual. Now, don’t take my testimony alone from this. There is former — in fact, the recently retired bishop of Newcastle in NSW, Australia, who was a victim of sexual abuse there, and he described his treatment — he said it is like an ecclesiastical protection racket. That is the culture within Anglicanism and no doubt within other episcopally-led church. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket, and anyone who seeks in any way to threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed. That is the primary thing, and that is the culture within Anglicanism.
In 1995, 37 years after Bell’s death, a complaint was made to the then Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp, alleging that Bell had sexually abused a female child during the 1940s and 1950s.[19]
The complaint was not passed on to police until a second complaint was made to the office of Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 2013, 18 years after the first complaint had been made and 55 years after Bell’s death.[19]
In September 2015 the diocese paid compensation to the woman and Martin Warner, the Bishop of Chichester, issued a formal apology to her the following month.[19] This led to a major controversy, as people who respected Bell’s legacy found the claims to be incredible, and found the Church’s apparent acceptance of them to be unjust.[21] Due to the controversy, in February 2016 the woman spoke publicly for the first time under the pseudonym “Carol”, in an interview with the Brighton Argus, saying that she was sexually abused from the age of five until her family moved away when she was nine.[22]
In June 2016 the Church of England announced that it would hold an independent review of the procedure used to investigate the church’s handling of the allegations (not the truth of the allegations themselves) and in November it announced that Alex Carlile, a QC and a member of the House of Lords, would be the reviewer.[23][24][25] Carlile submitted his report to the Church of England in mid-October and on 15 December 2017 the church published it.[20][23]
Carlile found that “there was a rush to judgment: The church, feeling it should be both supportive of the complainant and transparent in its dealings, failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the bishop.”[23] The report also found that the available evidence did not suggest there would have been “a realistic prospect of conviction” in court, the standard that prosecutors in England and Wales use in deciding whether to pursue a case.[23]
The Church of England released a statement with the report, in which it apologized to Bell’s relatives for the way it investigated child abuse claims made against him, acknowledged the mistakes highlighted by the report, and promised to implement all except one of its recommendations.[21][23][26] Archbishop Welby rejected calls to state that the investigation had cleared Bell’s name and said that the allegations were handled as a civil matter, not a criminal one.[27]
In March 2018, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse began examining the handling of allegations of sexual abuse in the diocese of Chichester, including this matter, which it said would unfold over two years.[28]
I cannot say that I care much who occupies the throne of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England, for me, has a ghostly existence in poetry, music, arches and stained glass, quite independent of the banal persons who tend to hold this post. It’s not for me to go round calling for resignations or such things. My only concern with the man who currently holds this office is the pointless, easily cured injustice he has done to the great George Bell, to those who rightly revere him for Christian self-sacrifice and true moral and civil courage over great issues,, and to his surviving niece, Mrs Barbara Whitley. I know this is an unpopular preoccupation, obscure to many of my readers. But it is based on a universal, simple desire for justice to be done and truth told, wherever possible.
But those who do care about the C of E’s temporal structures and authority must surely be worried about the behaviour of the current Archbishop, the Most Revd Justin Welby. Mr Welby will not climb down from his assertion that a ‘significant cloud’ still hangs over the name of George Bell. Why not? What good does this stance do him or the Christian faith? What, in short, is he on about?
On Monday afternoon, after being the target of powerful criticism by a group of eminent historians, and then by a group of eminent theologians, he issued an astonishingly unyielding statement on the subject.
Yet I can find nothing in this text to justify his position. He refers repeatedly to the wholly different case of a living Bishop, Peter Ball, convicted beyond doubt, in an open court of law, of sexual offences.
In an astonishing passage, he responds to the concerns of the historians, who are urging him to reconsider, by ludicrously comparing them to emotional defenders of Ball. He says ‘As in the case of Peter Ball, and others, it is often suggested that what is being alleged could not have been true, because the person writing knew the alleged abuser and is absolutely certain that it was impossible for them to have done what is alleged. As with Peter Ball this sometimes turns out to be untrue, not through their own fault or deceit but because abuse is often kept very secret. The experience of discovering feet of clay in more than one person I held in profound respect has been personally tragic.’
What sort of non-logic is this? It may *have been* suggested, before Ball was convicted and sent to prison, that what was alleged could not have been true. But is there any serious person (as serious as, for instance, Sir Ian Kershaw) who is suggesting it now? Who? How can Mr Welby possibly compare opinions held mistakenly before a fair trial and conviction showed them to be wrong, and opinions held where there has not been and cannot be any such trial, and where the evidence against the accused is solitary and weak?
The police arrested Ball, the CPS charged him, and Ball, who was able to ensure that he was professionally defended throughout, and was able to avail himself of the presumption of innocence, eventually pleaded guilty in court to serious charges and was sent to prison. I have not since heard it suggested by any of his former defenders that he is innocent of the charges he himself admitted. So those who may have found it difficult to believe that Peter Ball was a wicked abuser were shown to have been wrong in a fair and due process.
How on earth can Mr Welby equate this case with that of George Bell, who faced one uncorroborated accusation made years after his death, and was then condemned without any defence by what Lord Carlile found to be a sloppy and inadequate process in which key evidence undermining the accusation was not even seen by some of those involved, and in which key witnesses were neither found nor interviewed.
Mr Welby, in his very thin responses to the Carlile report, has never really addressed this. He has said that the report didn’t rule on Bell’s guilt or innocence, an almost childishly absurd response, since Mr Welby had told Lord Carlile in his terms of reference that he could not rule on this. In any case, Lord Carlile has repeatedly said since, in response to media questions, that no court would have convicted George Bell on the evidence which has been produced against him. It is clear that had Lord Carlile been asked to rule on George Bell’s guilt or innocence, he would have pronounced him ‘not guilty’. So what, precisely is the evidence on which the Archbishop of Canterbury, supposedly spiritual leader of millions, guardian of the foundations of truth and justice, maintains that there is still a ‘cloud’over George Bell’s name? Does he have second sight? Does he know something he is not telling us? If so (though I cannot see how this can be so) , why will he not say what it is? If not, why is he of all people exempted from the good rule, surely Biblical in origin, that if you cannot prove that a man is guilty, he is innocent and you shouldn’t go round saying that he is guilty just because in some way it suits you to say so. Some miserable rumour-monger in a pub might be entitled to drone that there is ‘no smoke without fire’, but not the inheritor of the See of Saint Augustine, I think. I doubt Mr Welby is familiar with the catechism in his own Church’s Book of Common Prayer, it having fallen rather out of use since that Church became happy and clappy. But I am sure the Lambeth library can find him a copy, and point him to the passage in which the candidate for confirmation is asked ‘What is thy duty towards thy neighbour’? I commend it to him.
He has rejected one of the report’s conclusions on how the case should have been handled. But I have never seen him acknowledge the Carlile report’s clear demonstration that the secret trial of George Bell was what it was, a badly-run, one-sided mess which failed to find key evidence or witnesses, and even failed to tell some of its members about key evidence which greatly undermined the accusation.
Yet Mr Welby continues to describe this marsupial outfit as if it was serious, saying ‘The Diocese of Chichester was given legal advice to make a settlement based on the civil standard of proof, the balance of probability. It was not alleged that Bishop Bell was found to have abused on the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. The two standards should not be confused.’
Indeed they should not, and it was the Chichester diocese which deliberately confused them when it claimed (wrongly) that Bishop Bell would have been arrested if alive, so unsurprisingly poisoning many trusting and naive minds against George Bell. But in fact, as was discussed at length when this subject was raised in a House of Lords debate attended by some of the country’s most eminent lawyers, the civil standard of proof requires that both sides are properly considered. In civil cases, plaintiff and defendant have lawyers and the chance to plead and the secret trial of George Bell did not even contain anyone arguing for his side. The idea that this farce met even the civil standard of proof is unsustainable, and I am amazed that anyone who has read the Carlile report could persist with this nonsense. It was one of the Church’s very early attempts to defend itself, back in 2016. It didn’t work then, when we still didn’t know how bad the secret trial had been. It certainly doesn’t work now.
We have all done wrong things. Some of them are irrevocable, and we can make no restitution to those whom we have hurt, in which case we shall just have to hope for mercy.
But where we *can* put right what we have done, things are different. I am haunted and much influenced by this passage of scripture. I commend it to the Archbishop. It begins with the 25th verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel according to St Matthew. The words are those of Our Lord himself, and I take them to mean that when we have been found to be wrong, we do all we can to put that wrong right while we can, for if we do not we condemn ourselves to a long and needless grief which can only be expiated and assuaged at a far greater cost. He knows who the judge is in this reference, I think.
‘Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.’
Justin Welby has asked a former Archbishop of Canterbury to step down from his current role after a report found that he and other senior figures in the Church of England “colluded” with a disgraced paedophile bishop to prevent him facing criminal charges. George Carey, currently an honorary Assistant Bishop in the diocese of Oxford, has been urged to “carefully consider his position” by Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
“Beyond hypocrisy, Archbishop Welby” ~ Richard W. Symonds
I don’t think Archbishop Welby should consider doing the honourable thing by resigning [although others have resigned for less], but I do think the Archbishop should consider doing the honourable thing by apologising – fast – especially for his monstrous “significant cloud” remark against Bishop Bell.
“The unpalatable truth, in the Bishop Bell case, is that a wrong judgement was passed by a core group of Christians who had a warped view of the basic principles of natural justice and common-sense fairness.
“I don’t think Archbishop Welby should resign, but I do think he should apologise for his “significant cloud” remark which seems to run counter to natural justice and the rule of law, as well as moral common sense and wisdom. He is targeted, not just because he is the only highest visible authority who can be brought to account for this injustice, but also because his intransigence has been the major ‘stumbling-block’ in getting 4 Canon Lane re-named back to George Bell House (my primary campaign aim for the last 3 years).
“Regarding the Briden report delay “of some months”, a Bishop wrote this to me over the weekend:
‘Clearly the cover-up hypothesis remains cogent….I have little doubt that this is part of an ongoing attempt to keep the Briden report away from any public gaze’
“For me, the jury is still out on this. I don’t share the Bishop’s certainties, especially in this respect. But I can understand why he – and others – have little doubt about the reason why there is this delay.
I have yet to ascertain whether the delay relates to the completion of Tim Briden’s report, or whether it relates to the Church’s release-date of his already-completed report.This is important to know, as it will dictate what could and should be done next”
Nov 14 2018 – A Christmas Appeal to the Church of England: Release Briden’s Bishop Bell Report.
“Since its first shocking error of accusing the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, of child abuse without proper process nearly three years ago, the Church of England has waded deeper in. Even when the Carlile report it had itself commissioned showed how worthless its processes had been, it refused to back down.
“On 31 January this year, it suddenly produced ‘fresh’ allegations against Bell. It would not say what they were, but handed them to the police, who eventually admitted, under pressure, that they were not investigating, since Bishop Bell had died in 1958 (a fact widely known since 1958).
“The church then promised an inquiry into the new claims which would follow Carlile-compliant methods. It tried to insist, however, that the ‘decision-maker’ in the inquiry would be the present Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner. Since Dr Warner had effectively staked his reputation on the proposition that the first accusation against Bell was true, and was himself part of the unjust investigation, there could scarcely be anyone less impartial to preside over round two.
“At last, defenders of Bell’s cause have forced Dr Warner to step aside. He is to be replaced by Timothy Briden, who has led a quiet life as a church lawyer, and editor, since 1989, of Macmorran’s ‘Handbook for Churchwardens and Parochial Church Councillors’.
“Since Mr Briden is vice-chancellor of the Province of Canterbury, one hopes he will find the courage to be independent of his Archbishop, who made such a bad mistake by rushing to judgment against Bell. On Tuesday, the inquiry’s investigator, a retired North Yorkshire detective superintendent, Ray Galloway, began work. Please can the world be told the inquiry’s terms of reference and whether any of the ‘core group’ that got it so wrong last time will be involved?”
~ Charles Moore
Nov 15 2018 – RWS Note
“At risk of being dubbed a conspiracy theorist, I’m beginning to suspect a D-notice has been slapped on this issue!
“From where I’m sitting, there seems to be a media black-out – a conspiracy of silence. It would appear we are not just up against the power of the Church Establishment seeking to protect itself, but also other systems of Establishment power”
The dean of Christ Church is facing a tribunal – but Martyn Percy says he doesn’t know what the charges are or who’s behind them
The Tom Tower gatehouse of Christ Church college, Oxford. Photograph: Tracy Packer/Moment Editorial/Getty Images
It is a quintessential institution of the establishment, producing 13 British prime ministers, 10 chancellors of the exchequer and 17 archbishops. Among its former students are King Edward VII, Albert Einstein, Lewis Carroll and WH Auden. One fictional alumnus, Lord Sebastian Flyte, came to personify its privileges in the pages of Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited.
But Christ Church, one of Oxford’s most venerable colleges, was plunged into turmoil last week when its dean was suspended from duties and barred from taking services at his own cathedral after being challenged under archaic and opaque rules.
A formal complaint has been filed against the Very Rev Martyn Percy with the college’s governing body. Few people know details of what is being alleged, or who is behind the move. Even Percy is largely in the dark, according to his friends.
The complaint is believed to centre on issues of governance; no one is suggesting improper personal conduct. It will be heard by a tribunal, which could dismiss Percy. A date for a hearing is yet to be set.
The background, according to his supporters, is the dean’s efforts to modernise the arcane management of the college and reform its pay structures. They say his opponents want to oust him in order to preserve traditional hierarchies and privileges. One described Christ Church as a “medieval fiefdom”. Another said there was “no doubt” the dean was being bullied and intimidated…
He has also been forced to spend thousands of pounds to hire lawyers for the tribunal and could face financial ruin.
Last week Percy was suspended as dean of both college and cathedral, even though the complaint relates only to his college duties.The action means he is banned from presiding over services at the cathedral in the run-up to Christmas, one of the busiest and most important times of the year….
The substance of the complaint has not been discussed on or off the record by anyone involved, and Percy did not respond to a request for comment, and has not spoken to the media about the matter.
His supporters, however, have rallied to his defence. Angela Tilby, the author and priest who is a canon emeritus of Christ Church, said Percy had sought to speed up reform at the college. “He wanted Christ Church to be more inclusive, more open to the outside world, and, perhaps, more aware of its wealth and vested interests,” she wrote in Church Times.
“No institution can truly behave as a world unto itself,” she added. Christ Church’s structure “makes for an environment in which highly intelligent individuals are not always able to retain emotional insight, and are capable of extraordinary vehemence – even calculated deception.”
According to one friend: “Christ Church is full of strong egos and difficult characters. Martyn really wanted to bring about change. This is a powerful institution, making its own rules. He doesn’t even know the details of the charges against him.”
Another said: “When a powerful group wants you out, they will manufacture whatever they have to in order to get you out. There’s a drip-drip of innuendo combined with bombarding you with legal letters. If they don’t get you psychologically, they’ll ruin you financially.”
An online drive has raised more than £37,000 to help with Percy’s legal bills. In launching the online drive, Tom Keighley said: “It is clear to me as a friend, that proper processes of natural justice have not been followed and Martyn now faces a prohibitively expensive internal tribunal.”…
In the past, Percy has irked the Church of England hierarchy by criticising its reform programme, which he said was “driven by mission-minded middle managers” who were alienating clergy, congregations and the general public.
It has all the intrigue of an episode of Inspector Morse, but The Mail on Sunday can reveal a real-life drama involving feuding dons and an attempted ‘coup’ at Oxford University.
The bitter row centres on The Very Reverend Professor Martyn Percy, who has taken sick leave and is facing financial ruin after a ‘hellish bullying campaign’ to oust him as Dean of Christ Church college.
It is claimed the college’s rebellious academics have been ‘combing the statutes’ of Christ Church – founded by Henry VIII in 1546 – to find legal justification to get rid of Prof Percy, who has been tipped as a future Archbishop of Canterbury.
Prof Percy, 56, is also said to have received a stream of legal letters that an insider said risked ‘financially breaking him’ after he was forced to hire his own lawyers. The insider added: ‘So consumed are the dons that the everyday governance of the College has all but ground to a stop. It’s a tragedy, embarrassing and a disgrace.
Rebellious academics at Christ Church college (pictured) are said to be trying to force him out
‘The dean has done nothing wrong apart from upset a number of academics close to retirement.’
Sources close to the dean, a moderniser who has spoken in support of gay rights and backs women bishops, believe the animosity has been fuelled by an ‘anti-clerical feeling’ among some dons who want to reduce the influence of the Church over the college.
It is the only academic institution in the world that has a cathedral.
The insider said: ‘The dean is a reformer but the idea of change has long been a joke at Christ Church and Oxford. He started to make life uncomfortable and now a group of fellows has been plotting to remove him and will stop at nothing to succeed in their aims.’
Prof Percy, who was elected in 2014 and whose wife is the chaplain of Trinity College, has been off work for the past fortnight and was last week at a remote farmhouse in Wales. He declined to comment last night.
The Bishop of Oxford, the Right Reverend Dr Steven Croft, and Christ Church college expressed concern at the crisis….[“As always in such circumstances, suspension is a neutral act and does not imply that the complaint will be upheld” – Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft][Ed]
An earlier version of this article said the complainants were trying to force out the dean through a formal complaint about their pay which, we said, was set by the dean. We have been asked to make clear that the complaint is not concerned with the complainants’ pay, which is not set by the Dean, but in fact arises from issues surrounding how the Dean’s own pay is set.
“…You might not care because you don’t know him. You might care even less because you know of him and vehemently disagree with him theologically or morally or ecclesiologically or politically. But please set aside your indifference, prejudice or inclination for a moment, and look into the eyes of a broken man, if not a lost soul.
“Martyn Percy stands accused of “conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office or employment”. That is what the Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford, have decreed. What is this immoral, scandalous or disgraceful conduct? A safeguarding concern, perhaps? Maybe paedophilia or some other form of child abuse? Embezzlement? An illicit affair with a student? The Times explains:
“Percy’s enemies struck in September after he sought a pay review under gender pay gap rules for college staff. It could have led to a pay rise for a senior female staff member and an increase of no more than £10,000 for him.
“The Mail on Sunday reiterated something along those lines, leaving readers to infer that Martyn Percy was being disciplined for surreptitiously attempting to feather his own nest, but they subsequently retracted and corrected:
“A news story two weeks ago about complaints against the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, said the complainants were trying to force him out through a formal complaint about their pay which, we said, was set by the Dean. We have been asked to make clear that the complaint is not concerned with the complainants’ pay, which is not set by the Dean, but in fact arises from issues surrounding how the Dean’s own pay is set. We are happy to set the record straight.
“The Church Times throws more darkness onto the situation:
“No details of the complaint have been made public, but it is believed to relate to an issue of poor governance raised by Dr Percy, including the setting of senior salaries at Christ Church, among them his own.
“The Dean of Christ Church is not being hounded out of office for wanting an extra £10K for himself, but because he wanted to reform the mechanism and throw some light on the “poor governance” of the self-serving body which sets the salaries of College fellows. They objected to his interference, and determined to rid themselves of this meddlesome priest. That is to say, as much of the reporting states, they subjected him to “a hellish bullying campaign” – to the extent that he was forced to take sick leave….
“All Oxford colleges are independent to a degree, but Christ Church College is particularly independent by virtue of also being a Church of England cathedral with ancient ecclesial statutes going back to 1546. Martyn Percy is simultaneously an academic head of house and an Anglican dean, with the moral and professional responsibility for ensuring the employment rights of all those who work in both the College and the Cathedral. But to whom does the Dean turn when his Governing Body smears his good name with the epithets of immorality, scandal and disgrace? To whom does he appeal when procedures are rigged to a pre-ordained outcome? How may he secure natural justice when the Governing Body of Christ Church is determined to deny him access to free speech?
“And that is not ‘free speech’ in the sense of the human right to speak free from academic or ecclesiastical control, but ‘free speech’ in the sense of free from pecuniary cost, because the primary and only apparent means of justice open to the Dean is an internal tribunal. He has been bombarded with months and months of legal and quasi-legal letters, each of which has necessitated a forensic legal riposte, and this obviously takes its toll emotionally and financially. If the Governing Body can’t break him psychologically and physically, they bankrupt him.
“And while they’re harassing him with their threatening letters, the Dean is subjected to a constant stream of slanderous whispers: immoral.. scandalous.. disgraceful.. His reputation is trashed in the College and national media: the objective is total professional destruction. And if ‘immoral’, ‘scandalous’ and ‘disgraceful’ don’t work, there will be vicious rumours about his mental stability or character suitability; and they will conveniently adduce witness statements to that effect from colleagues (or people he thought were colleagues) who suddenly decide they had a problem with his ‘management style’ all along, so they conspire to get him dismissed for gross professional misconduct or for bringing Christ Church into disrepute. There’s just no beating the bully – especially when it’s the body which sets people’s salaries.
“And so you knock back cocktails of valium and zopiclone, or maybe temazepam and sertraline. The combination ceases to matter, and so does the quantity. Anxious, stressed, sweating, isolated, lonely and crying uncontrollably, you try to sleep, but you can never quite get past 3.00am. So you lie there weeping, praying, drifting for maybe two more hours. But the 5.00am chorus sounds, and it’s harder to stay under the duvet than it is to face another day of hollow existence. On the brink of a complete breakdown, you question the worth of your life as you begin to entertain the veracity of the lies and doubts circulating about you.
“Returning to work after a period of sick leave, the Dean was immediately suspended. That is classic strategy; textbook bullying. There is no compassion, no consideration, and no duty of care. The Governing Body of Christ Church might insist it is a neutral act, but in the wake of ‘immoral’, ‘scandalous’ and ‘disgraceful’, the suspension brings further dishonour and humiliation….”
As ‘Father David’ says (over at ‘Thinking Anglicans’):
“The internal tribunal terms of reference remind me of nothing more than the first core group’s investigation into allegations made against Bishop George Bell – “The Dean was offered no proper investigation at which evidence from both sides could be heard, read and weighed” In the above sentence, replace the words “The Dean” with “Bishop Bell” and “There was no disciplinary hearing in which he could defend any allegations made against him.” Ditto!
“We have been waiting an extraordinarily long time for the findings of the second investigation against Bishop Bell to be made public which hopefully will result in the lifting of the “significant cloud” and the restoration of his good character. I hope that Dean Percy does not have to wait a similarly lengthy period of time before the internal tribunal comes to a conclusion”
“As always in such circumstances, suspension is a neutral act and does not imply that the complaint will be upheld” – Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft
COMMENTS
Richard W. Symonds
“As always in such circumstances, suspension is a neutral act and does not imply that the complaint will be upheld” – Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft
Bishop Croft is being legally naive. This suspension is not a “neutral act”. Suspension may well have been justified under the ‘precautionary’ principle of justice, when, for example, a police officer is suspended pending inquiry. In such circumstances, suspension is “a neutral act” which doesn’t imply guilt; it’s a necessary part of a process to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. But in this case the suspension, of Martyn Percy by the Christ Church powers-that-be, has not been a “neutral act” – and it’s very far from being part of a procedural process to ensure justice is done. For example, how can Dean Percy prepare a proper defence if he does not know what to defend himself against?
In such circumstances, a miscarriage of justice becomes an inevitability.
Father David
“….The internal tribunal terms of reference remind me of nothing more than the first core group’s investigation into allegations made against Bishop George Bell –“The Dean was offered no proper investigation at which evidence from both sides could be heard, read and weighed” In the above sentence, replace the words “The Dean” with “Bishop Bell” and “There was no disciplinary hearing in which he could defend any allegations made against him.” Ditto! We have been waiting an extraordinarily long time for the findings of the second investigation against Bishop Bell to be made public which hopefully will result in the lifting of the “significant cloud” and the restoration of his good character. I hope that Dean Percy does not have to wait a similarly lengthy period of time before the internal tribunal comes to a conclusion”
I’m sure there’s research out there somewhere, and if there isn’t there should be, of perfectly sane, civilised, sensible individuals, groups, communities and societies inexplicably and unpredictably doing astonishingly insane, uncivilised, stupid – even evil – things, and thinking at the time they are perfectly sane, civilised and sensible – even good.
Nazi Germany is an obvious example of an ‘evilicious’ society and community collectively doing this.
An inexplicable suicide is an obvious example of an individual doing this.
A not-so-obvious example is a small, core group doing this.
The Church of England’s original Core Group investigating Bishop George Bell’s alleged abuse of a child could be a good example.
Oxford’s Christ Church Core Group could be another.
Richard W. Symonds
Nov 22 2018 – Catherine Pepinster [The Tablet]reports from the ongoing (IICSA) inquiry into child sexual abuse, which last week revealed how a culture of clericalism, secrecy and authoritarianism had hindered the safeguarding of children in the archdiocese of Birmingham
Nov 23 2018 – RWS Note – on being ‘thrown under the bus’
“Here is the shocking moment [Oct 22 2015] when the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell was thrown under a moving bus by a Church swerving to avoid further blame for serial child sex abuse” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Nov 24 2018 – RWS Note on Mistaken Identity and ‘Carol’
I have long held the view the Bishop Bell debacle has stemmed from a case of mistaken identity by ‘Carol’. I have little doubt she was abused as a child by a Chichester cleric – or posing as one – but I have no doubt it was not Bishop Bell.
‘A’ seems to agree with that view, has kindly sent this Article to back it up, and writes:
“The Article is not directly relevant, only indirectly to indicate the subject of memory distortion, especially as regards adults recalling memories from childhood. I have many thoughts about the whole issue but some points are:
Reconstruction of childhood events over a long lapse of time are distorted.
I feel that ‘anchor points’ for memory reconstruction in the case of ‘Carol’ are subjective and with a high level of uncertainty. Working with children for many years, I have seen children easily get confused on hierarchy of who is in charge. It is common error to ascribe the lead person associated with a place or institution with other adults. What I mean is ‘Carol’ may have thought a person was a bishop because she came across him in the bishops house. With this hypothesis, a random cleric would not even have deliberately feigned to be Bishop Bell but have assumed that character in the mind of ‘Carol’.
Once ‘Carol’ decided to approach the church as a middle-aged woman wanting recompense/acknowledgement for her childhood trauma she would reconstruct her memories to the point where they could be communicated to her lawyers, counsellor and so on. It does not mean she is essentially being dishonest but [she is] attempting to formulate a structure and a coherent narrative.
For me the weakness of her account is the supposed words she relates her abuser uses…Children do not have such detailed accurate recall of words, especially vocabulary like ‘anoint’ which is outside the range of a typical 5 to 8 year old, and would probably not have stuck in a child’s mind if she was unfamiliar with this word.
These are only a few points, but alongside the thrust of the article, this unfortunate woman has convinced herself of her own story (which I feel has a kernel of truth but not that Bell was her abuser), and has invested in to the extent that she felt she could validate it through the local press but shied away from professional questioning at the invitation of Lord Carlile, before he started writing his independent report”
– ‘A’
“Mistaken Identity”
Bishop George Bell
Nov 25 2018 – RWS Note
“The subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to keep silent, give up and disappear becomes ever more greater when your voice gets heard in certain corridors of Establishment power. Do not keep silent. Do not give up. Do not disappear. Keep failing…better”
~ Richard W. Symonds
Nov 25 2018 – False Allegations Support Organisation [FASO]
Nov 25 2018 – PPMI – Supporting Those With Wrongful Convictions
Monday 10th December 2018
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Committee Room 6, Westminster Hall, 4pm-6pm
Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence
Supporting those with Wrongful Convictions
We invite you to a meeting at which our speaker is Dean Kingham:
Head of Prison & Public Law, Swain and Co Solicitors
Is the current Parole Process fit for purpose? Releasing safe individuals promptly.
Followed by Panel discussion about safe alternatives.
Panel includes Forensic Psychologist Dr Ruth Tully, and ex-prisoners.
Dean Kingham was instructed by Mr Worboys for the Judicial Review and he is the lawyer who challenged the justice minister for interfering with the Parole Board.
There is evidence of systemic bias against prisoners who maintain innocence, with some spending long years in prison after tariff expiry, without any reasonable justification.
The consequences of wrongful convictions are costly, both for the individuals and their families, and for the public purse.
PPMI is a grassroots campaign made up of support and campaigning organisations, ministers of religion, lawyers and academics, all supporting prisoners maintaining innocence. Recent data has shown the Minister of Justice and MPs are aware the number of wrongful convictions is on the rise.
‘I have nothing to live for but I need my grandchildren to know I denied these lies’ ~ RB. HMP Frankland.
“…When we think about these episodes of bullying and sexual abuse in so many different settings, we quickly come back to this word ‘entitlement’. It would appear to be an important concept to help us understand this kind of behaviour. What seems to happen is that when individuals receive new status in an institution, it sometimes changes them in a negative way. A promotion may involve a new title. The new appellation Sir, Bishop, Lord/Lady, Captain or Vicar, tricks the promoted individual into thinking that some shift has taken place to make them somehow of superior importance. Having changed in their own self-perception to becoming a person of increased power, the way that they feel they should relate to other people may also undergo a transformation. Following a short process of adjusting to the new role and title, new, sometimes malign, methods of relating are established. Alongside an increased tendency to look down on others, there may be other ways of maintaining and enhancing their importance at the expense of others. Sexual misconduct is just one way of ‘acting out’ and laying claim to their new power. For sexual abuse survivors in the church there is the frequent complaint that important people, not necessarily the perpetrators, have difficulty in paying attention to detail or ‘remembering’ what is said to them about abuse incidents. It is as though the higher up you climb in a hierarchy, the more you have ‘permission’ to ignore the concerns and pain of those below you.
“One thing is true for anybody in the army, the church, politics or business. New titles or promotion do not in fact change anyone in a significant way. A belief or assumption that a promotion makes such a change may well be starting off a process of a damaging fantasy. One problem is that when anyone receives any kind of preferment, the people around them often start to treat them differently. A pressure to believe that something has ontologically changed inside is thus coming from the outside as well as the inside. Important people attract to themselves others who maintain an attachment simply to enhance their own significance. All too often at the highest levels of any organisation we find, not challenging critique, but flattery, obsequiousness and grovelling behaviour. The more the person of power is surrounded by this kind of attitude, the more they start to believe the ‘myth’ of their power and entitlement.
“Recently I have been trying to make sense of the behaviour of 18+ Anglican bishops who reportedly have failed to act honourably in the case of sexually abused individuals who have disclosed to them. I am asking myself whether we are observing here some of the features of this wrong kind of entitlement being played out in their lives. The new responsibilities that bishops have in the church may have been thought of as giving them access to special power. A perception or belief that they are somehow hyper spiritual/important through the laying on of hands may well lead to damaging consequences. The reality of their situation is that by taking a role within the hierarchy of this institution, they are the more locked into its political dimension. When the Church gets things wrong in its responsibility for caring for the interests of its abused members, then the bishops, as part of the leadership, participate in this failure. Institutional status and influence may be a poor reward for a sense of compromised integrity that may come to be theirs as part of an organisation, arguably in crisis. It is a lonely place to represent and lead in an organisation that may be failing to observe its own values and standards.
“Last week I implied that the position of Dean of Christ Church might be a poisoned chalice for any future candidate for the post. I have a similar fear for the post of diocesan bishop in the Church of England. At present there are still people willing to stand as candidates for this role. Over the next 20 years this situation could well change as the real stresses of running a diocese became more widely understood. A major question for bishops is to discover how to preserve personal integrity when the organisation you are leading is in places allowing some types of corruption to seep in as part of a strategy to defend itself.If the institution becomes further compromised by this pressure to protect itself, then all its leaders may find their personal integrity under attack. Increasingly individuals, when offered such a post, would want to reject it outright. In the States we witness the corruption of the entire administration led by President Trump. Only people of doubtful morality and reputation seem prepared to be in the employ of this current President. His brand has become so toxic that everyone decent is not prepared to be considered for office. May that never happen to our Church of England”.
Sir, — …….Anyone who has despaired at the impotent hand-wringing at the IICSA Inquiry of the hierarchy that has covered up clerical abuse for decades cannot but conclude that the Churches cannot be trusted to police themselves.
When Archbishop Welby told IICSA that he was “appalled” and “ashamed” of the Church, his apology to survivors would have carried some weight if he had offered to back mandatory reporting of institutional abuse (MR), which — even outside the confessional — his Church appears to have abandoned.
Nov 30 2018 – Church Times Letter (Unpublished)
From Mr Richard W. Symonds
Sir, — “1864…was not the Church of England’s finest hour” when it came to the German theologian David Strauss, whose early work ‘The Life of Jesus Critically Examined’ was translated by Mary Ann Evans, aka George Eliot (‘Made better by her presence’, CT, Nov 23).
This is not the Church’s “finest hour”, 154 years on, when it comes to the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell.
George Eliot’s “memorable closing lines” in Middlemarch are not without relevance:
“…the growing good in the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs”
Lives have been made better by the presence of Bishop Bell, and that should now be fully and graciously recognised by the Church he so loved.
Today the Church of England issued the following Press Releaseannouncing the publication of key findings and recommendations, along with the full report, from the independent review into the processes used in the Bishop George Bell case. A link to the Report is here, and to the Annexes here.
Publication of Bishop George Bell independent review
15/12/2017
The Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team (NST) has today published the key findings and recommendations, along with the full report, from the independent review into the processes used in the Bishop George Bell case.
The review, commissioned by the NST on the recommendation of the Bishop of Chichester, was carried out by Lord Carlile of Berriew. As he writes in the introduction, his purpose was not to determine the truthfulness of the woman referred to as Carol in the report, nor the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell, but to examine the procedures followed by the Church of England….
Statement from Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner
“…We welcome Lord Carlile’s assessment of our processes, and apologise for failures in the work of the Core Group of national and diocesan officers and its inadequate attention to the rights of those who are dead….The emotive principle of innocent until proven guilty is a standard by which our actions are judged and we have to ensure as best we can that justice is seen to be done…”
Statement from Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby
“Bishop George Bell is one of the great Anglican heroes of the 20th century. The decision to publish his name was taken with immense reluctance, and all involved recognised the deep tragedy involved….Lord Carlile does not seek to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the acts about which the complaint was made. He does make significant comments on our processes, and we accept that improvement is necessary, in all cases including those where the person complained about is dead. We are utterly committed to seeking to ensure just outcomes for all. We apologise for the failures of the process…We realise that a significant cloud is left over his name…No human being is entirely good or bad. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. Good acts do not diminish evil ones, nor do evil ones make it right to forget the good…”
THOUGHTS ON “BISHOP GEORGE BELL: FINDINGS OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW”
Thanks for this. Are you going to comment on the legal issues here? I don’t know about others, but it feels to me to be vaguely terrifying that ‘the Church’s commitment to transparency’ means that anyone who is maliciously and without proper process accused of sexual abuse might have their names made public, despite a lack of reliable evidence—which appears to be the implication of the rejection of this element of the Carlile ruling.
The only obvious legal comment is that defamatory statements about a person who is dead cannot be actionable because defamation, whether libel or slander, is a personal action that cannot be assigned or brought on someone’s behalf. (The Scottish Government consulted about this in 2011 but did not change the law of defamation in Scotland.)
Further than that Frank and I would not presume to comment, on the basis that our specialism is a tiny area of law – and Alex Carlile is massively more learned than either of us, dp & fc.
I can vouch alongside Matt for the ineffectiveness of the CDM procedure. I took out a CDM on Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham – which, ironically given the situation, was responded to by Archbishop Sentamu (one of the senior figures whom Matt had taken a CDM against!) So bishops facing CDMs were being responded to by other bishops facing CDMs. Very weird.
Needless to say it was dismissed on very flimsy incomprehensible grounds. But surprisingly it did achieve something. Bishop Butler wrote a 20 page report in response – and through this response we discovered the dishonesty of Paula Jefferson (BLM lawyer who works for both the insurers and the church) and much more about the duplicity of Ecclesiastical the insurer.He revealed something about the way in which the insurer’s lawyer operates that we had not at that stage been aware of. According to Butler she had telephoned him to lay out all the various arguments the church could use against me in settlement proceedings – none of which had anything to do with the abuse or the impact – but were all legal loopholes. The Bishop of Durham told her that “No, the church fully accepted Gilo’s case and wanted compensation to be paid without use of legal defence” (his words)
OK, so here comes the crunch. She apparently agreed to abide by his instruction. But then when his back was turned – Paula Jefferson used every single one of those same ugly loopholes to knock the settlement down from the word go! We would never have known about this had I not taken out a CDM against Bishop Butler and had he not decided to do the decent thing and be honest about it. Eventually as many of you may remember, this led to him writing that extraordinary letter to EIG which drove a massive wedge between the church and its own insurer. The two have been in stalemate ever since. In many of our view – Paula Jefferson in the way in which she has been operating in this and many other cases, has brought the church into very considerable disrepute and done immense damage to its core foundational principles. There is much more investigative work to be done on her modus operandi, not just in CofE cases, but elsewhere too. And we hope that gradually survivors from across various situation will band together to bring more of her role and methods into the public eye. In the CofE she has had the privileged position to switch hats – working for the insurer one minute and then another for a diocese direct (in the Bell case) in which she was able to observe four bishops and the NST up close and see how they operate pastorally in a case. Tremendous advantage! She has also been privately and secretly involved in core groups in Church Hse (mine was one such) and yet EIG has continued to lie publicly about having had no involvement in the Elliott Review.
I considered taking out a CDM against Bishop Thornton and started all the paperwork which is considerable, but there frankly seemed little point as he’d been called to Lambeth Palace despite his denial of my disclosure (less than 4 years prior to the PCR cover-up) and his massive blanking of major questions. So he was effectively being protected by the current Archbishop of Canterbury. And no-one really knows how costly and tiring all this is to do – unless you’ve been through it all. Matt and I know only too well the games we have faced from this church – very similar games – and we know the cost to us of it.
I think Matt would agree – that the church’s safeguarding and response to survivors needs to be taken right out of its hands and given over to full independence. It cannot be deemed fit for purpose when run by an NSSG (National Safeguarding Steering Group) with two bishops in denial sitting on that board. Bishops Thornton and Snow. If this was a County Council, they wouldn’t get away with it! They only get away with it because it’s the Church of England, and they think they are untouchable and enjoy the collective omertà as directed by their strategariat and comms. Both the NSSG and the malevolently dysfunctional NST have shown repeatedly that this Church cannot be trusted to respond honestly and safely. Dr David Ison, Dean of St Paul’s, said at Synod that the church should hand over its safeguarding response to independence. His was the only voice at that Synod that spoke such direct and clear wisdom. Every other senior figure, including Bishops Mullally and Hancock and others, cling to the notion that they can somehow rescue their broken structure. They can’t. It is too deep in crisis and they do not want to acknowledge this reality.
This is, presumably, Nye-Speak for downgrading Graham Tilby. If this is a case of the chickens of the George Bell fiasco coming home to roost, that can only be welcome: especially if it means that historic cases are to be spared the cavalier treatment Bishop Bell’s reputation has suffered at the hands of the NST and those higher up the food chain.
“Christ Church, Oxford, is a great seat of learning. Anyone who values independent institutional evolution over rationalist uniformity will prize dearly its unique character by which the Dean is, indivisibly, both the head of the college and the Dean of the cathedral. But if you run yourselves anomalously, you must take all the more care to run yourselves fairly. This Christ Church is quite clearly not doing in the case of the present Dean, Martyn Percy. The cause of the row remains obscure, but it seems to relate to Dean Percy’s efforts to make the college’s admissions and pastoral arrangements more professional and to improve the salaries of some of the college posts, including his own. This upset the small group of dons on the salaries board so much that, in June, they pushed the governing body into trying to dismiss Dr Percy, invoking a statute about ‘immoral, scandalous and disgraceful’ behaviour. That term, unproved and not publicly explained, is in effect a libel of Dr Percy. It will be falsely taken by modern ears to mean some appalling sex crime. He has not been given the chance to defend himself. It makes it impossible for him to get a clergy job elsewhere. Pending a tribunal, the Dean lives in suspension. He is not allowed to perform his duties in the cathedral or the college, or to speak about his plight. He can call on no grievance procedure and is allowed no advocate within the system. The Visitor of the college is the Queen, so she cannot be dragged into controversy. The Bishop of Oxford cannot help because, though Christ Church is his seat, the college is in charge. Incredibly, although Dean Percy is still in his job, he has to bear his own legal costs, while the college has hired City lawyers and even a PR firm against him. Christ Church used to be known as ‘the House’: you could say that Dean Percy is under House arrest. I know him a bit. He can be an awkward customer — left-wing, argumentative, fierce — but the reason I know him is that he is much involved in rescuing the traduced reputation of Bishop George Bell, a Christ Church man wrongly, posthumously damned by the Church of England for entirely unproved accusations of child abuse 70 years ago. Martyn Percy is a campaigner for justice, but is denied it himself”
~ Charles Moore
Dec 7 2018 – “Christ Church Row – Down the rabbit hole” – Private Eye – No. 1484 30 Nov – 13 Dec 2018
In February this year…the diocese commissioned an independent reviewer to conduct a Learning Lessons Case Review to investigate the way in which the allegations had been dealt with over the ten-year period….
She had agreed to sign the NDA after taking legal advice, since she was told that it would only be in effect until the report was published. She had been “assured” that it would be published in full, she said, but the diocese has since confirmed that it will not be releasing it.
A spokeswoman for the diocese of Birmingham said: “One of the main factors affecting the decision not to publish the full contents of the report related to concerns regarding the safeguarding of the many contributors — some of whom wish to remain anonymous — and many others whom this situation involves either directly or indirectly.”…
“The decision with regards to the NDA was made to protect the many contributors to the report, some of whom wish to remain unidentifiable, along with the many others whom this situation affects….
“Jo was asked to sign an NDA with the intention to prevent [her] from sharing information not belonging to her that she was not previously aware of.”…
The information that Mrs Kind could not disclose included the personal details of contributors to the report, including three other individuals who expressed concerns about the behaviour of Canon Walker to two clergymen: the “Revd B” — believed to be Mr Hughes — and the “Revd C”, who asked two of the individuals whether they wished to make a complaint against Canon Walker.
The strongest criticism of the diocese is believed to be contained in the full report, but the executive summary of the report, which was released on Thursday, concludes that these individuals “should have been approached by an independent person with no connection to the diocese”…
She told Channel 4: “I have been trying to talk about this for ten years, and I am being silenced by an NDA in order to make sure that he can’t be identified.”…
On Thursday afternoon the following statement appeared on the Birmingham diocesan website: “Copies of the full redacted report are not available for publication or distribution but a copy can be viewed, on prior agreement by our Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, at our offices.
“This is still redacted due to our responsibility to safeguard all contributors, as previously mentioned, and is not available for publication or distribution. Those who wish to view the redacted full report will be required to sign an agreement preventing the misuse of third party information.”
4 Canon Lane, formerly known as George Bell House (its rightful name – likely to be restored … see note below), is a guest house set within the cathedral grounds in a fantastic location tucked behind the Cathedral and next to the beautiful Bishop’s Gardens. The house is a historic building, full of character with décor in keeping with the period. Set in a quiet location the building has a restful atmosphere. It is ideally located for exploring the charming town centre of Chichester, its cathedral or visit the Festival Theatre – all within walking distance!
4 Canon Lane is used for many purposes and only has 8 rooms. The rooms are comfortable without being elaborate. Some of the upstairs rooms have wonderful views of the cathedral or gardens. In particular, the 2 large doubles, Room 4 overlooking the garden and Room 5 overlooking the Cathedral are more expensive but apparently worth it. Smaller rooms are to the side and have showers, not baths.
It would seem that there are significant different differences between the rooms – with the better rooms unsurprisingly in demand – so early booking is advised…
NOTE:
Due to unsubstantiated allegations, George Bell House has been renamed 4 Canon Lane. However, in the absence of any actual proof, court judgement or any admission of liability on behalf of the Church of England, it is expected that 4 Canon Lane will have its previous name of George Bell House restored. Without proof or independent substantive evidence, there is no justification to excise the extraordinary legacy of Bishop George Bell or his memory…
The Church of England also seems to need reminding that in the United Kingdom a man is innocent until actually proven guilty.
Although it is for Chapter to decide, it is expected 4 Canon Lane will revert back to its former title of George Bell House following an Extraordinary meeting of the Chichester Cathedral Council on 17 January 2018.
Amen to that.
George Bell House / 4 Canon Lane – chichestercathedral.org.uk
Jewish refugee children [over 10,000 arrived in Britain under Kindertransport in 1938/39. Over 1 million Jewish children were exterminated by the Nazis in WW2]
Dec 13 2018 – Church Times Letter (Unpublished) – “We ignore the lessons of history at our peril”
“When UK welcomed Jewish children” – Church Times – December 7 2018
Dear Editor
It is sad to read about the Kindertransport without any mention of the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell who did so much in welcoming child refugees to this country (‘When UK welcomed Jewish children’, CT News, 7 December).
Ruth Barnett, “a British Jew, with German roots”, is not alone when she says:
“I would not be here today were it not for Christians who saved my father, at great risk to their own lives, and the lives of their families”
In this respect, it is distressing to read the “insights” of Bishop Bell’s great German friend and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer – who was killed by the Nazis in 1945 – have now been “relegated” (‘A Church that seemingly turns its back on theology’, CT Letters, 7 December).
A refugee charity is hoping to set up a centre in Chichester to help ‘desperate’ families who have nowhere to go. People from Syria or Afghanistan who have lost their homes and family members to conflict are now being supported by Sanctuary in Chichester.
To mark the anniversary of Bishop Bell’s death, last Wednesday the charity announced its aim of creating a centre to continue in the spirit of the late Bishop’s charitable work, which involved helping those fleeing Germany in the Second World War.
Roger Pask, from Sanctuary in Chichester, said: “These people are desperate and in need of some help and we want the centre, when we set it up, to focus primarily on their needs. “We hope that we can accommodate between six and eight people, or perhaps four individuals and a family of four Syrians.”
The organisation has said it will ‘take no position on the controversy surrounding the handling of the allegations against Bell’ of historic sexual abuse brought posthumously but it wanted to emulate his example of offering shelter to the poor and persecuted.
At present, people supported by the charity are housed in church or county council premises or privately by individuals giving them a home but the group wants to raise funds to lease or even buy a centre to give more effective outreach.
Roger said: “The vision is really to continue the tradition of Chichester as a compassionate, caring community that welcomes strangers. “It’s what Bell did during the war and it goes back to St Richard himself in the 11th century.”
Among the project’s supporters is Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson, whose father was a refugee helped by Bishop Bell in the 1930s. An active member of the church resistance against the Nazi regime and the son of a Jewish mother, Franz Hildebrandt was a close friend of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and George Bell, who personally advocated for Franz’s rights as an ‘enemy alien’ in the UK. Ruth said she wanted to help do the same for others today. “The fact that I’m a daughter of a refugee has never been far from my mind,” she said.
“It is expected 4 Canon Lane will revert back to its former title of George Bell House following an Extraordinary meeting of the Chichester Cathedral Council on 17 January 2018” ~ Anon
George Bell, the wartime Bishop of Chichester, did much in welcoming over 10,000 Jewish child refugees into this country under the ‘Kindertransport’ scheme.
Ruth Barnett, a British Jew with German roots, is not alone when she says:
“I would not be here today were it not for Christians who saved my father, at great risk to their own lives, and the lives of their families”
I notice this Private Members Motion [PMM] again at Feb’s General Synod, and wonder if it will be debated this time round (or is there more chance of seeing flying pigs getting landing rights here at Gatwick?):
Private Members Motion [PMM] – David Lamming – Bishop George Bell and the Carlile Report
MOTION DETAILS
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich) to move:
That this Synod,
(a) express its appreciation to Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC for his thorough review of the way the Church of England dealt with a complaint of sexual abuse made by a woman known as ‘Carol’ against the late Bishop George Bell;
(b) acknowledge and accept unreservedly the serious criticisms of the investigation carried out by the Core Group charged with investigating the complaint, as set out by Lord Carlile in his conclusions at paragraph 254 of his report, dated 15 December 2017 [GS Misc 1173];
(c) note that the effect of those conclusions can only be that the process was so fundamentally flawed that any finding, explicit or implicit, that Bishop Bell committed the alleged acts of sexual abuse, cannot stand or be sustained, regardless of the fact that determining the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell was excluded from Lord Carlile’s terms of reference;
(d) accordingly, acknowledge that Bishop Bell’s reputation as one of the great bishops of the Church of England is restored untarnished;
(e) regret the distress caused both to Bishop Bell’s surviving relative and to ‘Carol’ by the Core Group’s inadequate investigation;
(f) regret that the statement made by the Church of England on 22 October 2015, announcing the settlement of a civil claim by Carol against the current Bishop of Chichester was, as is now revealed to be the case by Lord Carlile, both inaccurate (in stating that the settlement followed a “thorough” pre-litigation process) and disingenuous (in stating that none of the expert independent reports commissioned “found any reason to doubt the veracity of [Carol’s] claim”);
(g) regret that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his public statement on 15 December 2017 following the publication of the Carlile report,
(i) failed to acknowledge expressly that the process was so fundamentally flawed;
(ii) failed to accept Lord Carlile’s recommendation that where, as in the case of Bishop Bell, a settlement is made without admission of liability, it should generally be with a confidentiality provision, and
(iii) stated that “a significant cloud” was left over Bishop Bell’s name, when the only basis for such statement was a single uncorroborated allegation, first made over 40 years after the alleged events, when Professor Anthony Maden (the expert instructed by the Core Group) had said that “memory is not reliable over such long periods of time” and that “after so many years there is no way of determining without reference to corroborating information whether or not recall is accurate”;
(h) accordingly, call upon the Archbishop to retract that particular statement; and
(i) call upon those institutions that responded to the Church’s statement of 22 October 2015 by writing Bishop Bell out of their history, to reinstate Bell’s name and restore him to their historical narrative.
Private Member’s Motions must obtain 100 signatures before they can be put on the agenda for debate; this one has only 30. If a PMM does not reach the 100 figure after three Synod sessions it expires. If it does reach the 100 figure it joins a queue for available time on the agenda.
Thank you for that clarification Peter. Perhaps another reason why there was a premeditated delay to the Carlile Report, and a subsequent premeditated delay to the Briden Report. Or am I being ungraciously cynical towards the Church’s higher echelons of power?
Kate
It’s very long. Each sub-point added gives people a potential reason not to vote for it. Based simply on length, I would see no chance of it flying.
Who is controlling the Agenda on this critical issue?
I can’t see it being Archbishop Welby – he seems to be acting more and more like the proverbial ‘puppet on a string’ – albeit a big puppet.
Is the ‘string-puller’ William Nye? Maybe. It has to be someone who works within power systems which operate both inside and outside the Church hierarchy.
As the Church of England is this country’s State religion – under the authority of its Supreme Governor Her Majesty The Queen (with an Archbishop appointed by a Prime Minister) – I suppose it becomes obvious who is controlling this Agenda – and others.
“Seventy years ago this week, the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights was published, and its clarion call of basic human rights for all – starting with the right to life and liberty – has become the basis of much international law and practice.
“The Declaration’s 30 Articles were decent, moral and humane: that rights are held regardless of colour, creed or ethnicity; that we have a right to freedom from torture, to education, to the presumption of innocence [Article 11], to freedom of expression, to peaceful organisation, to food, shelter and housing for ourselves and our families…”
~ Mary Kenny [ @MaryKenny4 ] – The Tablet – December 14 2018
Dec 20 2018 – “Christian Principles [including Justice]” – Church Times – Letter Submission – Richard W. Symonds
Dear Editor
In the dark days of 1941, the wartime Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple held a conference in Malvern, three years before his untimely death aged 63 (“Brexit or not, the UK has changed irrevocably”, CT, 14 Dec).
Archbishop William Temple
Archbishop Temple believed it was critical “to consider how far the Christian faith, and principles based upon it, afford guidance for action…[and]…to think out actual political programmes…which…give effects to these fundamental principles”.
Wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell, in his book “The Church and Humanity, 1939-1946”, wrote:
“The Church…ought to declare both in peace-time and war-time, that there are certain basic principles which can and should be the standards of both international and social order, and conduct”.
Bishop George Bell
In 1940, the philosopher C.E.M. Joad stated in the Spectator article ‘The Principles of Peace’: “There are certain principles which form the heritage of our Western civilisation, principles which are derived partly from ancient Greece, partly from Christianity…”.
C.E.M. Joad
Temple, Bell and Joad made those principles very clear at that time of great peril.
Sir, — In the dark days of 1941, the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, held a conference in Malvern (“Brexit or not, the UK has changed irrevocably”, Comment, 14 December). He believed that it was critical “to consider how far the Christian faith, and principles based upon it, afford guidance for action . . . [and] to think out actual political programmes . . . which . . . give effects to these fundamental principles”.
The Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, in his book The Church and Humanity, 1939-1946, wrote: “The Church . . . ought to declare both in peace-time and war-time, that there are certain basic principles which can and should be the standards of both international and social order, and conduct.”
In 1940, the philosopher C. E. M. Joad stated in the Spectator article “The Principles of Peace”: “There are certain principles which form the heritage of our Western civilisation, principles which are derived partly from ancient Greece, partly from Christianity.”
Early in 1941 a four-page document known as the Malvern Findings summarizing the main tenets of British social Christian thought at that time was issued to the world-wide Anglican communion. This document was well-received in Canada and resulted in the formation of three Anglican groups whose members were deeply committed to the Christian principles outlined in the Findings
[3] acknowledgement of the solidarity for good and evil of all nations and races of the earth
[4] fidelity to the plighted word, and
[5] appreciation of the fact that power of any kind, political or economic, must be co-extensive with responsibility.
Philosopher C.E.M. Joad
[1] the individual is entitled to respect as an end in himself, with a right to happiness in this life and a chance of salvation in the next. No claim of the State is entitled to over-ride this right…[this principle] we owe directly to Christ. Indeed, respect for the individual person as an end in himself constitutes the distinctive contribution of Christianity to political philosophy…for
[2] the State is made for man and not man for the State. Its function is to establish those conditions of order, law, security, justice and economic opportunity in which alone the individual can live the good life as he sees it, develop his personality and realise all that he has it in him to be.
[3] the individual should have a voice in determining the nature of the society in which he lives; that through his elected representatives he should make the laws under which he is governed, and that, if he disapproves of them and can persuade a sufficient number of his fellow-citizens to his view, he should be able to change them.
[4] he should not be arrested save for offences prescribed by the law of the land; that, if arrested, he should not be held in prison without trial and that his trial should be by an independent judiciary…
[5] Federalism….it seems to me difficult to envisage a durable peace in the world unless this principle is coupled with the other four.
In 1944 the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, died after only two years in the post. Bell was considered a leading possibility to succeed him,[by whom?] but it was Geoffrey Fisher, Bishop of London, who was appointed. Bishops of the Church of England are chosen, ultimately, by the British prime minister and it is known that Winston Churchill strongly disapproved of Bell’s speeches against bombing.[citation needed] It has often been asserted that Bell would otherwise have been appointed,[by whom?] but this is debatable; there is evidence that Temple had thought Fisher a likely successor anyway. Bell’s high posthumous reputation[9][10] may have coloured later opinion. For example, Archbishop Rowan Williams said in 2008 that he thought Bell would have made a better Archbishop of Canterbury than Fisher.[11]
He advised the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, that he did not consider Michael Ramsey, who had been his pupil at Repton, a suitable successor. Ramsey later relayed to the Reverend Victor Stock the conversation Fisher had with the Prime Minister.
I have come to give you some advice about my successor. Whomever you choose, under no account must it be Michael Ramsey, the Archbishop of York. Dr Ramsey is a theologian, a scholar and a man of prayer. Therefore, he is entirely unsuitable as Archbishop of Canterbury. I have known him all his life. I was his Headmaster at Repton.
The Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes is an outspoken defender of Bishop Bell, who was posthumously accused of child abuse but exonerated by the Lord Carlile Review, which found that the Church of England’s processes were deficient and failed to give proper consideration to the rights of the accused.
However, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, went on to claim that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’ and refused to apologise even after seven distinguished British historians wrote an open letter affirming there was no evidence that Bishop Bell had ever committed such an act.
One of Dr Gomes’ qualifications for defending George Bell is his own experience of the corruption of the Church of England’s operation of trial by tribunal.
In 2015, a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) was brought against Dr Gomes, a hugely successful preacher and pastor on the Isle of Man, after he filed a Petition of Doleance in Tynwald, the island’s national parliament. The petition called for greater protection from bullying and harassment for clergy, who are not regarded as ‘employees’ by law in the British Isles.
The Archdeacon of Man, Andie Brown, accused Dr Gomes of misconduct by bringing up a wide range of allegations against him. One of these accusations was made by Bishop Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark, who claimed that Dr Gomes was ‘excessively opposed to Freemasonry’ during his tenure as Chaplain to the Old Royal Naval College…
“My perspective on the current sexual abuse issue is to see it primarily as the extreme expression of dysfunctional church dynamics. To put it another way, I believe that we should see sexual abuse of children and vulnerable people as being at one end of a continuum of power abuse in the Church…” ~ Stephen Parsons
COMMENTS
Cindy K
Stephen,
I kept the letter — now floating about with other papers that I deemed important to keep when I relocated a few years ago. (My mother wanted me to burn it.).
Do you know that I was too afraid to scan it and put it online before now? That is another element of spiritual abuse — as those people who cared nothing about us would care. Without looking at it, I believe that I received it in 2003. The first time that I mentioned it in an online discussion, I panicked in fear. I’d forsaken their assembly for a different house of worship than there own, but I received a rebuke that I’d expect to better fit an unrepentant criminal.
Writing about it in this context, .I hope that my experience emphasizes the element of hypervigilance that accompanies this type of trauma. It takes such great bravery to venture back into the memories of a trauma, even ones that are not so tragic. Heightened irrational fear and paranoia pose yet another impediment on top of the sense of isolation that trauma creates. While I am glad that those who haven’t suffered this kind of experience don’t understand what wounded feel and how it distorts expectation and confidence, ignorance about it doesn’t help anyone.
May this discussion birth new understanding so that the bruised might find liberty as Christians can improve upon their skills of binding the wounds of the broken. May we all learn to make the most of every opportunity to minister kindness beside still, safe waters of healing.
Dec 24 2018 – [From The Archives – April 23 2018 – “Police drop investigation into bishop besmirched by Church / Archbishop urged to retract statement smearing bishop” – Olivia Rudgard – Daily Telegraph]
Dec 24 2018 – [From The Archives – April 23 2018 – “Police close Bishop Bell abuse inquiry” – Charlie Parker – The Times]
“If they (the Church Heads – Ed) are determined to persevere in their own private investigations and processes, many people will wonder what they can possibly be worth. The church caused deliberate, calamitous damage to George Bell’s reputation in October 15 by deliberately inciting a public judgement that he was a paedophile” – Andrew Chandler – Bishop Bell’s biographer
Dec 24 2018 – RWS Note – “If the Police dropped the Bell case, why the Briden Report?”
“If the Police dropped the Bell case, why the Briden Report? Does the Church know better than the Police? Does the Church think it is above the law? By some internal process, which is a mystery to me, the Church appears to have become a law unto itself”
“After my strictures in the Lords last Thursday, Bishop Warner simply said that no comment could be made until the current inquiry had been completed. He made his speech in the debate—the subject was the Independent Inquiry—before me, making no reference to the Bell case, but attracting some rather telling interruptions [at] the Church’s craven attitude to the Inquiry. The full debate is freely available on the Lords electronic Hansard“
My Lords, one of the great merits of this most welcome debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is that it helps to focus attention again on a serious issue with which, like the noble Lord and other participants in this debate, I have been much preoccupied in the last few years. It is one that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse will need to bear carefully in mind as it goes about its work, for reasons that we have already heard. The issue is well-known: it is the failure of the Church as well as of the state to accord, at all times and in all places, full and equal respect to the legal rights of both the alleged abuser and the complainant in cases of child sex abuse.
The House considered the injustices that can arise in a debate that I initiated in June two years ago. The cause of this deeply troubling state of affairs is equally well-known: it arises from the view, so widely held in recent years among the police and in the Church of England too, that the complainant should not only be heard seriously and respectfully but should almost always be believed. Because, for so many years, complainants were brushed aside or disbelieved, the police and the Church, among others, have rushed to the other extreme and given almost automatic credence to complainants at the expense of alleged abusers.
As a result, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said, the cardinal legal principle, so long established in our country as one of the bedrocks of our liberties—that those against whom crimes are alleged must be regarded as innocent until proved guilty—has been compromised, sometimes perilously so. Grave injustice has been done to many people: some prominent in our public affairs; others suffering outside the glare of publicity; others still who are dead, their reputations horribly sullied by allegations that they cannot themselves rebut.
The Government frequently emphasise the operational independence of the police, sometimes almost giving the impression that they think it has become almost a separate estate of the realm—a result, in part, of the arrival of those newcomers, the police and crime commissioners, whose performance varies so widely across the country and for whom hardly any elector wishes to vote.
We surely must ensure that the police are called effectively to account when operations have been concluded and there is serious reason to believe that injustice may have been done to those who have been investigated. Often, large sums of public money are spent on these operations. Failure by any crime commissioner to make provision for proper review of completed operations in these early days of the new system should lead to intervention by the Government; otherwise, public confidence in the police will be seriously eroded, and many police and crime commissioners will come to feel they have no need to bestir themselves to arrange for serious criticisms of completed operations to be properly investigated.
I hope that the Government will make it clear from the Front Bench at the end of this debate that those who weighted the scales against alleged abusers were wholly wrong. In this connection, they must keep a watchful eye on the work of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, for reasons set out so powerfully by previous speakers. While the independent inquiry pursues its investigations, the Government should give every support to those who deserve redress because they were unfairly treated in cases of child sex abuse. Sadly, on this point, the state has not so far distinguished itself in some notable instances where redress is imperative.
I salute the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the determination and tenacity with which he has sought to correct injustices done to those who cannot act for themselves because they are no longer alive. He has spoken movingly about the unsatisfactory manner in which the independent inquiry has approached the investigation of allegations against the late Lord Janner.
The noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I also share a common conviction that a great wrong has been done to Sir Edward Heath, a man I did not know but in whose work I take a great interest as a political historian. If he is to be seen accurately by posterity, the seven allegations of child sex abuse against him, left open at the end of the much-criticised Operation Conifer, must be cleared up, as my noble friend Lord Hunt has emphasised. This is no less than our duty to a Conservative statesman in this generation, when the facts can be readily established, as it is unlikely to be possible hereafter. It is simply wrong to let his reputation remain gravely tarnished by doing nothing.
Last week, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others in all parts of the House, I set out in detail why an independent inquiry must be held. Shamefully, the Government have brushed aside the unanimous view of this House. The matter cannot rest there. I have now tabled a further Motion for debate that,
“this House resolves that an independent inquiry should be established by Her Majesty’s Government to review the seven allegations against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer”.
This is the strongest form of words that the rules of this House provide in circumstances where the Government have failed to do their duty.
The injustice that has been inflicted posthumously on a Conservative statesman should come within the remit of the independent inquiry, as the inquiry itself has recognised and my noble friend Lord Hunt has explained. Yet, perversely, the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire keeps on saying that the inquiry should investigate, despite its clear refusal. It is a measure of this man’s extraordinary irresponsibility. He could set up an inquiry himself but keeps on passing the buck. Since he will not act, the Government obviously should, and yet they constantly refuse.
The Government now maintain that they have provided a full and sufficient explanation for their refusal to establish an inquiry in a letter dated 10 October and written by the current Home Secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who I see in his place, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The Government have made much of this letter. It is wholly definitive, in their view, leaving nothing further to be said, according to views expressed in this House last week and earlier this week. At six paragraphs, this communication is certainly more than a note but is not much of a letter.
The key section is as follows:
“The problem that the police encountered was their inability to interview Sir Edward himself in order to secure his account of events. I have every sympathy, but that problem will of course remain and it is not clear to what extent a further review of the existing evidence by a judge or retired prosecutor would resolve this”.
“Not clear”, says the Home Secretary. That seems absurd. A review of the seven unsubstantiated allegations by a retired judge or other leading lawyer, who would probe and scrutinise every aspect of them, would establish whether or not all, or some, or even one of them carried serious credibility.
The Home Secretary has not provided any adequate justification for his inaction. He should write another letter, much longer and fuller this time, for which I asked in our debate in the House last week on the injustice done to Sir Edward. I hope that I shall hear from the Front Bench this evening that such a letter is in preparation and that all who took part in last week’s debate will shortly receive it.
Where, above all in our land, should we expect to find unwavering support for natural justice? What are the last places where a rush to pass judgment on an alleged but unproven sex abuser might be anticipated? Surely the answer is the Christian churches and our established Church, represented here in this House, in particular. But a terrible wrong done to arguably the greatest of all Anglican bishops of the last century has damaged confidence in the Church’s rectitude.
In October three years ago, completely out of the blue, the Church of England’s national press office announced that compensation had been paid to a woman who said that she had been sexually abused as a child by George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, who died 60 years ago and was revered in this country and far beyond it for the depth of his learning, the strength of his support for both suffering Christians and Jews in Nazi Germany and for his remorseless opposition to the carpet-bombing of German cities during the war, a stand that is often said to have cost him the archbishopric of Canterbury. The Church’s judgment on Bishop Bell three years ago was a terrible wrong to this colossal figure in the history of Christianity, because the single, uncorroborated allegation against him had not been properly investigated by the secret group within the Church who passed judgment on him. Key living witnesses were neither sought, found nor interviewed. His extensive collection of private papers at Lambeth Palace was only cursorily examined.
These shortcomings, and more besides, emerged in the independent review of the case carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and published exactly one year ago. His report was scathing about the procedures that had been used. The noble Lord found that the Church had,
“failed to follow a process that was fair and equitable to both sides”.
He described the manner in which the Church had conducted its investigation as “inappropriate and impermissible”, and called the financial payment “indefensibly wrong”. No one in the course of the process spoke on behalf of this most distinguished and long-dead bishop, yet the Church saw no need to express penitence or regret for the great wrong that had been done to Bishop Bell, a wrong which the noble Lord’s report illustrated so fully.
The Church chose to regard it purely as a question of its own processes. Even when those processes had been shot to pieces, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself continued to maintain the conclusions which the processes had drawn, quite regardless, pronouncing that a “significant cloud” still hung over the reputation of George Bell. That cloud was entirely the work of the Church itself, and many critics were not slow to observe that its authorities had a vested interest in maintaining it in the air, regardless of the fact that there was no longer anything to support it. A little over a month after the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, published his report, the Church embarked on another secret inquiry after one further allegation appeared. Nearly a year on, that second inquiry has yet to be completed.
Bishop Bell has been much in my mind over the last few years and in the mind of many others, too: distinguished clergymen in this country and other European nations, historians and lawyers, powerful commentators in the press, along with so many other people up and down the land who have been grievously distressed by the conduct of their Church. I had hoped that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester might, in the course of his remarks, at least have made it clear that this second inquiry will be brought to a swift conclusion and that a report will be published as soon as possible. As it is, I urge all those who have not done so to look at the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that we will, sooner rather than later, have from the Church a proper, firm pronouncement removing the stain placed on Bishop Bell, whose reputation it should never have compromised in the first place.
I regret to say that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has not been a great help in securing justice for Bishop Bell. Having decided, quite rightly, that it would not conduct an investigation itself since the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, had already done so, it proceeded in March to give a platform to the Chichester diocesan safeguarding adviser, a member of the team that failed to investigate the first allegation properly, so that he could justify himself at length and snipe at a number of comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Could there be a more flagrant denial of the presumption of innocence than in the case of Bishop Bell? The independent inquiry should take note. It is examining some truly shocking cases of child sex abuse, but it must take great care to respect the rights of those who are accused and avoid serious mistakes of the kind that have been made in both state and Church when justice and fairness were overridden because the complainants were assumed to be telling the truth.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his speech. Does he agree with me that it would be inappropriate to comment on the ongoing investigation into matters surrounding Bishop George Bell while we do not know the date on which that investigation is going to report?
The original remit was to consider, “whether and to what extent public bodies and other institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sex abuse and seek to address public concern over failings exposed by appalling cases of organised and persistent child sexual abuse”.
All very laudable. However, I have a fundamental objection to the inquiry’s management. It gives credence to hearsay and allows for the presumption of guilt in the court of public opinion. It should confine itself to considering only cases where guilt has been established in a court. Without due process the door is open to huge injustice and the trashing of reputations, and is an affront to every tenet of natural justice I have nurtured over a lifetime…
…Numerous institutions in this country have failed to protect vulnerable children from the vile attentions of sexual predators. That is to our shame as a nation, and we must do everything we can both to help genuine victims to heal and to prevent further such abuse…
The principle of someone being innocent until proven guilty is the foundation stone of the rule of law, all our freedoms and surely our very way of life. That principle is every bit as important for the dead as it is for the living. While retaining their cherished operational independence, police forces and independent inquiries such as IICSA must be ever mindful of that fact or no one’s reputation will ever be safe again…
In matters of justice, the buck ultimately stops here with us. I hope my noble friend the Minister can provide some reassurance that, even in death, Sir Edward Heath, Greville Janner and others [Bishop Bell] who have been subject to unproven accusations are entitled to justice and untainted reputations.
…The Church and we as a diocese are shamed and profoundly sorry for the abuse that has been perpetrated in our midst; for our grave failings in preventing and responding to incidents of abuse; and for our past shortcomings in providing care and support to survivors. My heartfelt apologies are already on record. But words of apology in this context can have substance and credibility only if we are seen to face up to our failures and deliver a real shift in safeguarding practice and culture.
It is right that the grave and costly failings of the Church and of other institutions should be investigated independently. It is right that survivors of abuse are listened to with respect and afforded dignity, which is happening not just through public hearings but through the important work of the Truth Project commissioned by IICSA. It is right also that institutions and their processes which have failed vulnerable people co-operate energetically and with humility in assisting the inquiry.
My Lords, one of the great merits of this most welcome debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is that it helps to focus attention again on a serious issue with which, like the noble Lord and other participants in this debate, I have been much preoccupied in the last few years. It is one that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse will need to bear carefully in mind as it goes about its work, for reasons that we have already heard. The issue is well-known: it is the failure of the Church as well as of the state to accord, at all times and in all places, full and equal respect to the legal rights of both the alleged abuser and the complainant in cases of child sex abuse.
The House considered the injustices that can arise in a debate that I initiated in June two years ago. The cause of this deeply troubling state of affairs is equally well-known: it arises from the view, so widely held in recent years among the police and in the Church of England too, that the complainant should not only be heard seriously and respectfully but should almost always be believed. Because, for so many years, complainants were brushed aside or disbelieved, the police and the Church, among others, have rushed to the other extreme and given almost automatic credence to complainants at the expense of alleged abusers.
As a result, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said, the cardinal legal principle, so long established in our country as one of the bedrocks of our liberties—that those against whom crimes are alleged must be regarded as innocent until proved guilty—has been compromised, sometimes perilously so. Grave injustice has been done to many people: some prominent in our public affairs; others suffering outside the glare of publicity; others still who are dead, their reputations horribly sullied by allegations that they cannot themselves rebut…
I hope that the Government will make it clear from the Front Bench at the end of this debate that those who weighted the scales against alleged abusers were wholly wrong. In this connection, they must keep a watchful eye on the work of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, for reasons set out so powerfully by previous speakers. While the independent inquiry pursues its investigations, the Government should give every support to those who deserve redress because they were unfairly treated in cases of child sex abuse. Sadly, on this point, the state has not so far distinguished itself in some notable instances where redress is imperative.
I salute the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for the determination and tenacity with which he has sought to correct injustices done to those who cannot act for themselves because they are no longer alive…
Where, above all in our land, should we expect to find unwavering support for natural justice? What are the last places where a rush to pass judgment on an alleged but unproven sex abuser might be anticipated? Surely the answer is the Christian churches and our established Church, represented here in this House, in particular. But a terrible wrong done to arguably the greatest of all Anglican bishops of the last century has damaged confidence in the Church’s rectitude.
In October three years ago, completely out of the blue, the Church of England’s national press office announced that compensation had been paid to a woman who said that she had been sexually abused as a child by George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, who died 60 years ago and was revered in this country and far beyond it for the depth of his learning, the strength of his support for both suffering Christians and Jews in Nazi Germany and for his remorseless opposition to the carpet-bombing of German cities during the war, a stand that is often said to have cost him the archbishopric of Canterbury.
The Church’s judgment on Bishop Bell three years ago was a terrible wrong to this colossal figure in the history of Christianity, because the single, uncorroborated allegation against him had not been properly investigated by the secret group within the Church who passed judgment on him. Key living witnesses were neither sought, found nor interviewed. His extensive collection of private papers at Lambeth Palace was only cursorily examined.
These shortcomings, and more besides, emerged in the independent review of the case carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and published exactly one year ago. His report was scathing about the procedures that had been used. The noble Lord found that the Church had,
“failed to follow a process that was fair and equitable to both sides”.
He described the manner in which the Church had conducted its investigation as “inappropriate and impermissible”, and called the financial payment “indefensibly wrong”. No one in the course of the process spoke on behalf of this most distinguished and long-dead bishop, yet the Church saw no need to express penitence or regret for the great wrong that had been done to Bishop Bell, a wrong which the noble Lord’s report illustrated so fully.
The Church chose to regard it purely as a question of its own processes. Even when those processes had been shot to pieces, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself continued to maintain the conclusions which the processes had drawn, quite regardless, pronouncing that a “significant cloud” still hung over the reputation of George Bell. That cloud was entirely the work of the Church itself, and many critics were not slow to observe that its authorities had a vested interest in maintaining it in the air, regardless of the fact that there was no longer anything to support it. A little over a month after the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, published his report, the Church embarked on another secret inquiry after one further allegation appeared. Nearly a year on, that second inquiry has yet to be completed.
Bishop Bell has been much in my mind over the last few years and in the mind of many others, too: distinguished clergymen in this country and other European nations, historians and lawyers, powerful commentators in the press, along with so many other people up and down the land who have been grievously distressed by the conduct of their Church. I had hoped that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester might, in the course of his remarks, at least have made it clear that this second inquiry will be brought to a swift conclusion and that a report will be published as soon as possible. As it is, I urge all those who have not done so to look at the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that we will, sooner rather than later, have from the Church a proper, firm pronouncement removing the stain placed on Bishop Bell, whose reputation it should never have compromised in the first place.
I regret to say that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has not been a great help in securing justice for Bishop Bell. Having decided, quite rightly, that it would not conduct an investigation itself since the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, had already done so, it proceeded in March to give a platform to the Chichester diocesan safeguarding adviser, a member of the team that failed to investigate the first allegation properly, so that he could justify himself at length and snipe at a number of comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Could there be a more flagrant denial of the presumption of innocence than in the case of Bishop Bell? The independent inquiry should take note. It is examining some truly shocking cases of child sex abuse, but it must take great care to respect the rights of those who are accused and avoid serious mistakes of the kind that have been made in both state and Church when justice and fairness were overridden because the complainants were assumed to be telling the truth.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his speech. Does he agree with me that it would be inappropriate to comment on the ongoing investigation into matters surrounding Bishop George Bell while we do not know the date on which that investigation is going to report?
The right reverend Prelate is intervening on me, so my noble friend Lord Lexden cannot reply…
My opening observation is that what we have learned in the past few years about the prevalence of child abuse is deeply shocking. We have learned that all sorts of institutions covered up the behaviour in order to avoid embarrassment, and that was shameful. I have always thought that it was highly unlikely that the behaviour—both the abuse and the cover-up—that was so prevalent in society would be absent from political institutions, so I vigorously support an independent inquiry. I also note that, as Parliament is one of the institutions being inquired into, the inquiry will wish to maintain a robust attitude to our criticisms and to insist that it is better placed to make judgments than people in this House…
I have a third point to make before I sit down. The inquiry must take care not to think that, as Lord Janner is dead, it matters less what is said about him. He has a family; they loved him and his reputation matters to them. He belonged to a community who much admired him, and his reputation matters to his community. He was a parliamentarian and he thrived here, and his reputation matters to Parliament—and it matters to me, too. So it matters what the inquiry says.
It is important to emphasise that the inquiry must tell the truth. It must do so bravely, without favour and independently of people like me and my judgment. But you know what? It must do it fairly, too.
…Some years ago we photoshopped pictures of married adults who had young children aged six into a hot air balloon. We showed them the photographs and tried to reinforce the idea that they remembered being in this balloon when they themselves were six. We had gathered pictures of them as six-year olds from the grandparents of the children whom we were studying at the time. To a man and a woman, each person who saw the photoshopped image of themselves aged six in a hot air balloon denied that they had been in one. But by the following day a number of them—quite a large proportion—remembered being in a hot air balloon. We had manipulated their memory. Moreover, those who were of a neurotic disposition tended to remember thinking that they might fall out of the balloon or hit the ground with a bump, and those who were in fact rather optimistic people on the general OCEAN scoring, which is a standard psychometric test, were happy to see the birds and the sheep in the fields and thought how lovely it was to be floating with a gas burner holding them up in the hot air balloon. This was an entirely created memory.
When we look through the scientific records, which are not particularly good, we can see that recreated memory and long-term memory is a very controversial area. Several people have looked at this. For example, one expert in Calgary in Canada points out that, while the issue of long-term memory is highly controversial in many cases, memory is open to two particular issues, one of which is contamination. It is very easy to contaminate somebody’s memory, perhaps if it involves a topical issue or a famous person, or if they have a carer or well-wisher who feels that they have been badly treated and tries to reassure them that there will be justice for them and to encourage them.
That is one of the reasons why, with respect, I take slight issue with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester said. He talked about the courage of these individuals in coming forward. Of course they have courage, but the very fact that they are told that they have courage could actually encourage them in a memory that is in fact not substantiated. I am not for a moment suggesting that people are lying; that is not my point. The point is that I know this from my own experience at school. I was convinced that one master had ill-treated me, but when I went back to my school recently to look at the reports I found that he had already left the school by the time when I thought he had ill-treated me—and that is an easy mistake to make. By the way, I do not think that I am a depressed person or somebody who is particularly neurotic, but it is interesting that that memory stuck with me. If I were thinking about writing a memoir, I obviously would not want to write about that now, given that I have absolutely no evidence for it.
This is something that we need to consider, because in our efforts to do right we might do great harm and do wrong. Not having cross-examination, where you can look at the evidence properly, is a major flaw, and that is something that we have to understand when we take evidence in these situations.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours for securing this debate. Its timing is to be regretted, as it has not allowed as many noble Lords to participate as would have liked to.
I do not intend to talk about the individual cases of Lord Janner, Sir Edward Heath or even Bishop Bell, but that is not to minimise the strength of feeling that we have heard this afternoon or the impact that they have had on all those touched by them. As we have heard today, there are very strong views on the subject, particularly among those close to people against whom allegations of a sexual nature have been made, especially where those people are deceased and unable to defend themselves. The same difficulty applies to those who might be mentally incapable of defending themselves in a court of law.
The Minister will be delighted to hear me mention pre-charge anonymity. Her research on the subject will now bear fruit. Noble Lords will know that I have an outstanding—by which I refer to the fact that it has not yet received a Second Reading, rather than the calibre of the legislation—Private Member’s Bill on the subject of pre-charge anonymity. It was drafted by the Member of Parliament for Broxtowe, Anna Soubry, but I had more luck in the ballot than she did in the other place. The Bill is intended to prevent the media reporting the identity of someone accused of but not charged with a criminal offence.
In the course of preparing for the debate, I have worked closely with the widow of Lord Brittan, Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini on the issue, although Diana Brittan’s case is perhaps the most relevant to the concerns expressed in your Lordships’ House in recent years. I mention my involvement in those matters by way of declaring an interest in the issue. I have seen close up the devastating impact on those wrongly accused and their families. I therefore want to concentrate on this most difficult area of allegations made against those unable to defend themselves or incapable of doing so.
Some speeches in your Lordships’ House have a profound impact and remain in one’s memory because they are made by someone with an outstanding reputation and unparalleled experience. Such a speech was made on 20 June 2016 in the debate instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, which he referred to, on whether there should be statutory guidelines relating to the investigation of child sex abuse. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for not quoting him on this occasion.
Beginning at col. 1684, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, addressed how to deal with allegations made against those who have died, some of them many years ago. She suggested that a distinction should be made between the management of allegations against a living person and those against one who is deceased. She went on to say, as other noble Lords have said this afternoon, that there is a firm commitment in English criminal law to the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court. Of course someone such as Jimmy Savile, in whose case the weight of evidence was overwhelming, was never brought before a court, cannot be brought before a court, and is therefore technically not guilty according to the law. The noble and learned Baroness went on to refer to a judgment appealed to the House of Lords from the Court of Appeal, quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, who said:
“The more improbable the event, the stronger must be the evidence that it did occur before, on the balance of probability, its occurrence will be established”.
The important lesson of Savile, however, is that an event should not necessarily be judged improbable because of the public reputation of the individual. I emphasise that I am not referring to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said today about Greville Janner, the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Lexden, about Edward Heath, or the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about Bishop George Bell.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, believed that in general, with a few people, or particularly with only one person, making the allegation, however convincing, the authority or organisation dealing with the allegation has a duty to recognise that it may well be able to get the story only from one side. She suggested that a policy or formula was needed to make it clear that it should listen to and recognise the seriousness of the allegations, and give appropriate support to the person making them, but should generally—perhaps always—resist the temptation to say that the account is convincing and to be believed.
I strongly agree with the noble and learned Baroness. The investigating authority, whether an independent inquiry or the police, should always listen to and recognise the seriousness of the allegations and give appropriate support to the person making them. They should be treated as if the allegations are true and they have suffered in the way they describe, but in cases where there are only a few complainants, or only one, and the investigating authority can hear only from one side, even on the balance of probabilities the investigating authority should resist going as far as implying that the accused is guilty. As the noble and learned Baroness went on to say, that is not to say that this did not mean that, on the balance of probabilities, the survivor should not be compensated on the basis of the civil burden of proof, rather than the criminal burden of proof that someone is guilty, which, as we all know, is beyond reasonable doubt. I emphasise that I am talking about cases where only one side can be heard.
Survivors of child sexual exploitation need to be heard. The “truth project” element of the independent inquiry is an important part of it. Hearing their accounts is a powerful way of driving the cultural changes we need: how they were not listened to, how their allegations were dismissed out of hand, and how, in many cases, they turned out to be true. The inquiry should hear also, and is committed to hearing, from those falsely accused of child sexual exploitation and about the impact that it had on them.
The research project, which researches records and news reports, is also an important part of the inquiry. At the same time, as my own party has found, going back 65 years to a time when evidence was not collated as it should be today—when notes were made on pieces of paper, kept in different parts of an organisation and not properly archived—may say more about how badly organisations dealt with such issues then, rather than unearthing the truth about what happened. As a party, we are providing every assistance we can to the inquiry.
The public hearings project, where witnesses can be compelled to give evidence and are cross-examined, should be focused on institutional failings and how to ensure that these do not happen in the future, although individual cases will have to be examined to identify what those failings have been. This is a very difficult area—for survivors, for those accused, and for the institutions and authorities charged with establishing the truth. I believe that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is acutely aware of these difficulties, but those involved would do well to listen to the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
…All of us want of course to build a society where the presumption of innocence is real, and where it is easier for victims of all kinds of abuse to come forward in the moment through proper, open and accessible procedures, and not years later in the media. Yet we still live in a society where the presumption of innocence is not real in ordinary life, where slurs and quick, harsh judgments are made—dare I say it—in political life and in the media, where we hear “there is no smoke without fire” et cetera. This makes it very hard to make the presumption of innocence a real norm in our daily lives. It is still too difficult for victims to come forward, children especially. We must remember that when people oppose sex education and more horizontal power structures, whether in education or any other part of public life.
We must do better in the future. In the meantime, and perhaps for ever, we will be dealing with very difficult balances of rights. Most noble Lords recognised that in their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, cited with great admiration, and humility on his own part, the wise words of others but his own speech was one that I shall remember for some time. Before he entered your Lordships’ House, his contribution to fair-minded policing was enormous. We are dealing with difficult balances of rights. We must always remember that a miscarriage of justice creates an extra victim when, by accident or design, it is perpetrated.
People in public life can be more powerful than other people and have more access to power but they are also ripe targets for false accusations. That creates another enormous tension here. Members of minority communities, as was pointed out a number of times, are particularly vulnerable to slurs, especially in relation to sex offending. Rightly and understandably, sex offending is taken very seriously as one of the most terrible types of offending in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was right to point out the importance of the conventional and normal practice of anonymity pre-charge that has been departed from of late, with very unfortunate results. I look forward to reading the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in due course.
Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Hunt, pointed out that when allegations are against the dead—who, of course, can no longer speak for themselves—it is sometimes unfair when slurs are swirling around unchecked not to conduct an inquiry to provide the possibility of vindication. Equally, it can be unfair to conduct an inquiry if it is somehow special, different, and the evidence is not handled with enormous care.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness to allow me briefly to intervene. One of the problems is that dead people cannot sue for defamation. That may be an omission but it is an important one.
Perhaps I may come to that in a moment. I will try to make progress on account of the time. It can be an injustice one way or another and I hope that those charged with this inquiry, which we have all welcomed, will take on board comments noble Lords have made today when they come to read Hansard.
It has been a long-held principle of the common law that the dead cannot be defamed. As a human rights analysis it must be right, as the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, did, to take on board the interests of loved ones and legacies to public service that can be damaged if these decisions are made lightly or improperly. I can do no better than to end with the words of another fine journalist, if only to recognise the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. These are the words of Edward Murrow, the great American journalist. He said:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law … we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men”—
or women, by the way—
“not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular”.
Some serious questions were raised by a number of noble Lords about the approach of the inquiry, including suggestions that there was a presumption of guilt and the need for cross-examination. I remind your Lordships that the primary purpose of the inquiry is to establish the facts, and therefore it should be inquisitorial rather than adversarial in nature. I understand that that is in line with the findings of the 2014 House of Lords Select Committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the Inquiries Act 2005, which concluded that,
“an inquisitorial procedure for inquiries is greatly to be preferred to an adversarial procedure”.
It concluded that the Inquiries Act 2005 provides the right procedural framework for an inquiry to be conducted,
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would give way. I am not a lawyer, so I ask this in genuine innocence. I am not sure that the terms “inquisitorial” and “adversarial” are always in the best interests of justice in cases such as these. I am sure that it is possible to cross-examine somebody without necessarily being adversarial, trying instead to tease out what works and what seems to be the most likely truthful path. I do not suggest for a moment that one wants to humiliate somebody who claims to have been abused. I hope that we can try to seek the truth, using our intuitive judgment rather more successfully than we might by simply listening to an account which is not properly contested. That is a very real issue in cases such as these because many people feel that they have been very badly damaged, although the probability is that in many cases they have not been.
That makes two of us, as I am not a lawyer either. I hear the noble Lord’s concerns, but I think the approach of inquiries, as set down in the Inquiries Act 2005, has been reviewed and endorsed by your Lordships’ House. The Government do not see a need to make special provision for how inquiries into specific matters, such as child sexual abuse, are carried out.
I do not think my personal view on this is relevant. I understand the inquiry is being carried out strictly in accordance with the legislation that allows that to happen.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, as your Lordships know, was set up by the Government in March 2015 to consider the extent to which state and non-state institutions have failed in their duty to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and to make recommendations to protect children from such abuse in future. As a statutory inquiry, it is underpinned by the Inquiries Act 2005 and has been given the powers it needs to expose the ways in which institutions failed in their duties to provide safe spaces for children and to get to the truth. As many noble Lords have noted, shining a light on these wrongdoings is of paramount importance, matched by the need to ensure that these failings are addressed and mitigated so that children are better safeguarded in future.
Noble Lords well know that the inquiry is independent of the Government, and rightly so. This inquiry is about people who suffered sexual abuse and exploitation as children because of the failure of state and non-state institutions and who for years have never found justice—people who believe that the state failed to listen to them in the past. That is why it is absolutely crucial that this inquiry is, and is seen to be, completely independent.
Under the Inquiries Act, the then Home Secretary agreed the terms of reference that set out the roles and responsibilities of the inquiry, and it is for the chair and panel to decide what the inquiry investigates and how. It is therefore not appropriate for me to use this debate to comment on the investigations of the inquiry, or to be seen to influence how the inquiry has interpreted its terms of reference. However, I can use this opportunity to remind noble Lords of the progress that the inquiry, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, has been making in getting to the truth for victims and survivors…
On the issue of police releasing names to the media before a charge has been made, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, this is covered by the College of Policing guidance on media relations, which has recently been updated to make it absolutely clear that it also applies to the release of names of deceased persons…
Several noble Lords raised the issue of false allegations and unproven allegations. False allegations are obviously an extremely serious matter, and accusers could be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. Obviously, that would be up to the police to decide in each individual case. Where noble Lords feel that allegations are unproven, that information should be shared with the relevant police force.
…I recognise the strength of feeling of distinguished public servants regarding both the accusations they face and the approach of IICSA and other inquiries. As was said very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, reputation is an important and sensitive issue. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this matter and for noting the progress of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Several noble Lords spoke about the need to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; your Lordships have done that today most eloquently. Equally, I trust that your Lordships recognise that the inquiry is playing a crucial role in giving a voice to victims of historical abuse, exposing institutional failings and identifying steps to protect children now and in the future. I urge this House to give the inquiry the support it deserves.
…I want to make one or two comments about some of the interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, spoke about the remit, which is also at the heart of my problem. What evidence will fall into the public domain under the established remit? That brings us to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester’s comments. He referred repeatedly to “survivors”, but a survivor is only a survivor if his or her evidence is the truth. If not, they are not a survivor. I am concerned about a procedure where there may be an absence of cross-examination…
My noble friend Lord Winston drew our attention to false memory. He will probably know about the British False Memory Society; I hope that it can pick up his comments in our debate and perhaps make direct contact with him…
Finally, I want to sweep across all the cases we have dealt with in recent years: Sir Cliff Richard, [Bishop Bell], Lord Leon Brittan, Lord Edwin Bramall, former Member of Parliament Harvey Proctor, TV personality Paul Gambaccini and former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath—all prominent public figures, all named, shamed and humiliated. Their reputations were, if not destroyed, nearly destroyed. Now, we are in the eye of the storm before Greville Janner’s name is cleared and his personal honour is restored. How much longer will the Government stand by and do nothing in these huge miscarriages of justice?
Motion agreed.
Dec 27 2018 – ‘A’ Reflection on Misinterpreted/False Memory
‘I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel’ ~ Maya Angelou
“The relevance is that our memories are based on emotion. The imprint on our minds is infused with the depth of feeling associated with the event. Remembering events requires internal sensory reconstruction. I work on ‘the front line’ in a manner of speaking, with children aged 5 to 8 years. Their interpretation of life is subjective and fluid, often mixing up details and adding in elements of ‘fantasy.’ This is NOT lying. This is a way to express feelings. The details of the event or experience are described by whatever way has meaning or relevance for the child. I have observed in my work over the past year how frequently children have made fundamental errors of understanding about their own lives and even about key people around them and the role or relationship to them…We unfortunately use the phrase ‘False Memory’ where the term should be described more accurately as ‘Misinterpreted Memory’, where a fundamental mistake of a person or place becomes a remembered ‘fact.’ If the NST [National Safeguarding Team] are open to reflecting on the stumbling blocks posed by the inaccuracies of reconstructed memories, they can without shame or embarrassment acknowledge that a woman with a memory of childhood abuse can be both truthful in expressing her story at the same time as being mistaken about key facts within those memories” ~ ‘A’
“Andrew Chandler, the bishop’s biographer, told The Times:
‘If they are determined to persevere in their own private investigations and processes, many people will wonder what they can possibly be worth. The church caused deliberate, calamitous damage to Bishop Bell’s reputation in October 2015, by inciting a public judgement that he was a paedophile'”
Dec 28 2018 – From The Archives [April 23 2018 – “Police close Bishop Bell abuse inquiry” – Charlie Parker – The Times]
“If they (the Church Heads – Ed) are determined to persevere in their own private investigations and processes, many people will wonder what they can possibly be worth. The church caused deliberate, calamitous damage to George Bell’s reputation in October 15 by deliberately inciting a public judgement that he was a paedophile” – Andrew Chandler – Bishop Bell’s biographer
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
Nov 23 2018 – RWS Note – on being ‘thrown under the bus’
“Here is the shocking moment [Oct 22 2015] when the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell was thrown under a moving bus by a Church swerving to avoid further blame for serial child sex abuse” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“…the call…came as it emerged that at least eight law firms could be sanctioned if they are found to have assisted in covering up allegations of sexual harassment…If the [NDA] agreements are found to be improper, it could result in solicitors being fined or struck off…Ms [Jess] Phillips said she was concerned there was ‘repeated use’ of the agreements “to cover up allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination and abuse…Ms [Zelda] Perkins has said she felt ‘let down’ by those hired to protect her interests…She wrote: ‘I am sure that the SRA [Solicitors Regulation Authority] takes a firm view on legal firms who use such agreements to allow their clients to potentially repeatedly break employment laws, let alone cover up potential criminality.Ms Phillips said the regulator had a duty to ‘ensure that lawyers are not acting unethically and…colluding with those accused of sexual abuse, harassment and discrimination’… The Commons’ women and equalities committee is holding a second inquiry touching on the use of NDA’s. It comes after the Government failed to act on its previous recommendations, which said that the agreements should be outlawed in certain cases [Bishop Bell’s case? – Ed]. Maria Miller, who chairs the committee, said: ‘It is not only the use of NDAs in sexual harassment cases that cause concern; it is their wider use to cover up allegations of discrimination. We thought it was important to undertake a separate and focused inquiry to consider the misuse of NDAs in all cases of discrimination, and also the chilling effect that might be having on management culture in the workplace'”
I can vouch alongside Matt for the ineffectiveness of the CDM procedure. I took out a CDM on Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham – which, ironically given the situation, was responded to by Archbishop Sentamu (one of the senior figures whom Matt had taken a CDM against!) So bishops facing CDMs were being responded to by other bishops facing CDMs. Very weird.
Needless to say it was dismissed on very flimsy incomprehensible grounds. But surprisingly it did achieve something. Bishop Butler wrote a 20 page report in response – and through this response we discovered the dishonesty of Paula Jefferson (BLM lawyer who works for both the insurers and the church) and much more about the duplicity of Ecclesiastical the insurer.He revealed something about the way in which the insurer’s lawyer operates that we had not at that stage been aware of. According to Butler she had telephoned him to lay out all the various arguments the church could use against me in settlement proceedings – none of which had anything to do with the abuse or the impact – but were all legal loopholes. The Bishop of Durham told her that “No, the church fully accepted Gilo’s case and wanted compensation to be paid without use of legal defence” (his words)
OK, so here comes the crunch. She apparently agreed to abide by his instruction. But then when his back was turned – Paula Jefferson used every single one of those same ugly loopholes to knock the settlement down from the word go! We would never have known about this had I not taken out a CDM against Bishop Butler and had he not decided to do the decent thing and be honest about it. Eventually as many of you may remember, this led to him writing that extraordinary letter to EIG which drove a massive wedge between the church and its own insurer. The two have been in stalemate ever since. In many of our view – Paula Jefferson in the way in which she has been operating in this and many other cases, has brought the church into very considerable disrepute and done immense damage to its core foundational principles. There is much more investigative work to be done on her modus operandi, not just in CofE cases, but elsewhere too. And we hope that gradually survivors from across various situation will band together to bring more of her role and methods into the public eye. In the CofE she has had the privileged position to switch hats – working for the insurer one minute and then another for a diocese direct (in the Bell case) in which she was able to observe four bishops and the NST up close and see how they operate pastorally in a case. Tremendous advantage! She has also been privately and secretly involved in core groups in Church Hse (mine was one such) and yet EIG has continued to lie publicly about having had no involvement in the Elliott Review.
I considered taking out a CDM against Bishop Thornton and started all the paperwork which is considerable, but there frankly seemed little point as he’d been called to Lambeth Palace despite his denial of my disclosure (less than 4 years prior to the PCR cover-up) and his massive blanking of major questions. So he was effectively being protected by the current Archbishop of Canterbury. And no-one really knows how costly and tiring all this is to do – unless you’ve been through it all. Matt and I know only too well the games we have faced from this church – very similar games – and we know the cost to us of it.
I think Matt would agree – that the church’s safeguarding and response to survivors needs to be taken right out of its hands and given over to full independence. It cannot be deemed fit for purpose when run by an NSSG (National Safeguarding Steering Group) with two bishops in denial sitting on that board. Bishops Thornton and Snow. If this was a County Council, they wouldn’t get away with it! They only get away with it because it’s the Church of England, and they think they are untouchable and enjoy the collective omertà as directed by their strategariat and comms. Both the NSSG and the malevolently dysfunctional NST have shown repeatedly that this Church cannot be trusted to respond honestly and safely. Dr David Ison, Dean of St Paul’s, said at Synod that the church should hand over its safeguarding response to independence. His was the only voice at that Synod that spoke such direct and clear wisdom. Every other senior figure, including Bishops Mullally and Hancock and others, cling to the notion that they can somehow rescue their broken structure. They can’t. It is too deep in crisis and they do not want to acknowledge this reality.
This is, presumably, Nye-Speak for downgrading Graham Tilby. If this is a case of the chickens of the George Bell fiasco coming home to roost, that can only be welcome: especially if it means that historic cases are to be spared the cavalier treatment Bishop Bell’s reputation has suffered at the hands of the NST and those higher up the food chain.
This has just been sent by someone concerned with the Briden Report on Bishop Bell:
“The final element of the process is its consideration by the Deciding Officer, appointed by the Church, who will make … decisions [on] information that he has at his disposal, as submitted by the various legal representatives. In terms of publication of the various documents, that will be a matter for the Church of England and, I expect, that that decision will be made in January or February [2019] when the legal process has been completed. I’m sure that the decision will be made public but I will advise you as soon as I am made aware, in any event”
Invitations have now been sent out for Chichester’s ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ event at George Bell House/4 Canon Lane next month (Feb 4). RSVP asap as the Dresden Room only holds a maximum of 30.
Sandra Saer will act as Chair and David Hopkinson, Peter Billingham, Pam Dignum, Geoffrey Boys, and Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson will be two of the Speakers.
My last but one blog post on safeguarding was critiqued on the Thinking Anglicans web-site. This was on the grounds that my idea of a survivor in a safeguarding context did not include those falsely accused of sexual crimes. I have no doubt that to be falsely accused of a crime of this kind, that of betraying trust, would be a terrible thing. There is, however, one main reason why those falsely accused do not get discussed or supported in these blog discussions on safeguarding: These individuals are, for the most part, completely invisible. Whereas there are some among the survivor population who are ready to ‘come out’ and face scrutiny by the media, it is hard to imagine that anyone accused of a crime, even unjustly, would want to be questioned about the circumstances. Whatever else may have happened to allow a false accusation take place, something unwise in a person’s actions may have occurred. Youth leaders and clergy will now routinely behave in a manner that includes common-sense measures for self-protection. These might involve leaving doors ajar when speaking alone with a vulnerable person. The risks of a false accusation against a Christian leader in ministry are always a potential hazard to be faced.
I can think of only two individuals that I know, at a distance, who have been through the Clergy Disciplinary Process (CDM) for sexual abuse against a young person. In each case they were eventually vindicated. That should have been the end of the matter, but the toll exacted on them and their families was in each case dire. Serious life-changing illnesses befell the families concerned. In the first case it was the accused person who suffered an illness and in the second case it was the wife who fell ill. No one is ever able to say that there is a definite link between overwhelming stress and illness, but the anecdotal evidence often seems to point this way. The toll of months being suspended while waiting for a judgement must be appalling. Yes, I agree with the comment on Thinking Anglicans. The falsely accused are victims in the safeguarding and CDM processes but it is hard to show sympathy to them if we seldom know who they are.
The fate of those who are sexually abused and those falsely accused of such a crime can be compared. I would however maintain that those in the second group do normally have a good chance of a full recovery. The life-long damage borne by the sexually abused is, on the other hand, usually grievous. I am not going to list the possible symptoms of one who has been through such an experience, as my knowledge of this specialised area of psychology is, to say the least of it, incomplete. I have a little experience of engaging with those on the way out of cults or harmful religious groups who are afflicted with serious Post Traumatic Stress. To say that sexual abuse will often ruin a life is probably an understatement. It will often seriously damage both education and emotional development. Every child that is born has its own potential as they seek to discover their unique capacity for creativity and skills in some area. An emotional stability born out of early healthy relationships will allow the young adult to become eventually attached to a partner. The social/religious contract we call marriage spells out the expectation that a couple will remain together for their entire span of their lives.
Sexual abuse or the distortions of cult experiences will frequently play havoc with a child and young person’s educational and emotional potential. Normal concentration may be affected especially if, as a result of abuse, addictive patterns of behaviour sometimes emerge. Alcoholism or drug abuse does not fit well when studying for exams. Neither are good lasting relationships easily built up in such a setting. And yet self-medication with drugs, sex or alcohol is all too easy to understand when these substances are being used as a way of trying to escape the trauma of sexual abuse. The remembered pain must be blotted out in some way.
The survivor of a false accusation may have many issues to overcome but, if they are adult, there will normally be family and friends to help them endure the ordeal. The passage from adolescence to adulthood will have been crossed and that will have brought with it a certainly emotional stability with which to face the challenge of the false accusation. The suffering will still, nevertheless, be terrible as the accused risks losing something that is precious to all of us – reputation.
Here the dead are threatened equally with the living unless, as in the case of George Bell, there are individuals concerned to protect a reputation even beyond the grave. A person’s reputation is not only of concern to them; the shame of a false accusation is something that potentially infects everyone around them as well as their descendants.
The issue of financial compensation for those who have been abused by servants of the church is an uncomfortable topic to raise. The sums that have been mentioned in the public domain as being paid to survivors are not so large that they would naturally tempt false claims. The process that has to be gone through before such claims are settled seems fairly intimidating. In the face of such barriers, can we really see many false claims getting past the process? Standing up for yourself against an institution as powerful as the church, when making a false claim is, on the face of it, an unlikely scenario. Many of those who have genuine claims are said to drop out of the process.
Those falsely accused do not seem to have recourse of any kind. They suffer in silence, facing their pain alone. Do they not deserve some of the help and support that we seek to be provided for survivors in the past and present?
I would like to see the Church of England eventually come out from the protection of its lawyers and insurers and begin to set aside serious sums of money for both victims as well as the falsely accused.
Money can help to repair damaged lives. From the IICSA hearings we learned that even small sums of money were simply not available for the purpose of providing basic counselling, let alone compensation for abuses suffered. A few hundred from a Bishop’s discretionary fund is hardly an adequate response to what was revealed of wicked activities by individual perpetrators.
2018 has been an eventful year in the area of church safeguarding. If the same momentum is maintained in 2019, who knows what this will bring? We can hope for certain outcomes. One is that the flow of transparency and openness will continue but at the same time the Church’s response be a healthy one. The technique of hiding from public scrutiny uncomfortable realities about abuse will no longer work. The only realistic path for the Church is to work with the truth rather than trying to pretend it does not exist. Out of such openness we may hope to provide better healing both for the victims and those falsely accused of such crimes. A Church which promotes justice of this kind will also be a far healthier place.
I absolutely agree that the only realistic path for the church is to work with the truth; the truth is what both those who have been abused need and those who have been falsely accused. One does not need for the abuse to be of a sexual nature for overwhelming stress to be experienced. My own understanding is that it is the “community” response (that of family/friends/acquaintances/authorities/media) to the abuse which largely determines the degree of stress subsequently experienced; if the victim experiences a good response and support whereby their story is believed, accepted and they can therefore eventually reintegrate with those around them then they are far more likely to recover than a victim who is silenced or discredited. I’ve not yet read “The Body Keeps the Score” but am interested in doing so. There seems to be accumulating evidence of the relationship between telomeres and stress which may lead to evidence becoming more than anecdotal, and I have read that telomere length is predictive of cancer risk for people with the genetic mutation I have.
Yes, I think a false accusation of abuse may come about because an individual has been foolishly lax in self protection. So, they may not be guilty of improper behaviour, but they are guilty of a technical breach of the children act, which has left an area of doubt. Typical human grey area! So you can smack someone’s wrist for allowing themselves to be put in that position, but often it is the training that is at fault. If someone is found alone with a child, it could be that there were people around, but they have all left. So everyone needs to be aware enough not to be the second to last person to go. Few are.
You don’t need to be a fan of the vintage British political sitcom Yes Minister to understand how government reviews are instruments of inertia, damage control, public relations, virtue signaling, obfuscation and a surrogate for action. As the smooth-tongued civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister puts it: “The job of a professionally conducted internal inquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence.”…
In the first quarter of 2018, Britain refused to give asylum to a single Syrian Christian, but let in 1,112 Syrian Muslims. More shamefully, the Home Office refused to release this data until Barnabas Fundtook the extreme step of obtaining an order from the Information Commissioner threatening the Home Office with contempt of court proceedings. Even then, the figures were only released kicking and screaming just before the deadline, when the charity demanded that the immigration minister personally order their disclosure.
Remember how the Church of England rebuffed the review into the George Bell scandal? Bishop Bell, who stood against Hitler and supported Bonhoeffer, was exonerated by an independent review of molesting a child. Instead of apologizing for slandering the bishop’s impeccable reputation, Welby gave a bum salute to the Lord Carlile review and refused to rescind his statement that Bishop Bell still had a “significant cloud” over his name.
“In the Yes Minister episode “The Hospital without Patients,” Minister Jim Hacker asks Sir Humphrey if he can “get an independent inquiry to find no evidence.” “Minister, in an independent inquiry everything depends on who the chairman is. He absolutely has to be sound,” quips Humphrey. In civil service lingo, someone who is “sound” is a safe pair of hands who will not rock the canoe….
Bishop Philip Mounstephen, who will lead the review, is said to be as limp as lettuce. A former low-impact director of Church Mission Society, the media are breathlessly reporting his recent appointment with the sensational headline: “Former teacher appointed as Bishop of Truro.” Mounstephen is as controversial as white paint on a picket fence (otherwise he wouldn’t be given his managerial mitre in Welby’s politburo)….”
George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – “Founded in honour of two Anglican Sisters, the remaining two of the Servants of the Community of the Cross, it was funded from a Trust set-up for them…The House was opened by the then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams” Sandra Saer www.smhbooks.co.uk
“The man who knows best why the building was called George Bell House, is David Hopkinson. It was he who invested the surplus funds of the Nuns [about £750.000] in the conversion, and who attended, with the Archbishop [Rowan Williams – Ed], the opening ceremony & blessing [2008 – Ed]. The last of the Nuns, also in attendance, has since died. George Bell was the Nuns’ Visitor – a task he took seriously – indeed weekly, when he was in this Country. They loved him” – ‘CH’
In 1961, Michael Ramsey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, went to Chichester Cathedral to dedicate the newly-rebuilt Arundel Screen, in memory of George Bell (1883-1958), one of the most outstanding Bishops of Chichester. (And, in my book, and in that of the 2000+ who signed a Petition to have his name cleared and his greatness reinstated, a Bishop forever to be remembered.)
In 2008, on another equally special occasion, the recently-retired Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, visited Chichester to declare open George Bell House.
Two of Bishop Rowan’s special guests were Mother Angela and Sister Jane, two Anglican Sisters. (see photo to the right)
Why am I telling you this?
Now we go back in time again, to 2003. when a small package arrived in the post. It contained an exercise book crammed with small handwriting, accompanied by pony-camera photographs which had been glued tightly into the book. A note read: ‘Would you like to publish my story ? Sister Jane.’
I went on to read a beautiful, heart-warming account of an Anglican Community’s life and the devoted but joyful way the Sisters lived it. And of course I published it.
SURPRISED BY JOY A History of the Community of the Servants of the Cross This is a beautiful, heart-warming account . On the back cover, I quoted from the Rt Rev’d Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester, 1974-2000, and the Community’s Episcopal Visitor:
…an admirable and encouraging story. I have known the Community since 1974. It has given long years of faithful service to the church, in various ways. The Sisters have been faithful to their calling, through many changes forced upon them by circumstances.
The other Arundel connection? In February, 2014, Rowan Williams, now known more correctly as The Rt Revd Dr and Rt Hon Baron Williams of Oystermouth, made a two-day, unforgettable visit to our Parish and Priory Church of St Nicholas.
He gave the second in the church’s ‘Poetry and Faith’ series, this time on Dylan Thomas, illustrated with readings of his poems. Next day, he celebrated and preached the sermon at the 10 am Eucharist Service.
Needless to say, the church was packed on both days, and a great many people some, we had never seen before, (but hope to see again) had the opportunity to listen, learn, and thoroughly enjoy what the erudite but engaging Bishop said, with such charm and humour. Our Vicar, David Farrer (also a Bishop!) commented to me in an email, after the weekend, that ‘the humble humanity of the man shines through’. That said it exactly!
Sadly, both Mother Angela and Sister Jane are no longer with us. Following Angela’s death, Jane’s Requiem Eucharist took place at The Church of St Mary the Virgin, in the Parish of East Preston and Kingston, on Friday, 13 February, 2015. The Celebrant was Bishop Martin Warner, the last Episcopal Visitor to the Community of the Servants of the Cross. It was a most moving occasion, for all the many of us present.
“When it comes to the Bishop Bell case, it would appear Archbishop Welby’s ‘Purple Circle’ – and the Church lawyers – are attempting the same strategy [aka ‘pulling the same stunt’] as the Pope: Silence.
“But it seems to me, the Church of England silence is of a different nature to that of the Roman Catholics. It is not a dignified, devotional silence. It is a silence more akin to that heard by an ostrich burying its mitred head in the ecclesiastical sand.
“Lord Carlile has already said everything that needs to be said. We really don’t have to wait for the Briden Report to tell us what we already know.
“Restoring 4 Canon Lane back to George Bell House would be proof enough of a change of heart within the Church hierarchy – and that change of heart was expected after the Carlile Report. It didn’t happen – and it hasn’t happened. Their hardened hearts appear to have turned into a deafening silence”
~ Richard W. Symonds
Jan 8 2018 – From The Archives [March 20 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Tuesday March 20]
14 Q. Before we move on, we should deal briefly with one other 15 matter touching on Dean Treadgold. Is it right that at 16 the time of his retirement, or thereabouts, there came 17 a time when he burnt a number of files held within the 18 cathedral? 19 A. Yes. He had retired in the autumn of 2001 and moved 20 a short distance away. What I remember of the episode 21 is that he returned to the deanery, which then was 22 empty, this was long before Dean Frayling arrived, 23 removed a number of files from the deanery basement and 24 had a fire in the garden. 25 I don’t know what the files were. I think there is Page 151 1 some indication that they might have been old chapter 2 files, but they may well have been his own. It’s a bit 3 odd that he’d moved away and then came back to do this, 4 and it was sufficiently troubling for us to mention this 5 to the police, which happened. 6 Q. And the police subsequently investigated it, including 7 interviewing, I understand, Dean Treadgold under 8 caution? 9 A. They took it very seriously, yes. 10 Q. But no further action was ultimately taken? 11 A. Ultimately, no further action was taken. 12 Q. Did anybody within the cathedral or the chapter think to 13 get him back in, have a word with him and say, “What 14 were you burning and why were you burning it?”, because, 15 in theory, there’s a potential hole in your record 16 keeping now? 17 A. I don’t remember that happening. I think the person who 18 spoke to the police, as far as I can remember, was 19 Canon John Ford, who by then was the acting dean between 20 the two deans, and I can’t remember that we took further 21 action ourselves, knowing that the police were involved. 22 I think we took the view that that was police business. 23 Q. Once they’d taken no further action, why not then? Why 24 not then say, “Hang on a minute, somebody who has moved 25 away from the cathedral, who has retired, has come back, Page 152 1 potentially taken chapter files and burnt them. We need 2 to find out why and what they have burnt, if for no 3 other reason than to find out where we have now got 4 record gaps, or even take disciplinary action”? 5 A. I’m not sure what disciplinary action might have been 6 taken against a retired dean. The answer to your 7 question is that I don’t remember that kind of internal 8 investigation happening. 9 Q. If we can move forward to the Carmi Report…
…Being a critic of the Church of England’s approach to Safeguarding and victim care is not a lot of fun. One truly wishes to be positive and affirming of effort honestly expended and earnestly advanced, but so often one sees ‘solutions’ inadequately thought through and/or opportunities missed to rebuild bridges with those we have estranged.
Last year had more than its fair share of discomfort for Anglicans of the Mother Church as it struggled to convince victims, public, press, IICSA and a host of critics from various quarters that a toxic and complacent past was being fully and urgently addressed. Early in this coming year, yet another round of IICSA will bring further revelations and challenges. When Bishop Peter Hancock warned General Synod last February to expect two years of bad news, he was being characteristically honest and realistic, but the church at various levels has not been inactive. The little card prompting good responses to disclosure is deceptively simple. Distilling the essence of experience into such an initiative takes skill and leadership, and things are happening on a range of other issues, too.
The House of Bishops announced further Safeguarding guidelines designed to improve the flow of data about the extent of identified safeguarding issues within the church. The information will be lodged with the Charity Commission and, as such, is a step towards the collation of better statistics and outside involvement. We have also seen the appointment of former MP Meg Munn as the independent Chair for the Safeguarding Steering Group; and the temporary appointment of Sir Roger Singleton as National Director of Safeguarding pending a more stringent search for a permanent candidate.
All these steps will hopefully prove beneficial in the long-term, but they have unfortunately pressed a bruise with the victim community for one simple reason: all are ‘top down’ initiatives created without discussion with those who have experience of being victims of the Church. One amusingly pointed out that among new purchases at Church House there must surely be a curtain ruler to measure the yardage of paper behind all these initiatives.
There is nothing wrong in principle with any of these developments, but, as the song goes, ‘It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it’. Talking to members of the victim community, they tell me that what has been missing from these initiatives is engagement with that important sector. “Nothing about us without us” is the apposite slogan of the Disabled lobby, and this surely applies to various others, not least to our historic abuse victims.
Initially the response to these initiatives was encouraging. Meg Munn was seen as a fresh external eye whose presence would improve the focus of our safeguarding deliberations, but then folk began to ask which of them she had yet engaged with, and the answer was none of them. Their concern was slightly allayed when it was pointed out that her engagement is only for two-and-a-half days per month. There was sympathy and understanding for the limitations that this inevitably imposed upon her. Plainly she had to spend early days reading into her brief and meeting those at Church House and in the Dioceses. If that meant she has not yet been able to reach out to survivors, so be it, but the limitations of time perhaps only warrant two cheers as she continues to get to grips with her task.
She has started a blog, which is a welcome step toward transparency. Encouragingly, she notes in her blog that church outreach to victims is still inadequate. She is right about that, and how she proposes to address the deficiency – and how quickly – is awaited with hope, tempered with a certain world weariness….
Such lack of liaison with legitimately interested parties mirrors the church’s approach to compiling the terms of reference for inquiries into its other failings. If you talk to the campaigners for Bishop George Bell, for example, they report a similar refusal in our leadership to publish, let alone offer for advanced discussion, the terms of reference and timetable for the investigation. Plainly a prolonged discussion of such detail cannot be expected and would lengthen an already tortuous process in such matters. Nevertheless, a confident institution would surely be happy to set out in advance its modus operandi across the board. An unwillingness to listen to the views and experiences of others who might contribute to good process suggests insecurity rather than strength, and in the case of the survivor community it adds to their sense of being seen as a nuisance rather than a resource to be utilised and valued.
The new requirement for reporting Safeguarding matters to the Charity Commission was initially welcomed; and sharing data with the Church Commissioners sounds like an interim step towards external oversight. But the more it was discussed, the more questions arose.
What exactly constitutes a “serious safeguarding concern”? If a Parochial Church Council thinks a matter is serious but the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor disagrees, will it be reported? Who will audit the statistics? How many staff will the Charity Commissioners have working on the data? Will that be sufficient? Given that the Church of England made dreadful errors over the Past Cases Review and that the figure supplied last year to General Synod concerning the number of live cases had to be quickly revised, such questions are not unreasonable…
We have also had the suggestion that the controversy over Non-Disclosure Agreements (illustrated in the case of Jo Kind) should have been addressed by requiring that these controversial documents are also reported to the Charity Commissioners so that the prevalence and concentration of their usage can be monitored.
Plainly, a lot has been happening: listening and learning have taken place, and there is a willingness to ‘get on with it’. Yet we constantly return to fundamental problems: how can these processes be shaped to our best advantage by both victims and the church’s elected representatives if legitimate stakeholders are not consulted?
Within the new culture of good practice, every PCC is expected and required to keep a close eye on its Safeguarding environment. Yet when the General Synod meets in February, there will be no Safeguarding debate. Representations for time to be made available were made to the Business Committee, but should that even be necessary? The efforts were unsuccessful.
We passed a wide-ranging un-amendable strategy document GS Misc 2092 last July (to which none of us had input), yet Synod will be given no feedback on progress, and no significant opportunity to review what was a pretty eventful past year. It should surely be a routine agenda item at every General Synod for a Safeguarding report to be offered in order to bring those charged with oversight of the Church to account by asking questions and probing decisions.
A small church in the wilds with a congregation of 18 needs to have Safeguarding on its agenda every time its PCC meets.
Left: Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton – Right: Bishop George Bell of Chichester
COMMENTS
Brian R
Archbishop Welby is still confident that other victims of the violent gang rapist George “Bart” Bell will come forward and has announced a series of séances where their testimony will be heard.
Call me Old-fashioned
I wish I could say that I find that funny – and on one level I do but the sort of double-standard that is being applied is so mind-boggling that it is almost believable that what you describe is indeed the strategy being employed by Lambeth.
What is especially galling about the “Welby approach” to the case of George Bell is that no one is allowed to use the same yardstick when it comes to ++Justin himself an the case of John Smyth. How so? you may enquire: well, if there are “credible” and “continuing” doubts about Bell, despite the clear evidence of so many that such doubts are, literally, incredible, then there are certainly far more “reasonable” and “on balance of probability” question marks over the archbishop when it comes to his protestations about being entirely and utterly ignorant of Smyth, his reputation, the original Iwerne investigation, the degree of his contact with Smyth, etc, etc, etc.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if there is a credible and reasonable “balance of probabilities” that Bell was a molester then it is equally credible and reasonable to believe that the current incumbent of the chair of St Augustine has not been entirely open, or believable, in his statements about Iwerne and Smyth.
One has only to cast ones eyes east towards Rome to see the damage that can be caused if a spiritual leader continues to hold a line of ignorance against all evidence and common sense. That the CofE – and the Anglican Communion, come to that – now has at its head someone of whom that may come to be true is a cause for grave concern.
Father David:
George Carey has just risen considerably in my estimation for his spirited defence of Bishop George Bell. When are we due to get wind of the current investigation by the second Core Group into this whole sad and sorry affair, it seems to be taking a very long time over its deliberations and in the publication of a report which I hope and pray will remove the “significant cloud” over the reputation of George Bell whose 60th anniversary of death was commemorated on October 3rd – as clearly defined in the Church of England’s 2018 Lectionary.
‘Call me Old-fashioned’
Within 3 weeks of the last-gasp announcement of a second allegation against George Bell, West Sussex Police issued a clear statement that as far as they were concerned there was nothing they could or would do: as far as they were concerned there was insufficient evidence for there to be a case of historic abuse and, in any case, since George Bell was dead there was absolutely no chance of properly investigating the allegation, never mind pronouncing whether or not, on the balance of probabilities an offence had been committed.
That the church should continue after such a statement shows that there is absolutely nothing in this case to do with justice, either for the alleged victim or for George Bell, but rather that there is an ongoing exercise to do all they can to bolster their support for the case of the original “victim” Carol.
And in deciding to go about matters with the type of core group that was not only found to be so unsatisfactory by Carlile but that has been criticised by the hearings at IICSA, shows just how little the church has learned (or is prepared to learn, for that matter) from events of the past – and that gives great cause for concern over the handling of any future allegations.
Bravo George Carey for being brave enough to stick your head above the parapet on this one.
‘dannyboy’
“I get so tired of hearing about George Bell and his “courageous” opposition to the bombing of Germany.” From what you have said about your family before I can understand why you might say that Carl. Even I as a Brit and erstwhile member of an Anglican parish church had never heard of Bishop George Bell, nor his opposition to carpet bombing, ’til I read it here on this blog. I would agree with you that he was wrong but sincere in his opposition. However that’s not the focus of the post. It’s the apparent willingness of supposedly godly men aka ‘Bishops’ to fudge the whole issue of sexual abuse within the Church, whilst continuing to enjoy the perks of the job.. George Bell has apparently been thrown to the wolves by ‘wimps in splendid attire’ curiously lacking in courage, integrity and a desire to stand for the truth, wherever it may lead. I expect obfuscation and cover-ups from the political state, but not from those who claim to represent and serve the Church of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. I think George Carey’s suggestion.. “I believe the George Bell case and also the Peter Ball investigation makes the argument for outsourcing investigations in the case of accusations of sexual misconduct. It is not because archbishops and bishops can’t be trusted to have an important role in safeguarding, rather it is because we are too close to the clergy concerned and very likely to defend instinctively the institution, rather than actively promote an unbiased and independent approach.” is an excellent one, and a policy that should have been adopted years ago. !st Peter 2:13-25
Marcus Stewart
It’s been said many times. George C is essentially a scapegoat, thrown under the bus (I guess escaping goats can be caught and thrown…) by virtue-signalling bishops (they know who they are…) content to sacrifice a retired AbC for the sake of their reputations. It’s sickeningly transparent. Ditto Bell, who was done by a combination of wickedness, incompetence, then intransigence and pride. Nice!
Heaven forfend clergy who are falsely accused of abuse, or of whom there’s little or no evidence, because the CofE will throw them under the bus (with the tag that ‘pastoral care’ is being offered the accused, which is the biggest joke since Balaclava…)
Brian R
Anybody else notice the weird resonances of this case with the Kavanaugh hearings? Vague and completely unsubstantiated allegations which cannot be disproved are repeated in both cases to promote a sociopolitical agenda. Nobody cares about the truth. Bearing false witness is no longer a sin. The biblical strictures on needing two witnesses are ignored. For the crowd to do this disgraceful but what we expect. For a churchman to act this way is utterly inexcusable. It was at this point that I lost what respect I still had for Welby.
Anton
It is inappropriate for George Carey, his apology notwithstanding, to criticise his successor over this issue. Perhaps he is a little sore at the treatment he received at his hands.
I have to criticise Lord Carlile, who failed by his own admission to follow up with sufficient energy the important second accusation made against Bell through a newspaper reporter. As for Bell’s first accuser, she should be (and should have been) told that for her claim to be taken seriously she must submit herself, as a first step at least, to sceptical cross-examination.
Richard W. Symonds
“I have to criticise Lord Carlile, who failed by his own admission to follow up with sufficient energy the important second accusation made against Bell through a newspaper reporter”
Anton, your criticism of Lord Carlile is not justified.
Here is what Lord Carlile actually said [Bishop George Bell Independent Review – 15 December 2017 – page 3 – Para 5]
“Shortly afterwards, a journalist claimed in a local newspaper article [Chichester Post – Ed] that she had had contact with an unnamed mental health nurse who had treated ‘numerous boys and girls’ in hospital, whom she said had been abused by Bishop Bell. I made considerable efforts to contact the journalist and test the substance of these allegations, but was unable to make contact. I left messages to which there was no response. During the months of my review, nobody has come forward to support the story. Given the circumstances, including the lack of any identification of those mentioned, and the possibility of confusion with others (including Bishop Peter Ball, who is mentioned in several places below), I have concluded that the story cannot be substantiated and I have therefore ignored it”
Anton
I based my comment on that paragraph. The claim is absolutely vital and I would not have let it rest at a few unreturned phone calls. I would have rung the editor and asked after the journalist in question. I would have requested an appointment at the newspaper office. Do you think the police would have ignored a lead like that if it were a murder investigation or a millions-of-pounds jewellery theft?
Richard W. Symonds
Anton, Lord Carlile did everything he could – as I did. If you want to chase it up yourself, do so. I can provide the Chichester Post article in question and the journalist’s name.
Ray Galloway, the Church’s Private Investigator for the Bell 2 Briden investigation, will have undoubtedly chased this up as it would be corroborative evidence backing up the claim of ‘Carol’.
I will be looking with great interest at the Briden Report (due next month).
Remember, the Sussex Police have already looked at this – provided for them by the Church – and thrown it out.
Look under the June 10 2016 entry in this Chronology: “I treated kids Bell ‘abused’. A young man tried to kill himself, says retired nurse” – Chichester Post (NOT Chichester Observer) – ‘Exclusive’ – Reporter: Sian Hewitt
How is a baby your enemy? There’s always an alternative to annihilating children. The truth is that the only consideration is to win at all costs, because some people are deemed to be less made in God’s image than others. A total perversion of the Gospel. Let’s not pretend that there is anything moral or noble about it: there’s nothing heroic in intentionally and horrifically killing women and children however you rationalise it. What profit is it to a man to gain the world but to lose his soul?
“‘Corporate Dog-Collars & No-Smoke-Without-Fire Merchants’ have done a great injustice to the wartime Bishop of Chichester and the Church he loved; great wrong to the Cathedral and its congregation; great pain to his surviving family and friends; and great damage to people’s faith in God, humanity and justice. More information is coming to light which is likely to reveal that the great injustice, wrong, pain and damage has been under-estimated”
‘…. In 1932 she became a lecturer at the Catholic Church-affiliated Institute for Scientific Pedagogy in Münster, but antisemiticlegislation passed by the Nazi government forced her to resign the post in 1933. In a letter to Pope Pius XI, she denounced the Nazi regime and asked the Pope to openly denounce the regime “to put a stop to this abuse of Christ’s name.”
“As a child of the Jewish people who, by the grace of God, for the past eleven years has also been a child of the Catholic Church, I dare to speak to the Father of Christianity about that which oppresses millions of Germans. For weeks we have seen deeds perpetrated in Germany which mock any sense of justice and humanity, not to mention love of neighbor. For years the leaders of National Socialism have been preaching hatred of the Jews…. But the responsibility must fall, after all, on those who brought them to this point and it also falls on those who keep silent in the face of such happenings.
“Everything that happened and continues to happen on a daily basis originates with a government that calls itself ‘Christian’. For weeks not only Jews but also thousands of faithful Catholics in Germany, and, I believe, all over the world, have been waiting and hoping for the Church of Christ to raise its voice to put a stop to this abuse of Christ’s name. Is not this idolization of race and governmental power which is being pounded into the public consciousness by the radio open heresy? Isn’t the effort to destroy Jewish blood an abuse of the holiest humanity of our Savior, of the most blessed Virgin and the apostles? Is not all this diametrically opposed to the conduct of our Lord and Savior, who, even on the cross, still prayed for his persecutors? And isn’t this a black mark on the record of this Holy Year which was intended to be a year of peace and reconciliation? We all, who are faithful children of the Church and who see the conditions in Germany with open eyes, fear the worst for the prestige of the Church, if the silence continues any longer”
‘Her letter received no answer, and it is not known for certain whether the Pope ever read it’
Chichester City Council – Chichester Heritage Trails – Leaflet 8 – ‘Notable people’
This Portrait is displayed at Chichester City Council in North Street. The Plaque reads: DR GEORGE KENNEDY ALLEN BELL ~ Bishop of Chichester 1929-1958 ~ Honorary Freeman of the City. This portrait by ERIC KENNINGTON was presented to the City by the Bishop on the occasion of his retirement on 31st January 1958
Chair Alexis Jay (leaning forward) – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – IICSA
March 5 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Monday March 5]Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
March 9 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Thursday March 8Page 154 – Paras 1-25 – Roger Meekings: There are one or two things I would like to say, chair. I think there have been a number of crises and difficulties that the Church of England have experienced, and I think it probably is time for some fairly radical action to be taken by the church, and I know they are thinking carefully about that, but I think my problem is the amount of time it does seem to be taking. I would like to ask a question, really, about whether they should be stripped of their exemption under the Equality Act to help stamp out a culture of abuse and homophobia and sexism, because under the 2010 Act, the church, as a religious institution, has special permission to insist that those it appoints are Christians, but it can also discriminate over sex, sexuality, marital history and gender identity if they conflict with strongly held religious convictions. Secondly, I would probably support the development now of an independent safeguarding body. Operationally, I’m surprised that the church has not already set up a national database to record cases of concern and to upload case notes and allow a proper audit trail. I think I said in my witness statement I think that the Clergy Discipline Measure does require a complete overhaul to be able to hold people to account.
March 15 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Wednesday March 14“The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong…” ~ The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 14 March 2018 – Page 21 Paras 14-18
Fiona Scolding QC and Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Q. Can I turn now to the allegations made against 3 George Bell. An independent review was published 4 in December by Lord Carlile of Berriew. Paul, would you 5 mind getting that up? It is not in your bundle, chair 6 and panel, so we will get it up on screen. ANG000152, 7 Paul. Then we need page 64, which should be section K. 8 This is some conclusions that I am going to ask you 9 to comment upon that Lord Carlile made in respect of 10 the core group. 11 Maybe if I explain, what happened in respect of 12 the George Bell case is that something called a core 13 group was set up, which was a group of individuals. Did 14 that include you? I can’t actually remember? 15 A. I was present at some meetings, but not at others. 16 Q. So there were a number of people — so Colin Perkins was 17 involved, and we will hear some quite detailed evidence 18 from him about his view about the Carlile Report. So 19 I am not going to take you through it in any detail. 20 I just want to deal with this bit, as you were a member 21 of the core group at some point in time. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. They met regularly in order to, firstly, investigate, 24 and, secondly, to reach conclusions. 25 There is criticism of the core group. It is Page 20 1 described by Lord Carlile as “unmethodical and 2 unplanned” and “it was a confused and unstructured 3 process at which members had no coherent notion of their 4 roles and what was expected of them”. Would you like to 5 comment upon that? Is that your understanding? 6 A. These are stringent and harsh observations which largely 7 we accept. We were in a situation here of breaking new 8 ground. The formation of a core group was something 9 which we were unfamiliar with, which has subsequently 10 been regulated for us, and we were also, of course, very 11 aware of working in the context of a serious criminal 12 allegation against a person of a massive international 13 and national reputation. 14 So I think the failures of consistency, of sense of 15 purpose and how we were to function, those 16 allegations — those criticisms are valid against us. 17 I don’t think, however, that that means we were 18 cavalier or unaware of the seriousness of 19 the responsibilities that we were trying to carry out. 20 Q. Paul, could we turn to the next page, because that’s in 21 fact where my quotation comes from. Yes. So we have 22 254(i). The other matter I want to put to you is, it 23 further comments down at (v): 24 “There was no organised or valuable enquiry or 25 investigation into the merits of the allegations, and Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 14 March 2018 6 (Pages 21 to 24) Page 21 1 the standpoint of Bishop Bell was never given parity or 2 proportionality.” 3 What is your response to that? 4 A. The question of an organised or valuable inquiry is 5 something of a value judgment, I think, and we certainly 6 didn’t feel that there was no serious inquiry into that 7 which was undertaken through our insurers and their 8 legal representative in whom we had considerable trust 9 and regard and who Lord Carlile also recognises as 10 a responsible and able person. 11 I see him to say that the standpoint of Bishop Bell 12 was never given parity or proportionality. It was 13 certainly given proportionality. We understood 14 absolutely that was the case. I think the area which 15 he’s rightly also identified is that there was nobody 16 there to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again, with 17 the benefit of hindsight, is something that I think was 18 wrong and we have welcomed — 19 Q. That’s (ix), chair and panel, just so that you know. 20 A. We would recognise it would represent best practice now 21 in the ways in which we have outlined our procedures. 22 Q. Can I ask, why was the decision taken to issue a public 23 statement about the George Bell case, because that’s 24 something that Lord Carlile does also critique? 25 A. Yes. Page 22 1 Q. Perhaps you would like to explain? 2 A. We were very aware of working in the light of 3 the recommendations in the interim report of 4 the archbishop’s commissaries, which had been very clear 5 that no settlement with a survivor should include 6 a gagging clause. Of course you could say there’s 7 a difference between a gagging clause and making 8 a public statement, but it was very strongly felt that 9 to settle and to write a letter of apology and to make 10 no public statement, with no indication as to whether or 11 not those actions would become public, would look very 12 quickly like cover-up. Therefore, we felt that there was 13 an obligation on us to be open about what it was that we 14 were proposing to do. 15 Q. If I can just identify that Lord Carlile at 16 paragraphs 267 and 268 of his report — ANG000152, Paul, 17 at page 68, says: 18 “I am sure that the archbishop does not think it 19 appropriate to support the publication of what may be an 20 unjustified and probably irreparable criticism of 21 anyone, whether a celebrated bishop or not.” 22 And at 268: 23 “I regard this as a case, perhaps a relatively rare 24 one, in which steps should and could have been taken to 25 retain full confidentiality, with a clear underlying Page 23 1 basis for explaining why it was done. For Bishop Bell’s 2 reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way 3 that occurred was just wrong.” 4 Do you have any comment you wish to make about that? 5 A. The first comment I would want to make is that, I think 6 we have learnt a painful lesson about the difficulty of 7 communicating through the media a very fine legal 8 nuance, and it’s recognised by Lord Carlile that we 9 never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell, but to 10 communicate that in terms that the general public are 11 going to understand through the media is a very 12 difficult thing to do. Therefore, I think he does raise 13 an important question here about dealing with posthumous 14 cases, but also about being fair, I think, and 15 recognising the legitimacy and substance to an 16 allegation which we certainly felt was necessary with 17 Carol, the name that’s used for the person who brought 18 the case. 19 Q. Can we turn now, if we may, to another topic…
March 15 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Thursday March 15Q. [to Colin Perkins) Can I ask you now — I think begin to ask you — about 25 the situation in respect of Bishop George Bell. You Page 184 1 have provided a — you provided some details about it 2 within your first witness statement. But you also have 3 a supplementary statement in which you comment upon your 4 views about the report of Lord Carlile of Berriew. 5 I want to mainly take you, because I will say again, as 6 I have said several times, we are not interested in the 7 truth or otherwise of the allegations concerning 8 George Bell. I also understand from information which 9 has been — which is in the public domain that there is 10 another allegation. I will not be asking you about 11 that.
5 Q. Can I just check. In fact, the civil claim — one of 6 the difficulties with the Carol situation is the fact 7 that the church is not insured in claims against 8 bishops — well, I think it probably is now but it 9 wouldn’t have been at the relevant time that the 10 insurance arose?
11 A. Yes, and that was, I think, one of the prompts for that 12 meeting. I think that for me that is an essential part 13 of understanding what happened here, that we were in 14 a very unusual situation of a civil claim coming in that 15 was uninsured, and, therefore, it wasn’t clear to whom 16 that effectively — to whom the liability belonged. 17 I should say, as I think I allude to in my 18 supplementary statement, there was a backdrop here, and 19 the backdrop was that we would also — well, the church, 20 that any civil claim with regards to Peter Ball would 21 have been in that same position. 22 I wasn’t involved in any of the discussions around 23 this, but I was aware that discussions were taking 24 place, that there could have been a very — 25 a potentially large number of civil claims coming in Page 191 1 from around Peter Ball that would have also been 2 uninsured. So I think — as I said, I wasn’t involved 3 in any of those conversations, but there was an 4 awareness that any decision made around the George Bell 5 claim, there was a wider context.
6 Q. The approach that you have taken may — some people may 7 perceive it as a “believe anyone” approach. What were 8 you trying to do, or what do you think the core group 9 was trying to do? Because obviously Lord Carlile 10 thought that you were approaching it in the same way as 11 you would approach any other civil claim, so you were 12 trying to make a decision, you know, “Should this 13 individual be believed on the balance of probabilities 14 or shouldn’t they?” Was that the aim and objective of 15 the core group?
16 A. If I could just take those points in order?
17 Q. Of course.
18 A. In terms of the “believe anyone” approach, that’s 19 actually never been the approach that — I can only 20 speak for my team, but that — said in those terms, it 21 sounds quite pejorative. It sounds quite —
22 Q. That’s —
23 A. No, no —
24 Q. I’m saying it to challenge you.
25 A. I understand. Page 192
1 Q. Because that’s what critics of it would say?
2 A. Exactly. So I understand the caricaturing of that kind 3 of approach is a sort of naive, believing anyone no 4 matter how fantastical the allegation, that has never 5 been the approach of my team. But the approach of my 6 team has very much been a willingness to take very 7 seriously anyone making an allegation and to offer the 8 support that would be offered essentially if the 9 allegation is true. So it’s not assessing the 10 allegation before support is offered, but it’s 11 essentially offering the support on the assumption that 12 it could be true. I’m probably articulating that quite 13 badly, but that’s the approach of my team. 14 In terms of, by the time the core group met, we were 15 aware that the civil claim would have to be assessed, so 16 almost by definition, the core group didn’t meet with 17 that kind of “believe anyone” approach because it was 18 meeting to start thinking about how were we going to 19 assess that claim.
20 Q. But was it meant to be an investigative process, kind of 21 a way of saying — or was it — I mean, please explain?
22 A. Yes. The first meeting, May 2014, was essentially, how 23 are we going to proceed? The second meeting, I believe 24 it was in July 2014, was — the advice received from the 25 lawyer who — the lawyer who was acting in the civil Page 193 1 claim, although by that point it wasn’t entirely clear 2 who was instructing her because of this concern about 3 with whom did liability rest, but the lawyer acting in 4 that situation effectively — we were quite soon getting 5 into conversations about, should there be some kind of 6 publicity, should there be some kind of, you know, 7 acknowledgement that this claim or this allegation has 8 been made against this huge historical figure, and her 9 advice was very clear: you don’t have much ability to 10 test the claim, because it’s so old, but you do have — 11 sorry, to test the allegation, but you do have a civil 12 claim, so if you were to go public in any way before you 13 have tested that claim, before that claim is settled or 14 resolved, then you will be open to, you know, exactly 15 the kind of allegation of, “Well, you just — you know, 16 you jumped the gun”. So her advice was, allow this 17 claim to run, effectively; let’s do all of the things we 18 normally do in civil claims, instruct psychiatrists and 19 verify what can be verified and so on and so forth. 20 Once that is done, if the claim is settled, then 21 consider what to do about publicity. 22 So that’s what happened. Really, looking back, we’d 23 all acknowledge that I think this was where the problem 24 arose, that at that point, very unusually indeed, the 25 core group became quite intricately involved with the 1 civil claim and the response to the civil claim — 2 perhaps not quite that they became synonymous, but it 3 was getting there. I think we’d all look back and say 4 that should have been held much more separately.
Page 94
5 MS SCOLDING: I don’t know whether, chair, this might be an 6 appropriate moment to break, because I’m about to start 7 on the response to the Carlile Report which I think will 8 take us past a reasonable hour. So I don’t know whether 9 now might be an appropriate moment?
10 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, 11 Mr Perkins.
12 MS SCOLDING: Don’t forget, Mr Perkins, you are under oath. 13 Thank you. 14 (4.24 pm) 15 (The hearing was adjourned until 16 Friday, 16 March 2018 at 10.00 am)
Fiona Scolding QC – Q. He [Lord Carlile] identifies that one of the other issues is that 24 there wasn’t adequate engagement and involvement of 25 Bishop Bell’s family or people speaking on Bishop Bell’s Page 31 1 behalf. I think you accept that critique, don’t you?
Perkins – 2 A. I accept that critique,
Page 24
15 Q. Was it the situation that there was scant, if any, 16 regard to Bishop Bell’s good character? Because that 17 comes out of this at various other points in his 18 conclusions? Paragraph 56 of Lord Carlile’s conclusion, 19 he says: 20 “… scant, if any, regard to … Bishop Bell’s good 21 character [was paid].” 22 Again, he also argued that there was deliberate 23 destruction of the reputation of George Bell. What do 24 you say to those two things? 25 A. In terms of the regard given to his good character, the Page 25 1 esteem, he also talks about that — 2 Q. You deal with this at paragraph 70 and onwards of your 3 witness statement. Maybe if you would like to turn that 4 up for your own benefit. Chair and panel, that’s 5 page 25 of Mr Perkins’ supplementary witness statement? 6 A. We were very mindful indeed of the reputation of 7 George Bell, and in many ways the reputation of 8 George Bell is why we were holding the core group in the 9 first place. I have just mentioned a number of other 10 allegations we’d received about deceased clergy. Most 11 of those are obscure clergy, and didn’t generate this 12 level of action. Because we were aware of the weight of 13 his reputation and the likely impact of people reacting 14 to any actions we took, to some extent that was the 15 reason that we were having this nationally chaired 16 meeting involving staff from both the national church 17 and Chichester. 18 But I am very surprised at the extent to which, 19 certainly throughout the last two and a half years, 20 there have been many calls, and I am concerned that some 21 of those calls have correctly or otherwise perceived 22 a high level of support from within Lord Carlile’s 23 report for the suggestion that a great man such as Bell 24 cannot possibly have also been an abuser. 25 As I outlined in my statement, that runs against Page 26 1 a lot of the evidence that I’m aware of internationally 2 with regards to child sexual offenders within 3 institutions. If I may, I think there’s one other point 4 that I particularly want to make on that, and for me 5 this is quite an important point:Carol gave an 6 interview to the Brighton Argus in February 2016 — 7 sorry, 2014 — no, I’m getting my dates wrong, it was 8 2016, in response to the controversy. In that interview 9 she said, “I know that George Bell was a man of peace, 10 but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do these things to me”. 11 It always struck me as very powerful that, of all of 12 the people in this narrative, she has managed to keep 13 the balance and she has managed to articulate very 14 powerfully that it’s possible that he was both. 15 Q. I think at paragraph 70 of your witness statement you 16 identify some research that the NSPCC did in educational 17 settings which often found that those who sexually 18 abused students are often the most competent and popular 19 of staff and are often — I think the word used by the 20 NSPCC is “adored”? 21 A. Yes. The evidence — much of the evidence this inquiry 22 has heard, much of the academic evidence throughout the 23 world, suggests, again, going back to Nigel Speight’s 24 quote, that people find it extremely difficult to 25 believe that especially their admired leaders, or Page 27 1 admired teachers within that educational setting, 2 sometimes the teachers that are the most popular could 3 also be guilty of abuse. We know that’s worldwide 4 research.
10 A. From that perspective, my understanding of 11 Lord Carlile’s recommendation with regards to the 12 non-disclosure agreement or the confidentiality 13 agreement, he also suggests — my understanding of his 14 report is — that we should have settled the claim 15 with — 16 Q. Sort of no admission of liability? 17 A. No admission of liability. From my point of view, from 18 the perspective you just described, that would have 19 effectively been saying, “We are not accepting your 20 claim. We are not going to apologise. We are going to 21 perhaps provide some monetary settlement and we are 22 going to require you to sign a non-disclosure 23 agreement”. That is exactly the opposite of where 24 I think the church should be on this issue, from my 25 perspective. Page 35 1 Q. Can we now — that’s been very helpful,
March 19 2018 – IICSA Reflections – Richard W. Symonds
March 20 2018 – Peter Hitchens – The Mail on Sunday – March 18“The Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, admitted last week it had been a mistake not to give the late Bishop George Bell a defending counsel at the kangaroo court which wrongly convicted him of child abuse. When will he admit that he has made a similar mistake by refusing to allow Bell’s niece, Barbara Whitley, to pick a lawyer to defend him against the mysterious second allegation now levelled against him in secret? Too late, for sure”….
and at the heart of this has to be justice, and justice is a very, very difficult thing to find, as you know much better than I do, but we have to have a system that delivers justice. That is so important. And if it doesn’t, it’s not good enough.
Fiona Scolding QC
Page 123 [Paras 14-25] Page 124 [Paras 1-8]
Q. One of the points that Lord Carlile makes is that the church didn’t take a good enough account of…George Bell’s reputation. Now, we have heard from several individuals about their views about that. But what he seems to suggest is, you have to start — you know, this was such a Titanic figure that one must assume that his reputation is unblemished and, therefore, that has to be weighed very heavily in the balance. Do you have any response to that?
A. “I think the greatest tragedy of all these cases is that people have trusted, very often, those who were locally, in diocesan terms, or nationally Titanic figures, and have then found that they were not worthy of their trust. The fact that someone is a titanic figure doesn’t tell you anything at all, except that they have done remarkable things in one area. It doesn’t tell you about the rest of their lives. And it is not something that we can take into account” – Archbishop Justin Welby
“‘If Bishop Bell’s good reputation ‘is not something that we (The Church of England) can take into account’, then the Church of England [and Archbishop Welby as its leader] are breaking the law. As Lord Carlile has said, taking someone’s good reputation into account “is the law. In criminal cases especially, but also in civil cases, where the character of an alleged perpetrator is impugned by the allegation made, the court takes into account evidence of his good character. It does not mean that he can do no wrong. It is a factor to be weighed in the balance”‘
“In this particular case, the Church has lost all moral and legal authority. It has lost all credibility. For each passing day that it vacillates and delays the release of the Briden Report, it is haemorraging trust in its perceived authority on moral matters”
IICSA held another “preliminary hearing” on 15 January. “Preliminary” in relation to the further two weeks of hearings planned for 1 to 12 July. The transcript from yesterday can be read here. Most of it is taken up with the Counsel to the Inquiry setting out her plans for July. At the outset she said:
The purpose of today’s hearing is to provide an update on the work that the inquiry has been carrying out since the hearings in July 2018, and to discuss the necessary preparations for the hearing to commence in July 2019. I will deal with this in the following order: Firstly, the broad themes and approaches to the national church hearing as the investigation team currently envisages them. Secondly, how the inquiry has dealt with, and will be dealing with, the material received in the investigation and how such will be disclosed. Thirdly, the requests made for statements pursuant to rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules, and when these will be ready for calculation. Fourthly, hearing dates and any next steps. And lastly, any other business. In what follows, I intend to explain what the inquiry has been doing and where we are now and set out what is going to happen over the next four months.
In addition to her statement, two legal representatives of groups of abuse survivors also made statements. Scroll down to page 8 of the PDF to read these. David Greenwood makes extensive reference to the case of Matt Ineson.
Bishop Peter Hancock, lead safeguarding bishop for the Church of England said: “We welcome the comments today from Fiona Scolding QC* on the wider church hearing scheduled for July which outlined the focus of the Inquiry. We fully support the emphasis on the present and future of safeguarding in the Church of England which will help with our commitment to make the Church a safer place for all. Miss Scolding QC said the Inquiry will be looking at whether changes being implemented by the Church of England are relevant and purposeful. I believe this part of the Inquiry will be critical in helping us ensure that our safeguarding work is effective and rigorous and that survivors’ and victims’ views are heard. We continue to be committed to working closely with the Inquiry in a constructive and transparent way.”
*Fiona Scolding is the counsel to IICSA for the investigation into the Anglican Church in England and Wales.
IICSA has also published a number of the written closing submissions made at the conclusion of the Peter Ball hearings in July last year. Here are links to some of them, which readers may find interesting despite their length.
Lord Carey of Clifton at Church House Westminster – Oct 5 2018
Chair Sandra Saer and Speaker Lord Carey
COMMENTS
Kate
With all the injustice in the world this group of Christians, including a former archbishop, have chosen to campaign for a long-dead bishop. Can you really not see how terrible that choice of priorities looks to anyone considering Christianity or the Church of England?
Richard W. Symonds
Kate, this is not just about a “long-dead bishop”. Do you not realise what is at stake here? The ‘golden thread’ of British justice, and international law, is now seriously under threat: the presumption of innocence. This is leading to gross miscarriages of justice not just for dead, but also for the living. And we are pitifully unaware of it.
Why? How? Can we turn things around?
We need to address these critical questions before it’s too late. For example:
Has the collective ‘infantilization’ of our society (and we as individuals within it) made us unaware of what is going on. Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves, and clearly – as individuals and as a society? Are we losing our ability to be caring human beings?
These questions need to be addressed – urgently – and not by quaint ‘soundbites’ in a mainstream media which appears incapable of telling the truth – let alone seeking and discerning it.
This presumption of guilt – without sufficient evidence – has crept up on us which is reminiscent, not just of the 1930’s in Nazi Germany but also the totalitarian regimes and systems which Orwell and Chomsky have already warned us about.
This issue is critical because what happened to Bishop Bell could happen to any one of us – living or dead. None of us are safe until we can turn things around – morally, legally, and politically.
IICSA held another “preliminary hearing” on 15 January. “Preliminary” in relation to the further two weeks of hearings planned for 1 to 12 July. The transcript from yesterday can be read here. Most of it is taken up with the Counsel to the Inquiry setting out her plans for July. At the outset she said:
The purpose of today’s hearing is to provide an update on the work that the inquiry has been carrying out since the hearings in July 2018, and to discuss the necessary preparations for the hearing to commence in July 2019. I will deal with this in the following order: Firstly, the broad themes and approaches to the national church hearing as the investigation team currently envisages them. Secondly, how the inquiry has dealt with, and will be dealing with, the material received in the investigation and how such will be disclosed. Thirdly, the requests made for statements pursuant to rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules, and when these will be ready for calculation. Fourthly, hearing dates and any next steps. And lastly, any other business. In what follows, I intend to explain what the inquiry has been doing and where we are now and set out what is going to happen over the next four months.
In addition to her statement, two legal representatives of groups of abuse survivors also made statements. Scroll down to page 8 of the PDF to read these. David Greenwood makes extensive reference to the case of Matt Ineson.
Bishop Peter Hancock, lead safeguarding bishop for the Church of England said: “We welcome the comments today from Fiona Scolding QC* on the wider church hearing scheduled for July which outlined the focus of the Inquiry. We fully support the emphasis on the present and future of safeguarding in the Church of England which will help with our commitment to make the Church a safer place for all. Miss Scolding QC said the Inquiry will be looking at whether changes being implemented by the Church of England are relevant and purposeful. I believe this part of the Inquiry will be critical in helping us ensure that our safeguarding work is effective and rigorous and that survivors’ and victims’ views are heard. We continue to be committed to working closely with the Inquiry in a constructive and transparent way.”
*Fiona Scolding is the counsel to IICSA for the investigation into the Anglican Church in England and Wales.
IICSA has also published a number of the written closing submissions made at the conclusion of the Peter Ball hearings in July last year. Here are links to some of them, which readers may find interesting despite their length.
Excerpts from the IICSA transcripts from last March [2018] – Fiona Scolding QC questions the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner, Colin Perkins [Safeguarding], Graham Tilby [Safeguarding] and Archbishop Justin Welby
IICSA – March 14 2018 – Page 21 Paras 14-18 – Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Martin Warner: “The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong…
“…we never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell…”
IICSA – March 15 2018 – Colin Perkins
Fiona Scolding QC to Colin Perkins: “Can I ask you now…about the situation in respect of Bishop George Bell…The approach that you have taken may — some people may perceive it as a ‘believe anyone’ approach….”
IICSA – March 20 2018 – Page 98 – Graham Tilby
Fiona Scolding to Graham Tilby: “Do you agree with the conclusion that Lord Carlile reached that you put the reputation of the church as a whole above the untarnished reputation of Bishop Bell?”
Graham Tilby: “I don’t agree with that. I think this was always about trying to come to a process with objectivity. When I arrived, I didn’t actually know who George Bell was, and that’s actually important on one level because that brings an objectivity to the process, but also it is about gathering evidence and making — and forming a judgment based on a balance of probabilities.
Fiona Scolding QC: “One of the points that Lord Carlile makes is that the church didn’t take a good enough account of…George Bell’s reputation. Now, we have heard from several individuals about their views about that. But what he seems to suggest is, you have to start — you know, this was such a Titanic figure that one must assume that his reputation is unblemished and, therefore, that has to be weighed very heavily in the balance. Do you have any response to that?”
Archbishop Welby: “I think the greatest tragedy of all these cases is that people have trusted, very often, those who were locally, in diocesan terms, or nationally Titanic figures, and have then found that they were not worthy of their trust. The fact that someone is a titanic figure doesn’t tell you anything at all, except that they have done remarkable things in one area. It doesn’t tell you about the rest of their lives. And it is not something that we can take into account”
Chair Alexis Jay (leaning forward) – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse – IICSA
March 5 2018 – IICSA Transcript – Monday March 5] Page 129 – Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
“The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong…” ~ The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner –
Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 14 March 2018 – Page 21 Paras 14-18 – The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
If I can just identify that Lord Carlile at 16 paragraphs 267 and 268 of his report — ANG000152, Paul, 17 at page 68, says: 18 “I am sure that the archbishop does not think it 19 appropriate to support the publication of what may be an 20 unjustified and probably irreparable criticism of 21 anyone, whether a celebrated bishop or not.” 22 And at 268: 23 “I regard this as a case, perhaps a relatively rare 24 one, in which steps should and could have been taken to 25 retain full confidentiality, with a clear underlying Page 23 1 basis for explaining why it was done. For Bishop Bell’s 2 reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way 3 that occurred was just wrong.” 4 Do you have any comment you wish to make about that?
5 A. The first comment I would want to make is that, I think 6 we have learnt a painful lesson about the difficulty of 7 communicating through the media a very fine legal 8 nuance, and it’s recognised by Lord Carlile that we 9 never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell, but to 10 communicate that in terms that the general public are 11 going to understand through the media is a very 12 difficult thing to do….
Can I ask you now — I think begin to ask you — about 25 the situation in respect of Bishop George Bell. You Page 184 1 have provided a — you provided some details about it 2 within your first witness statement. But you also have 3 a supplementary statement in which you comment upon your 4 views about the report of Lord Carlile of Berriew. 5 I want to mainly take you, because I will say again, as 6 I have said several times, we are not interested in the 7 truth or otherwise of the allegations concerning 8 George Bell. I also understand from information which 9 has been — which is in the public domain that there is 10 another allegation. I will not be asking you about 11 that.
6 Q. The approach that you have taken may — some people may 7 perceive it as a “believe anyone” approach….
5 MS SCOLDING: I don’t know whether, chair, this might be an 6 appropriate moment to break, because I’m about to start 7 on the response to the Carlile Report which I think will 8 take us past a reasonable hour. So I don’t know whether 9 now might be an appropriate moment?
10 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, 11 Mr Perkins.
12 MS SCOLDING: Don’t forget, Mr Perkins, you are under oath. 13 Thank you. 14 (4.24 pm) 15 (The hearing was adjourned until 16 Friday, 16 March 2018 at 10.00 am)
Fiona Scolding QC – Q. He [Lord Carlile] identifies that one of the other issues is that 24 there wasn’t adequate engagement and involvement of 25 Bishop Bell’s family or people speaking on Bishop Bell’s Page 31 1 behalf. I think you accept that critique, don’t you?
Perkins – 2 A. I accept that critique…
Page 24
15 Q. Was it the situation that there was scant, if any, 16 regard to Bishop Bell’s good character? Because that 17 comes out of this at various other points in his 18 conclusions? Paragraph 56 of Lord Carlile’s conclusion, 19 he says: 20 “… scant, if any, regard to … Bishop Bell’s good 21 character [was paid].” 22 Again, he also argued that there was deliberate 23 destruction of the reputation of George Bell. What do 24 you say to those two things?…
A – Colin Perkins 18 But I am very surprised at the extent to which, 19 certainly throughout the last two and a half years, 20 there have been many calls, and I am concerned that some 21 of those calls have correctly or otherwise perceived 22 a high level of support from within Lord Carlile’s 23 report for the suggestion that a great man such as Bell 24 cannot possibly have also been an abuser. 25 As I outlined in my statement, that runs against Page 26 1 a lot of the evidence that I’m aware of internationally 2 with regards to child sexual offenders within 3 institutions. If I may, I think there’s one other point 4 that I particularly want to make on that, and for me 5 this is quite an important point:Carol gave an 6 interview to the Brighton Argus in February 2016 — 7 sorry, 2014 — no, I’m getting my dates wrong, it was 8 2016, in response to the controversy. In that interview 9 she said, “I know that George Bell was a man of peace, 10 but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do these things to me”. 11 It always struck me as very powerful that, of all of 12 the people in this narrative, she has managed to keep 13 the balance and she has managed to articulate very 14 powerfully that it’s possible that he was both.
15 Q. I think at paragraph 70 of your witness statement you 16 identify some research that the NSPCC did in educational 17 settings which often found that those who sexually 18 abused students are often the most competent and popular 19 of staff and are often — I think the word used by the 20 NSPCC is “adored”?
21 A. Yes. The evidence — much of the evidence this inquiry 22 has heard, much of the academic evidence throughout the 23 world, suggests, again, going back to Nigel Speight’s 24 quote, that people find it extremely difficult to 25 believe that especially their admired leaders, or Page 27 1 admired teachers within that educational setting, 2 sometimes the teachers that are the most popular could 3 also be guilty of abuse. We know that’s worldwide 4 research…. Day 10 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 16 March 2018
Page 29 1 Q. He also recommends, Lord Carlile, at paragraph 170, that 2 there should have been specialist criminal law advice 3 provided to the group. What’s your view about that?
Day 10 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 16 March 2018
9 (Pages 33 to 36) Page 33 1 Q. Of course, the issues of vicarious liability have 2 changed markedly over the past 10 years in respect of 3 cases of sexual violence against individuals? 4 A. Exactly. 5 Q. To make them a lot more generous than they were, shall 6 I put it that way? 7 A. Yes. But, as I say, the very fact that we had an 8 extensive discussion suggests that that — the point of 9 limitation was fully understood. That is certainly the 10 case: it was fully understood. 11 Q. Non-disclosure agreement. The other significant 12 criticism that Lord Carlile makes is, why wasn’t there 13 a confidentiality agreement put to this in order to 14 avoid what he considers to be unfair besmirching of 15 Bishop Bell’s reputation. I mean, that’s probably 16 putting it slightly higher than Lord Carlile puts it in 17 his report, so I’m slightly overegging that, but he 18 considers that it’s unfair. I think the church has 19 responded and said, “We think it was right that there 20 wasn’t a non-confidentiality agreement and we don’t 21 agree to — confidentiality agreements, I think, rather 22 than non-confidentiality agreements — think about NDA, 23 the US word for them. What’s your view about that, if 24 you have any?
25 A. As you said, the church has already rejected that Page 34 1 proposal. I was very glad to see that. As you said, 2 I’m not a lawyer, so I possibly shouldn’t stray into 3 this, but my understanding of — 4 Q. Well, from the perspective of somebody — you’ve 5 identified that you started this process trying to work 6 from the perspective of providing compassionate support 7 to victims and survivors? 8 A. Exactly. 9 Q. From that perspective, that’s your view? 10 A. From that perspective, my understanding of 11 Lord Carlile’s recommendation with regards to the 12 non-disclosure agreement or the confidentiality 13 agreement, he also suggests — my understanding of his 14 report is — that we should have settled the claim 15 with — 16 Q. Sort of no admission of liability? 17 A. No admission of liability. From my point of view, from 18 the perspective you just described, that would have 19 effectively been saying, “We are not accepting your 20 claim. We are not going to apologise. We are going to 21 perhaps provide some monetary settlement and we are 22 going to require you to sign a non-disclosure 23 agreement”. That is exactly the opposite of where 24 I think the church should be on this issue, from my 25 perspective. Page 35
1 Q. Can we now — that’s been very helpful, and I think we 2 have got a very clear view from you of your critique of 3 that, which I know you were very clear that you wanted 4 to give to this inquiry. 5 Can we now turn to the more mundane topic, or maybe 6 more exciting topic, of what you actually do on 7 a day-to-day basis?….
March 19 2018 – IICSA Reflections – Richard W. Symonds
CORRECTION
I stand corrected on the Argus dates – my apologies:
The Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood reported this on February 3 2016:
“Because he did good things, they automatically assume that he couldn’t do anything wrong, which was rather hurtful because a lot of men who have done good things have also done very evil things. He might be a man of peace but that doesn’t take away the fact of what he did to me,” said the woman, using the pseudonym ‘Carol’.
I confused this quote above with the quote made by ‘Carol’ on December 16 2017:
“He (Lord Carlile) can say Bishop Bell wouldn’t be found guilty, it doesn’t change the facts”
But neither quote helps the Diocesan Safeguarder Colin Perkins. It just confirms he might be seriously mistaken about the “balance” of ‘Carol’.
Also, Mr Perkins shows a serious lack of understanding of False Memory Syndrome (FMS) – “One of the features is that over a period of time – in this case a considerable time – the false accuser has convinced herself that her memory was correct”
Personally, I have little to no doubt ‘Carol’ was sexually abused. What I seriously doubt is that it was Bishop Bell. In other words, a case of mistaken identity.
‘Carol’ is an unreliable witness, and for Colin Perkins to put such faith in her recollections is not just seriously unprofessional for someone in his position, it is also seriously misplaced.
~ Richard W. Symonds
March 20 2018 – Peter Hitchens – The Mail on Sunday – March 18“The Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, admitted last week it had been a mistake not to give the late Bishop George Bell a defending counsel at the kangaroo court which wrongly convicted him of child abuse. When will he admit that he has made a similar mistake by refusing to allow Bell’s niece, Barbara Whitley, to pick a lawyer to defend him against the mysterious second allegation now levelled against him in secret? Too late, for sure”
and at the heart of this has to be justice, and justice is a very, very difficult thing to find, as you know much better than I do, but we have to have a system that delivers justice. That is so important. And if it doesn’t, it’s not good enough.
Fiona Scolding QC
Page 123 [Paras 14-25] Page 124 [Paras 1-8]
Q. One of the points that Lord Carlile makes is that the church didn’t take a good enough account of…George Bell’s reputation. Now, we have heard from several individuals about their views about that. But what he seems to suggest is, you have to start — you know, this was such a Titanic figure that one must assume that his reputation is unblemished and, therefore, that has to be weighed very heavily in the balance. Do you have any response to that?
A. “I think the greatest tragedy of all these cases is that people have trusted, very often, those who were locally, in diocesan terms, or nationally Titanic figures, and have then found that they were not worthy of their trust. The fact that someone is a titanic figure doesn’t tell you anything at all, except that they have done remarkable things in one area. It doesn’t tell you about the rest of their lives. And it is not something that we can take into account” – Archbishop Justin Welby
“‘If Bishop Bell’s good reputation ‘is not something that we (The Church of England) can take into account’, then the Church of England [and Archbishop Welby as its leader] are breaking the law. As Lord Carlile has said, taking someone’s good reputation into account “is the law. In criminal cases especially, but also in civil cases, where the character of an alleged perpetrator is impugned by the allegation made, the court takes into account evidence of his good character. It does not mean that he can do no wrong. It is a factor to be weighed in the balance”‘
In 1961, Michael Ramsey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, went to Chichester Cathedral to dedicate the newly-rebuilt Arundel Screen, in memory of George Bell (1883-1958), one of the most outstanding Bishops of Chichester. (And, in my book, and in that of the 2000+ who signed a Petition to have his name cleared and his greatness reinstated, a Bishop forever to be remembered.)
In 2008, on another equally special occasion, the recently-retired Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, visited Chichester to declare open George Bell House.
Two of Bishop Rowan’s special guests were Mother Angela and Sister Jane, two Anglican Sisters. (see photo to the right)
Why am I telling you this?
Now we go back in time again, to 2003. when a small package arrived in the post. It contained an exercise book crammed with small handwriting, accompanied by pony-camera photographs which had been glued tightly into the book. A note read: ‘Would you like to publish my story ? Sister Jane.’
I went on to read a beautiful, heart-warming account of an Anglican Community’s life and the devoted but joyful way the Sisters lived it. And of course I published it.
SURPRISED BY JOY A History of the Community of the Servants of the Cross This is a beautiful, heart-warming account . On the back cover, I quoted from the Rt Rev’d Eric Kemp, Bishop of Chichester, 1974-2000, and the Community’s Episcopal Visitor:
…an admirable and encouraging story. I have known the Community since 1974. It has given long years of faithful service to the church, in various ways. The Sisters have been faithful to their calling, through many changes forced upon them by circumstances.
The other Arundel connection? In February, 2014, Rowan Williams, now known more correctly as The Rt Revd Dr and Rt Hon Baron Williams of Oystermouth, made a two-day, unforgettable visit to our Parish and Priory Church of St Nicholas.
He gave the second in the church’s ‘Poetry and Faith’ series, this time on Dylan Thomas, illustrated with readings of his poems. Next day, he celebrated and preached the sermon at the 10 am Eucharist Service.
Needless to say, the church was packed on both days, and a great many people some, we had never seen before, (but hope to see again) had the opportunity to listen, learn, and thoroughly enjoy what the erudite but engaging Bishop said, with such charm and humour. Our Vicar, David Farrer (also a Bishop!) commented to me in an email, after the weekend, that ‘the humble humanity of the man shines through’. That said it exactly!
Sadly, both Mother Angela and Sister Jane are no longer with us. Following Angela’s death, Jane’s Requiem Eucharist took place at The Church of St Mary the Virgin, in the Parish of East Preston and Kingston, on Friday, 13 February, 2015. The Celebrant was Bishop Martin Warner, the last Episcopal Visitor to the Community of the Servants of the Cross. It was a most moving occasion, for all the many of us present.
~ Sandra Saer
Jan 19 2019 – From The Archives [Oct 8 2008 – Chichester Cathedral’s 900th Anniversary and Bishop Bell’s 50th Anniversary + George Bell House opened by Archbishop Rowan Williams]
Jan 19 2019 – From The Archives [Oct 8 2008 – Unveiling of Howard Coster’s ‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph – with Plaque [in storage within the private Cathedral Library]]
The Small Plaque reads….
‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral’s Private Library]
“There is a determination – a resolve – to ensure the Briden Report findings are released in full [not just in summary form]. The Church promised the IICSA full transparency. All we are asking the Church is to show integrity by making good that promise. The Briden Report should be released in full”
Rebuilding a bridge is a delicate, and at times hazardous, undertaking. Repairing a bridge over troubled waters is not a task for the faint-hearted. The issues around Bishop Bell are complex, but the intention of the Church Authorities is straightforward: to come out appearing in the best possible light.
On a trajectory intending to reverse the decades of harm the C of E inflicted by indifference and denial concerning sexual abuse, the result is that the balanceis tilted too far towards favouring claimants. The policy of the NST [National Safeguarding Team], that allegations will be believed and accepted without evidence, has had catastrophic consequences.
The sequence of decisions leading to settling ‘Carol’s’ claim has entrenched the NST into a position from which it is difficult to back track. It is tragic to have reached this point, which could have been avoided, by a more fair–minded approach from the NST.
Memories of a child, reported after a time lapse of over four decades. are NOT facts. However, I think that ‘Carol’s’ uncorroboratedmemories have a kernel of truth in them. Believing her account in its entirety is unsafe, as there is too great margin of error to uphold such a serious matter as destroying the reputation of Bishop Bell.
Reconstruction of childhood events over a long passage of time are viewed through the lens of subsequent life experiences. ‘Carol’ – or anyone looking back on their childhood many decades ago – has‘anchor points’ for memory reconstruction that are highly subjective. Working with children for many years, I have seen children easily get confused about the hierarchy of who is in charge. It is common error to ascribe the lead person associated with a place, or institution, with other adults. What I mean is, ‘Carol’ may have thought a man was a Bishop because she came across him in the Bishop’s house. With this hypothesis, a random cleric would not even have deliberately feigned to be Bishop Bell, but have assumed that character in the mind of Carol. This theory maintains ‘Carol’s’ credibility, and her personal truth as she understands it.
Having raised this hypothesis with Richard Symonds, he put me in touch with Geoffrey Boys, whose account is compelling concerning mistaken identity. Mr Boys has given evidence to the Core Group which I understand is in the Briden report…
The NST maintain they place a high priority on transparency but do not conduct themselves with transparency. The following statement by Colin Perkins demonstrates this.
“From my point of view, from the perspective you just described, that would have effectively been saying, ‘We are not accepting your claim. We are not going to apologise. We are going to perhaps provide some monetary settlement and we are going to require you to sign a non-disclosure agreement’. That is exactly the opposite of where I think the church should be on this issue” [ IICSA Transcript – March 16 – Page 30]
There was a simple solution by stating, ‘We have heard the claimant’s story and believe she has suffered abuse. We admit admission of liability and apologise, but we cannot determine the identity of the abuser. We have made a settlement on this basis and wish to maintain the reputation of Bishop Bell.We have nothing to hide.’ The NST just needed to come clean about saying as it is; there are no facts, but they compensated Carol because they believe she was abused, albeit without proof of by whom.
The historian Herodotus, 2500 years ago, observed that of all rites performedby humans, those concerning the dead are most sacrosanct. This holds true for all people throughout all ages. I was shocked that Archbishop Welby, as head of our national church, has it within him to hurt Bishop Bell’s legacy so grievously (statement dated 22.1.2018.) A person’s worth does not diminish by death, unless you are the Archbishop of Canterbury and you feel empowered to say what you like about the dead. Defaming George Bell, without evidence, reverses the universal value in all cultures and faiths of honouring forefathers – which is one of the defining features of humanity
Archbishop Welby: “I think the greatest tragedy of all these cases is that people have trusted, very often, those who were locally, in diocesan terms, or nationally Titanic figures, and have then found that they were not worthy of their trust. The fact that someone is a titanic figure doesn’t tell you anything at all, except that they have done remarkable things in one area. It doesn’t tell you about the rest of their lives. And it is not something that we can take into account” [IICSA Transcript – Wednesday March 21]
The Archbishop is entitled to his opinion, even if it is controversial and incongruent with many within the church. But his words are not backed by investigating the facts. IF the Archbishop had invited he historian, Andrew Chandler, (author of Bell’s biography 2016) to the Core Group and IF there was legal representation of Bishop Bell’s family (whom the Core Group failed to trace), then the Archbishop could claim some validity to his statement. However, the lack of representation on behalf of George Belland his niece Mrs BarbaraWhitley,demonstrates that Archbishop Welby has no authentic understanding of the man he demolishes. His rigorous dismissal of the collective wisdom of the scholars and theologians who have written open letters to the Archbishop (letters 16/17/24.1.2018) suggest reckless defamation. I am reluctant to criticise the Archbishop, but he has side-stepped fully examining George Bell’s life.
In conclusion, I do not want to be angry or sad, but to celebrate the life of Bishop Bell, despite the efforts of Archbishop Welby and the NST to destroy his legacy. The case of Cliff Richard displays how disproportionally empowering claimants has caused deep trauma. Thankfully Sir Cliffhas been fully cleared of abuse, but the toll on his physical and mental health has been very high. The Archbishop’s statements about George Bell are spoken with the authority of his role, but entitlement does not equate withtruth and justice.
Publication of Bishop George Bell independent review
15/12/2017
The Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team (NST,) has today published the key findings and recommendations, along with the full report, from the independent review into the processes used in the Bishop George Bell case.
The review, commissioned by the NST on the recommendation of the Bishop of Chichester, was carried out by Lord Carlile of Berriew. As he writes in the introduction, his purpose was not to determine the truthfulness of the woman referred to as Carol in the report, nor the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell, but to examine the procedures followed by the Church of England. The objectives of the review included “ensuring that survivors are listened to and taken seriously”, and that recommendations are made to help the Church embed best practice in safeguarding in the future.
The report made 15 recommendations and concluded that the Church acted throughout in good faith while highlighting that the process was deficient in a number of respects.
Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop, has responded on behalf of the Church:
“We are enormously grateful to Lord Carlile for this ‘lessons learned’ review which examines how the Church handled the allegations made by Carol in the 1990s, and more recently. Lord Carlile makes a number of considered points as to how to handle such cases in future and we accept the main thrust of his recommendations.
“In responding to the report, we first want to acknowledge and publicly apologise again for the Church’s lamentable failure, as noted by Lord Carlile, to handle the case properly in 1995.
“At the heart of this case was a judgement, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether, in the event that her claim for compensation reached trial, a court would have concluded that Carol was abused by Bishop Bell. The Church decided to compensate Carol, to apologise and to be open about the case.
“Lord Carlile states that ‘where as in this case the settlement is without admission of liability, the settlement generally should be with a confidentiality provision” but respectfully, we differ from that judgement. The Church is committed to transparency. We would look at each case on its merits but generally would seek to avoid confidentiality clauses.
“It is clear from the report, however, that our processes were deficient in a number of respects, in particular the process for seeking to establish what may have happened. For that we apologise. Lessons can and have been learnt about how we could have managed the process better.
“The Bishop Bell case is a complex one and it is clear from the report and minutes of Core Group meetings that much professional care and discussion were taken over both agreeing the settlement with Carol and the decision to make this public. As Lord Carlile’s report makes clear, we acted in good faith throughout with no calculated intention to damage George Bell’s reputation.
“The Church has always affirmed and treasured Bishop Bell’s principled stand in the Second World War and his contribution to peace remains extraordinary. At same time, we have a duty and commitment to listen to those reporting abuse, to guard their confidentiality, and to protect their interests.
“We recognise that Carol has suffered pain, as have surviving relatives of Bishop Bell. We are sorry that the Church has added to that pain through its handling of this case.”
Statement from Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner
“Lord Carlile’s Independent Review is a demonstration of the Church of England’s commitment to equality of justice and transparency in our safeguarding practice. The diocese of Chichester requested this “lessons learned” Review.
“We welcome Lord Carlile’s assessment of our processes, and apologise for failures in the work of the Core Group of national and diocesan officers and its inadequate attention to the rights of those who are dead. We also accept the Report’s recognition that we acted in good faith, and improvements to Core Group protocols are already in place. Further work on them is in hand.
“The Report demands further consideration of the complexities of this case, such as what boundaries can be set to the principle of transparency. Lord Carlile rightly draws our attention to public perception. The emotive principle of innocent until proven guilty is a standard by which our actions are judged and we have to ensure as best we can that justice is seen to be done. Irrespective of whether she is technically a complainant, survivor, or victim, ‘Carol’ emerges from this report as a person of dignity and integrity. It is essential that her right to privacy continues to be fully respected.
“The good deeds that Bishop George Bell did were recognised internationally. They will stand the test of time. In every other respect, we have all been diminished by the case that Lord Carlile has reviewed.”
Statement from Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby
“Bishop George Bell is one of the great Anglican heroes of the 20th century. The decision to publish his name was taken with immense reluctance, and all involved recognised the deep tragedy involved. However we have to differ from Lord Carlile’s point that ‘where as in this case the settlement is without admission of liability, the settlement generally should be with a confidentiality provision”. The C of E is committed to transparency and therefore we would take a different approach.
“Lord Carlile does not seek to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the acts about which the complaint was made. He does make significant comments on our processes, and we accept that improvement is necessary, in all cases including those where the person complained about is dead. We are utterly committed to seeking to ensure just outcomes for all. We apologise for the failures of the process.
“The complaint about Bishop Bell does not diminish the importance of his great achievement. We realise that a significant cloud is left over his name. Let us therefore remember his defence of Jewish victims of persecution, his moral stand against indiscriminate bombing, his personal risks in the cause of supporting the anti Hitler resistance, and his long service in the Diocese of Chichester. No human being is entirely good or bad. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. Good acts do not diminish evil ones, nor do evil ones make it right to forget the good. Whatever is thought about the accusations, the whole person and whole life should be kept in mind.”
Following a letter sent to Lambeth Palace and also to the Telegraph newspaper by a group of academics, I felt it important to send a considered, personal response and this statement reflects the essence of my reply. I cannot with integrity rescind my statement https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/publication-bishop-george-bell-independent-review made after the publication of Lord Carlile’s review into how the Church handled the Bishop Bell case. I affirmed the extraordinary courage and achievement of Bishop Bell both before the war and during its course, while noting the Church has a duty to take seriously the allegation made against him.
Our history over the last 70 years has revealed that the Church covered up, ignored or denied the reality of abuse on major occasions. I need only refer to the issues relating to Peter Ball to show an example. As a result, the Church is rightly facing intense and concentrated scrutiny (focussed in part on the Diocese of Chichester) through the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Our first hearing is in March.
The Diocese of Chichester was given legal advice to make a settlement based on the civil standard of proof, the balance of probability. It was not alleged that Bishop Bell was found to have abused on the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. The two standards should not be confused. It should be remembered that Carol, who brought the allegation, was sent away in 1995, and we have since apologised for this lamentable failure; a failure highlighted by Lord Carlile.
I wrote my response with the support of both Bishop Peter Hancock, the lead bishop for safeguarding, and Bishop Martin Warner, the Bishop of Chichester. We are clear that we accept all but part of one of the recommendations Lord Carlile makes and we are extremely grateful to him for what he has done and the help he has given the Church.
He indicates that in his judgement, a better way to have handled the allegation would have been for the Church to offer money on condition of confidentiality. We disagree with this suggestion. The confidentiality would have been exposed through the IICSA process, and the first question we would have faced, both about Bishop Bell and more widely, would have been ‘so what else are you concealing?’. The letter from the historians does not take into account any of these realities, nor the past failures of the Church. But we will go on considering how we can make our processes better and more robust, as pointed out by Lord Carlile.
As in the case of Peter Ball, and others, it is often suggested that what is being alleged could not have been true, because the person writing knew the alleged abuser and is absolutely certain that it was impossible for them to have done what is alleged. As with Peter Ball this sometimes turns out to be untrue, not through their own fault or deceit but because abuse is often kept very secret. The experience of discovering feet of clay in more than one person I held in profound respect has been personally tragic. But as I said strongly in my original statement the complaint about Bishop Bell does not diminish the importance of his great achievements and he is one of the great Anglican heroes of the 20th Century
Ahead of what it is hoped will be the end to a long and bitter battle between the Church of England and the family and supporters of one of its most revered bishops, Justin Welby said that the tackling of sex abuse cases has been the churches “greatest failure” since the second world war.
An independent review of the handling of the case by Lord Carlile, which was released in 2017, found that Bishop Bell had been besmirched by the church two years earlier when officials released a statement formally apologising over allegations of abuse made by a woman who is now in her seventies.
On Thursday the church will release the findings of their National Safeguarding Team into “fresh information” which came to light after review was published.
The Archbishop has written to Bishop Bell’s surviving relative ahead of the release of the report, the Telegraph understands.
The findings of the review have remained a closely guarded secret, but supporters have said that they are hopeful that it will restore the good name of Bishop Bell, who died in 1958.
Talking about the case to the Spectator ahead of the publication of the report, the Archbishop said: “It has been a very, very painful process. Not least because Bishop Bell was — is — one of my great heroes. Probably the greatest failure of the C of E since the second world war has been our failure to deal adequately with disclosures of abuse. When I came into this role, I didn’t have any idea how bad it was.”
He admitted that “we have not found a way of caring for those who have been accused or complained against — or their families.”
Frank Field, the Labour MP who has been part of the fight to clear the bishop’s name, said: “I hope that the report brings the whole sorry affair to a good-ish end.
“I would hope that they have now decided it is totally proper to restore the man’s great name and I would hope that a statement from the Archbishop will be followed by the reversal of a series of other changes which were made on the basis that the allegations could be true.”
In the wake of the church naming Bishop Bell as an abuser a school in Chichester and rooms in the cathedral were among the places to be stripped of his name.
A statue celebrating his work in helping rescue Jewish children from Germany during the Second World War which has been planned for Canterbury Cathedral was also scrapped.
Perhaps one of the most famous Anglican bridge-builders was George Bell, who as Bishop of Chichester sought to unite churches against the Nazis. Six years ago, a woman said she was molested by Bishop Bell as a child. Given that he died in 1958, investigation was difficult but the church still issued an apology and compensation. This soon led to an outcry and complaints that Bishop Bell’s name had been besmirched without any proof. Many Anglicans blame the Archbishop himself for mishandling it all.
‘It has been a very, very painful process,’ he says. ‘Not least because Bishop Bell was — is — one of my great heroes.’ He sees the fiasco over the investigation as part of a far wider problem. ‘Probably the greatest failure of the C of E since the second world war has been our failure to deal adequately with disclosures of abuse. When I came into this role, I didn’t have any idea how bad it was.’
At the time, he says, he had just one person working half-time for the Church of England, nationally. ‘Our budget nationally was £50,000 a year, £100,000 a year, or something like that. It’s now about £7 million. I am still very uncomfortable with the system. I think it is slow. We have not yet found the proper way of dealing properly with complainants and taking them seriously, listening to them, not telling them to shut up and go away, which is what we did for decades. Which was evil. It’s more than just a wrong thing: it’s a deeply evil act. At the same time we have not found a way of caring for those who have been accused or complained against — or their families.’ Bishop Bell, he says, is the ‘pre-eminent case’ that shows how the church didn’t ‘do it right’.
Sussex police took a few weeks to investigate and dismiss the case against Bishop Bell. The C of E’s investigation has taken two years so far. Can’t he speed things up? ‘I can’t, because it’s independent. That would be interfering.’ And the church buildings where Bishop Bell’s name has been removed? ‘I understand why people did that, in the present atmosphere. We’ve got to find a proper way of acting promptly and doing justice and we haven’t found that yet.’
A ruling by Timothy Briden, a senior ecclesiastical lawyer, relating to fresh information received about the late Bishop George Bell, has been published today. Mr Briden was appointed by the Bishop of Chichester to make an independent assessment of the evidence that had been brought before the core group, the Church’s response to any safeguarding situation…
…The core group took the view that there were no safeguarding issues arising out of the fresh information and Mr Briden concluded that the allegations presented to him were unfounded.
Lessons have already been learnt from this case and we have apologised for mistakes made in our processes. Both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chichester have released their own statements.
I apologise unreservedly for the mistakes made in the process surrounding the handling of the original allegation against Bishop George Bell. The reputation of Bishop Bell is significant, and I am clear that his memory and the work he did is of as much importance to the Church today as it was in the past. I recognise this has been an extremely difficult period for all concerned and I apologise equally to all those who have come forward and shared stories of abuse where we have not responded well.
An allegation against the late Bishop George Bell, originally brought in 1995, was made again in 2013 in the context of a growing awareness of how institutions respond to safeguarding cases. A review carried out by Lord Carlile into how the Church of England handled the case concerning Bishop Bell made a significant number of recommendations, and the Church of England accepted almost all of these.
At the end of 2017 several people came forward with further, fresh information following the Carlile review, and after a thorough, independent investigation, nothing of substance has been added to what has previously been alleged. A statement from the National Safeguarding Team explains the processes involved in reaching this latest decision more fully…
…The Carlile report, and this subsequent investigation, have however shown how much we have had to learn about dealing with cases from the distant past. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has already questioned the Church over its response to the Bishop Bell case and the review by Lord Carlile. We expect that their report on our two hearings – to be published later this year – will address further the complex issues that have been raised and will result in a more informed, confident and sensitive handling of allegations of abuse in the future. We have learned much about what makes for better process and continue to do so.
In particular, we have learned that the boundaries of doubt and certainty have to be stated with great care, that the dead and those who are related to them have a right to be represented, and that there must be a balanced assessment of the extent to which it would be in the public interest to announce the details of any allegation.
It became obvious that a more thorough investigation must be made before any public announcement can be considered and that the level of investigation typically undertaken for settlement of a civil claim is not adequate to justify an announcement. It is now clear that if an announcement about any other person is to be made, it must not imply certainty when we cannot be certain. We have also now understood much more besides, in particular about the trust that people place in us and their legitimate expectations of us as guardians of the inheritance of faith.
We recognise the hurt that has been done to all who have been directly involved, including the family of George Bell and those who continue to respect his achievements, as a result of the areas where we have fallen short. We apologise profoundly and sincerely for our shortcomings in this regard. The responsibility for this is a shared one, as are the lessons learnt from it…
The Archbishop of Canterbury has apologised ‘unreservedly’ after an inquiry into allegations against Bishop George Bell found them unproven.
Bell (1883-1958), whose wartime work led to him being regarded as a hero by many Anglicans, was accused of sexually abusing a child during the 1940s when ‘Carol’ approached the office of Justin Welby in 2013. The Diocese of Chichester paid compensation to her and the Bishop of Chichester issued a formal apology.
Courtesy of Jimmy James – Bishop George Bell
However, supporters of Bell argued the evidence against him was too slender. A subsequent investigation of the Church’s handling of the issue by QC Alex Carlile found it had ‘rushed to judgment’ and had ‘failed to engage in a process which would also give proper consideration to the rights of the bishop’.
Welby rejected calls to state unequivocally that Bell was not guilty and in January last year the Church’s national safeguarding team said it had passed ‘fresh information’ to Sussex Police regarding Bell in a move that was widely criticised.
Now, however, an investigation by ecclesiastical lawyer Timothy Briden has concluded that allegations against Bell subsequent to Carol’s – which he was not asked to consider – were unfounded. Among them were that Bell abused another child, ‘Alison’, whose evidence was ‘unverified by independent sources and her account being unreliable’, and ‘witness K’, who said his mother had seen Bell engaging in sexual activity in his old age over a motor car. Briden described the ‘hearsay’ account as being ‘inherently unconvincing and without corroboration’.
In a statement, Welby said: ‘The Church’s dilemma has been to weigh up the reputation of a highly esteemed bishop who died over 60 years ago alongside a serious allegation. We did not manage our response to the original allegation with the consistency, clarity or accountability that meets the high standards rightly demanded of us.
‘I recognise the hurt that has been done as a consequence. This was especially painful for Bishop Bell’s surviving relatives, colleagues and supporters, and to the vast number of people who looked up to him as a remarkable role model, not only in the Diocese of Chichester but across the United Kingdom and globally. I apologise profoundly and unconditionally for the hurt caused to these people by the failures in parts of the process and take responsibility for this failure.’
However, he said it was ‘still the case that there is a woman who came forward with a serious allegation relating to an historic case of abuse and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet. We need to care for her and listen to her voice.’
Welby said: ‘This very difficult issue therefore leaves the church with an impossible dilemma which I hope people with different perspectives on it will try to understand.’
He concluded: ‘Finally, I want to make it very clear that Bishop George Bell is one of the most important figures in the history of the Church of England in the 20th century and his legacy is undoubted and must be upheld. His prophetic work for peace and his relationship with Dietrich Bonhoeffer are only two of the many ways in which his legacy is of great significance to us in the Church and we must go on learning from what he has given to us. I hope that ways will be found to underline his legacy and share the learning from his life with future generations.’
A statement from the Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, said the diocese apologised ‘profoundly and sincerely’ for its shortcomings. It said that ‘we have learned that the boundaries of doubt and certainty have to be stated with great care, that the dead and those who are related to them have a right to be represented, and that there must be a balanced assessment of the extent to which it would be in the public interest to announce the details of any allegation.’
‘It is now clear that if an announcement about any other person is to be made, it must not imply certainty when we cannot be certain. We have also now understood much more besides, in particular about the trust that people place in us and their legitimate expectations of us as guardians of the inheritance of faith,’ the statement said.
It concluded: ‘We have all been diminished by this case. The legitimate quest for certainty has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved.
‘We ask those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognize the strength of each other’s commitment to justice and compassion. Moreover, we continue to believe that the good things that George Bell did in his life will stand the test of time. His prophetic work for peace and his relationship with Dietrich Bonhoeffer are only two of the many ways in which his legacy will go on being of great significance to us in the Church and we hope and pray we can go on learning from what he has given to us.’
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is expected to address the Bishop Bell case as part of its report later this year.
THE Archbishop of Canterbury has apologised for “mistakes” made in the handling of an allegation of sexual abuse against a former Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, after an independent investigation concluded that fresh allegations of sexual abuse were unfounded.
Evidence from at least two claimants and statements from the family of Bishop Bell, who died in 1958, were gathered by Detective Superintendent Roy Galloway, and assessed by an ecclesiastical lawyer, Chancellor Timothy Briden, Vicar-General of the Province of Canterbury, who carried out two hearings last July and October.
Chancellor Briden concludes in his report, published on Thursday, that the new allegations were “inconsistent”, “inaccurate”, “unconvincing”, or, in some instances, amounted to “mere rumour”.
This included the evidence of a complainant known as “Alison” (not her real name), who wrote to the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, claiming that Bishop Bell had “fondled her” when she had sat on his lap, aged nine, in the 1940s. In her oral evidence, the report says: “Her attempts to repeat what had been written in the letter displayed, however, a disturbing degree of inconsistency.”
Mr Briden continues: “I am satisfied that Alison has not made her complaint for financial reasons, not as a piece of mischief-making. Her desire has been to support Carol.”
Another 80-year-old witness — named as “K” in the report — said that his mother had told him that she had seen Bishop Bell “carrying out a sexual act with a man over his Rolls Royce” in 1967. Bishop Bell died in 1958. Apart from this inaccuracy, the report states: “The longer that the statement from K’s mother is analysed, the more implausible it appears.”
The allegations surfaced after the publication of a review conducted by Lord Carlile of the Church of England’s handling of an allegation of sexual abuse against Bishop Bell by a woman known as “Carol” (News, 22 December 2017). The diocese of Chichester had apologised and reached a settlement with Carol two years previously (News, 23 October 2015).
The Carlile review concluded, however, that the Church had “rushed to judgement” when it said that Bishop Bell was responsible for serious abuse. It had also failed in its response to Carol’s original complaint in 1995, and in 2013 when she had written to Archbishop Welby.
The Carlile review triggered fresh allegations, and an investigation was commissioned by Dr Warner in January of last year “in the spirit” of the Carlile review. This was confirmed at the time in a statement from the Church’s National Safeguarding Team, led by Graham Tilby — the “core group” in the Briden ruling.
Questioned during a press briefing on Thursday about the decision to publicise these allegations after the Carlile review had advised against this, a Church House spokesman said that the review had resulted in the raising of “difficult questions” by General Synod members about the handling of allegations against Bishop Bell and the subsequent damage to his reputation.
“Those questions would have been difficult to answer; we did not want to mislead the Synod.”
The Church regretted the “unfortunate timing” of the publication of the review before the February Synod meeting, he said, but it had not been a “conspiracy. It was simply the way events unfolded.” He continued: “The previous matter [allegations made by Carol] were in the public domain. I cannot see how we could have covered up a further investigation [into fresh allegations].”
The spokesman also expressed regret over the handling of Carol’s case (including her feeling of being “besieged” by defenders of Bishop Bell), and the public statement made in 2015 after the settlement was reached. “The statement we made was not sufficiently clear — the level of certainty does not exist to say that either Bishop Bell is not a paedophile or that Carol’s allegations against him are unfounded.”
This was reiterated by Dr Warner in his statement on Thursday: “We have learned that the boundaries of doubt and certainty have to be stated with great care, that the dead and those who are related to them have a right to be represented, and that there must be a balanced assessment of the extent to which it would be in the public interest to announce details of any allegation.
“It became obvious that a more thorough investigation must be made before any public announcement can be considered, and that the level of investigation typically undertaken for settlement of a civil claim is not adequate to justify an announcement. It is now clear that, if an announcement about any person is to be made, it must not imply certainty when we cannot be certain.”
OTHER STORIES
C of E rejects Carlile recommendation regarding naming of alleged abusers
THE Church of England’s safeguarding team has already rejected the key recommendation made in the critical independent review of the Church handling of the George Bell abuse allegations
Archbishop Welby said after the Carlile review that “a significant cloud” had been left over the name of Bishop Bell. In his statement on Thursday, however, besides confirming that “nothing of substance” had been added to previous allegations, the Archbishop reiterated that “[Bishop Bell’s] legacy is undoubted and must be upheld.”
He said: “The reputation of Bishop Bell is significant, and I am clear that his memory and the work he did is as of much importance to the Church today as it was in the past. . . I hope that ways will be found to underline his legacy and share the learning from his life with future generations.”
The spokesman for Church House suggested that Chichester Cathedral might “review” its decision to remove Bishop Bell’s name from its grant scheme. It was up to individual institutions to decide whether to reinstate his name on buildings, however. Resignations in the Church over the handling of the case would be “a matter of conscience”.
The Church was to produce further guidance on handling posthumous allegations, he said, and was “keen to hear” the conclusions of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), which is due to produce its final report on the Anglican investigation after the final hearing in July (News, 18 January).
Archbishop Welby apologised “unreservedly and profoundly” for the hurt caused to the surviving “family, colleagues, and supporters” of Bishop Bell for the failures of the Church in handling the allegations. “However, it is still the case that there is a woman who came forward with a serious allegation relating to an historic case of abuse, and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet. We need to care for her and listen to her voice.”
In an interview with TheSpectatorpublished on Thursday, the Archbishop said: “‘It has been a very, very painful process. Not least because Bishop Bell was — is — one of my great heroes.”
Dr Warner also apologised for “how damaging and painful” it had been for all involved in this and other cases in his diocese: “The diocese of Chichester has rightly been held to account for its safeguarding failures of the past — shocking and shaming as they were. We hope that the culture of the diocese has changed.” It remained committed to responding with compassion, he said.
Professor Andrew Chandler, Bishop Bell’s biographer, who has been campaigning to clear Bell’s name, said on Thursday evening that the statements “show that they are clinging to the wreckage of their old position as best they can.
“It is simply self-justification, but it does indicate that they will just maintain for the sake of consistency the views that got them into such trouble in the first place.”
He questioned why, in January of last year, the Church had issued a statement and commissioned a second investigation: “What today has really exposed is the ridiculousness of what has been going on, and the foolishness of people who have real power in the Church. . .
“Many people will say that the Church was trying to control, or retrieve control, of the narrative of Lord Carlile, to shut down the critics, and create a doubt in the public mind that Bell might be a serial offender of some kind.
“They have nothing to hide behind now. It looks like a highly calculating, politicised outfit indeed.”
While parts of the Archbishop’s statement were “meaningful, welcome, and appropriate”, the reference to the Church’s “dilemma” in weighing up a reputation against a serious allegation did not exist, Professor Chandler argued.
“There is no dilemma. It is quite extraordinary as part of pastoral practice, let alone legal practice, to maintain that taking somebody seriously involves believing somebody. . . The problem is that the various [church] establishments invested a great deal in this, and it is difficult to climb down. . .
“If they are going to survive in office with any credibility at all, they have to think very hard to win back the trust that has been so inexorably lost.”
The “enormous” damage to Bishop Bell’s reputation had been inflicted by the very people who should have looked after it, Professor Chandler concluded. “The real figure of Bishop Bell has never been involved. His name has just been symbolic of a great social dread, and an established institution has to collude with those things in search of self-justification.”
Full statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury
I apologise unreservedly for the mistakes made in the process surrounding the handling of the original allegation against Bishop George Bell. The reputation of Bishop Bell is significant, and I am clear that his memory and the work he did is of as much importance to the Church today as it was in the past. I recognise this has been an extremely difficult period for all concerned and I apologise equally to all those who have come forward and shared stories of abuse where we have not responded well.
OTHER STORIES
Welby is urged to withdraw George Bell ‘cloud’ statement after Carlile report
THE Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he cannot, with integrity, clear the name of George Bell, the former Bishop of Chichester
An allegation against the late Bishop George Bell, originally brought in 1995, was made again in 2013 in the context of a growing awareness of how institutions respond to safeguarding cases. A review carried out by Lord Carlile into how the Church of England handled the case concerning Bishop Bell made a significant number of recommendations, and the Church of England accepted almost all of these.
At the end of 2017 several people came forward with further, fresh information following the Carlile review, and after a thorough, independent investigation, nothing of substance has been added to what has previously been alleged.
A statement from the National Safeguarding Team explains the processes involved in reaching this latest decision more fully.
The Church’s dilemma has been to weigh up the reputation of a highly esteemed bishop who died over 60 years ago alongside a serious allegation. We did not manage our response to the original allegation with the consistency, clarity or accountability that meets the high standards rightly demanded of us. I recognise the hurt that has been done as a consequence. This was especially painful for Bishop Bell’s surviving relatives, colleagues and supporters, and to the vast number of people who looked up to him as a remarkable role model, not only in the Diocese of Chichester but across the United Kingdom and globally. I apologise profoundly and unconditionally for the hurt caused to these people by the failures in parts of the process and take responsibility for this failure.
However, it is still the case that there is a woman who came forward with a serious allegation relating to an historic case of abuse and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet. We need to care for her and listen to her voice.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has already questioned the Church of England over its response to the Bishop Bell case and the review by Lord Carlile. We expect that their report on our hearings will address further the complex issues that have been raised and will result in a more informed, confident, just and sensitive handling of allegations of abuse by the church in the future. We have apologised, and will continue to do so, for our poor response to those brave enough to come forward, while acknowledging that this will not take away the effects of the abuse.
This very difficult issue therefore leaves the Church with an impossible dilemma which I hope people with different perspectives on it will try to understand.
Finally, I want to make it very clear that Bishop George Bell is one of the most important figures in the history of the Church of England in the 20th century and his legacy is undoubted and must be upheld. His prophetic work for peace and his relationship with Dietrich Bonhoeffer are only two of the many ways in which his legacy is of great significance to us in the Church and we must go on learning from what he has given to us. I hope that ways will be found to underline his legacy and share the learning from his life with future generations.
One cannot believe in the probity of an organisation or institution that fails such a vital test and core value of innocent until proved guilty.
Perhaps the greatest shock in reading Timothy Briden’s report is the extent to which the additional accusations raised by people other than Carol, were so evidently suspicious at first sight, and became transparently false on further sensible investigation.
One witness has his mother saying to him (hearsay of course) that she interrupted Bishop Bell having energetic sexual intercourse with another man over the bonnet of a large rolls Royce in the garage after she answered a telephone call for the bishop and went looking for him.
Not only had the bishop been dead for 9 years (until he later revised the date on being told that) but the bishop at the revised date would have been 72, and in rather frail health. His capacity for engaging in energetic sodomy over the bonnet of a Roll Royce (which he didn’t in fact own) was as unlikely as someone other than a secretary or chaplain answering the phone and then looking for the bishop in the garage.
Briden concludes rather pithily “Bishop Bell was physically incapable of the misconduct attributed to him.” (31).
A woman named ‘Alison’ also accuses Bishop Bell of interfering with her sexually while purportedly sitting on his knee. The difficulty with her evidence 70 years after the event was that she wandered off at tangents, self-contradicted, and crucially when asked if she really had been touched in the crotch replied “..it was round my tummy and I suppose sort of in my crotch, but that’s about as specific as I could be.”
So the tummy, not the crotch then?….
Briden referred back to the Psychiatrist Professor Maden quoted at paragraph 178 of the Carlile review.
“Memory is not reliable over such long periods of time, Recall is an active mental process in which memories become distorted with time to fit the individual’s beliefs, needs and values.
Both the content and the meaning of recollections change with time. Events can and do acquire significance years later that they did not have at the time.”
Then there was the journalist Sian Hewitt who purported in the local newspaper to have interviewed a former psychiatric nurse, who supposedly knew adults who had been abused by Bell. Having written and published this, she disappeared and no one has been able to contact her.
What is seriously alarming reading these accusations is how they act to corroborate the original accusation but without any merit whatsoever. Is it really possible that such a reputation, of a bishop like Bell, or anyone in fact, could be posthumously discarded on the basis of these fits of septic imagination and false memory?
Which brings us to Carol, the basis of the assassination of Bishop Bell.
The Bishop of Chichester forbad Timothy Briden to consider Carol’s evidence. There are indications in his report that he was itching to deal with it, but was forbidden and didn’t want to have his findings in defence of Bell undermined should he have allowed himself to.
The issue with Carol’s evidence is that it is seriously fragile to several accusations. The first is the unreliability of anyone’s memory over that period of time; the second is that there may possibly have been a sexual predator in the close who wore some kind of uniform, and there are any number of reasons adduced in the Carlile report why it would not have been Bishop Bell.
An impartial analysis of the Church of England’s handling of this is that the Core group were simply appallingly shoddy and incompetent. And on the basis of their negligence and incompetence in a fit of self-righteous virtue signalling chest thumping, the Church sacrificed Bishop Bell’s reputation on the altar not only of political correctness (to put it at its most succinct) but also because this acted as a cheap way to by virtue signalling credit in the public space.
It might well have been the right thing to do to listen courteously to Carol, so sympathise deeply with the pain of her apparent memories, and to pay her the utmost sincere attention in her distress, such as it was.
But not then to have publicly discarded Bishop Bell’s posthumous reputation without due process, proper investigation and against the burden of proof of either criminal or civil liability.
Even now Bishop Bell deserves to be wholly and completely exonerated. His memory deserves to be cleared. And the failure to do so threatens every official member of the Church of England as an organisation from the present (and future) Archbishops down to the humblest Lay Reader or Church Warden.
Different voice in the Churches still fail. Martin Warner (one might say almost ‘unusually’) appears to me to be the only one to gain some, if not much, credit.
WELBY
Cannot bring himself to exonerate Bell. He apologises fulsomely over process failures, but his fixation on the virtue of victimhood traps him fatally.
“We did not manage our response to the original allegation with the consistency, clarity or accountability that meets the high standards rightly demanded of us. I recognise the hurt that has been done as a consequence. This was especially painful for Bishop Bell’s surviving relatives, colleagues and supporters, and to the vast number of people who looked up to him as a remarkable role model, not only in the Diocese of Chichester but across the United Kingdom and globally. I apologise profoundly and unconditionally for the hurt caused to these people by the failures in parts of the process and take responsibility for this failure.
However, it is still the case that there is a woman who came forward with a serious allegation relating to an historic case of abuse and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet. We need to care for her and listen to her voice.”
No Archbishop, read Lord Carlile’s report again and more carefully.
Despite the obvious contradiction which is neither a dilemma and certainly not a paradox, the Archbishop wants to have his self-righteous cake and eat it:
“This very difficult issue therefore leaves the church with an impossible dilemma which I hope people with different perspectives on it will try to understand.
Finally, I want to make it very clear that Bishop George Bell is one of the most important figures in the history of the Church of England in the 20th century and his legacy is undoubted and must be upheld.”
The Safeguarding Team lapse into standard progressive mea culpa which means nothing:
“Lessons have already been learnt from this case and we have apologised for mistakes made in our processes.”
How they have the insensitive crassness to resort to that broken and redundant phrase beggars belief. But they do.
Warner comes closest to a judicious, sensible and honest apology, but in the very end can’t bring himself to make a distinction between an innocent reputation and an ancient, if deeply felt, unreliable memory.
“In particular, we have learned that the boundaries of doubt and certainty have to be stated with great care, that the dead and those who are related to them have a right to be represented, and that there must be a balanced assessment of the extent to which it would be in the public interest to announce the details of any allegation.
We recognise the hurt that has been done to all who have been directly involved, including the family of George Bell and those who continue to respect his achievements, as a result of the areas where we have fallen short. We apologise profoundly and sincerely for our shortcomings in this regard
“We have all been diminished by this case. The legitimate quest for certainty has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved. We ask those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognize the strength of each other’s commitment to justice and compassion.”
This is as close as poor Bishop Bell and those who treasure the memory of a good and inspirational bishop who had various types of calumny flung at him posthumously, none of which could outweigh the weight of the precious and vital ethical value par excellence, that any of us are INNOCENT, until and unless we are proved guilty.
It is to the deep shame of the Church of England that it fails to uphold that ancient, Christian and civilised value. One cannot believe in the probity of an organisation or institution that fails such a vital test and core value of ‘innocent until proved guilty’.
“Welby and Sentamu are shockingly unsuited to their roles of headship, and the C of E now wallows in shame and uselessness” – The Rev. Roger Salter
Jan 25 2019 – RWS Note
If Archbishop Welby took justice and international law seriously – especially the presumption of innocence – then he would unequivocally state, without hesitation, that Bishop Bell was not guilty – innocent – and would take the necessary practical steps to clear his name..
As a West Sussex vicar told me yesterday, the Briden Report can be summed up in five words: “Never a case to answer”.
We are innocent until proven guilty – that’s the law. Bishop Bell has not been proved guilty, so he is innocent of the charges against him.
It is to Archbishop’s Welby’s eternal shame he does not clearly state Bishop Bell’s innocence and fully exonerate him.
The Archbishop’s gushing apologies are just empty words if not backed up by action. He must clear Bishop Bell’s name by declaring him innocent. Then, for example, 4 Canon Lane will be restored back to George Bell House in an instant”.
Peter Hitchens, the Mail on Sunday columnist who has been prominent in the campaign to defend Bell’s reputation, said it was time for the church to recognise that “a false allegation made against a great man” needed to be thoroughly retracted.
“The refusal to say clearly that the supposedly ‘significant cloud’ over George Bell’s name is gone seems to me to be a disgrace. If churches cannot actually confess their sins and seek forgiveness then who on earth can they expect to do it on the outside world?”
Jan 25 2019 – Other Reports of ruling by Timothy Briden on the fresh information about Bishop George Bell (See also ‘News from the Church of England’) – Compiled by ‘VG’
I will be writing at some point, though I do not think at any great length, about the George Bell case (once again the Church of England’s attempts to smear his name have fallen to pieces and collapsed into a heap of banana skins, eggshells and general garbage – it is worth asking precisely why why the latest absurd allegations were even taken seriously [“The Church hierarchy was wasting everybody’s time – and wasting money” – Richard W. Symonds]
“Why is Archbishop Welby reluctant to clear Bishop Bell of wrongdoing? All I can think of is this: there is a particular ‘blind spot’ [we all have them ] – but peculiar to this Archbishop – which is clouding his obvious good judgement, wisdom and discernment”
“I was actually shaking with fury when I listened to Dr Warner on Tuesday. But by Friday evening I had changed my view. I think we should not be too worried about the failure of Mr Welby and Dr Warner to show proper contrition. That is their loss. We cannot do it for them, or provide the forgiveness they need. It is up to them, and they are obdurate.
“But in all important respects, we have won more completely than I ever imagined we would. Our success, paradoxically , is reinforced by the total failure of the second accusation, which has merely underlined the failure of the first. The accusers in these cases are plainly to be pitied, but those who *used* their accusations to try to postpone or draw attention from their defeat at the hands of the Carlile report do not deserve pity.
“All those involved in this long struggle should feel both vindicated and pleased. We should act and speak in public, from now on, as if our success is total. That is what almost all observers, except the really knowledgeable, think is the case.
“Well then, those whose duty it is to restore GKAB’s name to those places from which it was stripped must be made to think that too. (By the way, I think we should forget the unfortunate school in Eastbourne , whose main concern is that prospective parents will not find an awkward moment in its history in an internet search).
“We should be using all our energy to get George Bell House back.
“Write in numbers to the Brighton Argus and the Chichester Observer, and to the national newspapers which fell for the original smear, calling for full restitution. I have already contacted the (new) Head of Bishop Luffa School about when (not if) he plans to restore the honoured name of Bell House there. I wish others would do the same.
“Some of you will have seen the rather good joke (it may even be true) about the Cathedral getting rid of signs saying ‘Bell Tower’ in case visitors thought it was named after GKAB. Perhaps we should suggest that in future it is named after him, while we press for the restoration of the censored parts of the guide book, and for an especially thumping, rousing celebration in Chichester Cathedral next October 3rd.
“Welby’s public welcome (presumably through gritted teeth) for the planned installation of a statue of GKAB on Canterbury’s West Front is as near as a he will come to withdrawing the ‘significant cloud’ remark. He is a limited man and I suspect he genuinely does not understand the principles of justice . I am sure Dr Warner does not, as I watched him struggle to say anything coherent at last Thursday’s briefing. He is a sorry figure. He will be forgotten when George Bell is still remembered.
“That is the measure of what we have done. Rejoice and be glad in it. If we moan too much, people may wonder if there isn’t still some sniff of guilt after all”.
Professor Andrew Chandler, Bishop Bell’s biographer, who has been campaigning to clear Bell’s name, said on Thursday evening that the statements “show that they are clinging to the wreckage of their old position as best they can”
“It is simply self-justification, but it does indicate that they will just maintain for the sake of consistency the views that got them into such trouble in the first place.”
He questioned why, in January of last year, the Church had issued a statement and commissioned a second investigation: “What today has really exposed is the ridiculousness of what has been going on, and the foolishness of people who have real power in the Church. . .
“Many people will say that the Church was trying to control, or retrieve control, of the narrative of Lord Carlile, to shut down the critics, and create a doubt in the public mind that Bell might be a serial offender of some kind.
“They have nothing to hide behind now. It looks like a highly calculating, politicised outfit indeed.”
While parts of the Archbishop’s statement were “meaningful, welcome, and appropriate”, the reference to the Church’s “dilemma” in weighing up a reputation against a serious allegation did not exist, Professor Chandler argued.
“There is no dilemma. It is quite extraordinary as part of pastoral practice, let alone legal practice, to maintain that taking somebody seriously involves believing somebody. . . The problem is that the various [church] establishments invested a great deal in this, and it is difficult to climb down.
“If they are going to survive in office with any credibility at all, they have to think very hard to win back the trust that has been so inexorably lost.”
The “enormous” damage to Bishop Bell’s reputation had been inflicted by the very people who should have looked after it, Professor Chandler concluded.
“The real figure of Bishop Bell has never been involved. His name has just been symbolic of a great social dread, and an established institution has to collude with those things in search of self-justification.”
~ Professor Andrew Chandler
Jan 26 2019 – Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey speaks out…
“The battle is nearly over. What remains to fight is the foolish words of the Archbishop that ‘a significant cloud remains over GB’. In actual fact, it doesn’t because both the Carlile and Briden reports show that all allegations are groundless. If a significant cloud remains it is over the Archbishop’s judgement”
~ Lord Carey
Jan 26 2019 – Dr Gerald Morgan speaks out…
“This has become a famous test case for the Presumption of Innocence”
Last week the Church of England’s second attempt to smear the reputation of one of its greatest figures, the late George Bell, collapsed utterly.
Its first try was revealed as a sloppy, deeply prejudiced kangaroo court, which wrongly assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt from the start, like some Stalinist tribunal. You might have thought Justin Welby would admit defeat.
But no, he opened yet another inquiry into so-called ‘new allegations’ of sexual abuse which were revealed on Thursday to be an embarrassing rubbish-heap of twaddle, not remotely resembling real evidence.
The police took a few weeks to dismiss them. Mr Welby’s apparatus, petulantly unwilling to admit they had been wrong in the first case, dragged it out for a year.
He has sort of apologised, grudgingly, as railway companies and children do. But he still seems to think there is an ‘impossible dilemma’. I can assure him there isn’t.
All we need is an Archbishop of Canterbury who understands the principles of justice (not him), and there’ll be no dilemma at all.
He knows what he can do. Until he does it, a cloud will hang over the C of E. ~
“If Welby refuses to retract that disgraceful [“significant cloud”] comment voluntarily, a motion from two of the three houses of General Synod demanding that he do so would have great weight, and could in itself serve to rehabilitate Bell’s memory”
“[There is] an unwillingness of the Church and its senior bishops/archbishops to say that they are sorry. If they would do so they would rise in my estimation”
~ The Revd Canon Professor David Jasper DD FRSE
Jan 27 2019 – RWS Note
“Apologies and saying sorry are just empty words unless backed up by action – such as the action of turning back from the wrongdoing which one has apologised and said sorry for. I think it’s called repentance”
“Bishop George Bell of Chichester was one of the greatest Anglicans of the 20th century…
“Last week, Bell was exonerated, in the Briden report commissioned by the Church of England, of child sex abuse…The trouble is that Bell has not been cleared – though he most certainly should have been…
“Last week…the Archbishop of Canterbury stuck to the guns that he had unwisely fired in 2017 when he said that a ‘significant cloud’ continued to hang over Bell. He again defended the Church’s original condemnation. The Church…admits its processes were wrong…But it still cannot face the obvious point that if it had applied the Carlile processes it admits it should have used it would never have found against Bell in the first place…
“In our law and culture, if guilt cannot be proved, innocence must be presumed. To do this is not to ‘discredit’ a complainant, who might not be lying, but might be mistaken about identity or confused in other ways. Memory plays strange tricks, especially about events alleged to have occurred 70 years ago.
“Bell is…innocent…the…rush was there, and so is the continuing refusal to admit the primary error…that condemned Bell which allowed justice to be thrown out of the window…
“It would be wonderful if he [Archbishop Welby] could take on this new injustice of trashing the accused that has replaced the old one of trashing the victim”
Jan 28 2019 – Dr Gerald Morgan on Bishop Bell and the Presumption of Innocence
It seems that we have an Archbishop of Canterbury (Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge) who still does not believe in the presumption of innocence…
It is not for us to prove an innocent man or woman innocent. It is for the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin) to prove a man or woman guilty. Ecclesiastical or academic eminence does not count in matters so grave…
Perhaps he [Bishop George Bell] would have been an Archbishop of Canterbury as well as Dean (1929) had he not opposed the carpet bombing of Germany at the end of the war. He was able to rise above the natural hatred of German atrocities that must have blinded many English men and women in the 1940s looking upon the devastation of our great cities.
Now by the present Archbishop of Canterbury’s ill-advised judgments a new generation now knows that ‘Bishop George Bell of Chichester was one of the greatest Anglicans of the 20th century’ (Charles Moore).
~ Dr Gerald Morgan, FTCD (Leader: English Parliamentary Party, 2001)
‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral’s Private Library]
Jan 30 2019 – Desmond Browne QC rules: “What is now clear is that the investigations by two experienced lawyers have established George Bell’s innocence. But not once has the Archbishop of Canterbury offered Bell the presumption of innocence”
I had not thought that victory in a good cause after a long campaign would make me so angry. And yet I was angry. It is only at such moments that we can test the real currency of conscience and eternity against the counterfeit of everyday.For I and my allies have just undoubtedly won a protracted struggle to restore the good name of Bishop George Bell of Chichester, outrageously condemned as a child abuser by the Church of England he once adorned.The headlines and the bulletins have all described it as a victory. We will probably get much of what we have always wanted—for instance the restoration of Bell’s name to the buildings and institutions from which it was Stalinistically stripped after the accusations were first made. Indeed, a statue of him, intended for the west front of Canterbury Cathedral, but left incomplete when the charges were made, is now to be finished and put in its intended place. This is a vindication, if ever there was one.Yet confronted with the poor, sad burbling thing which is a modern Anglican bishop, refusing even now to withdraw doubts about Bell’s innocence (absolutely presumed in English law), refusing to retract insinuations against his defenders, and in general lacking what I regard as proper contrition—it is this failure to confess and seek absolution which predominates in my mind. I did not just want justice or restitution for George Bell (though I did want them). I wanted his accusers to accept that a man’s good name, after he is dead, cannot lightly be trifled with. If you damage it, and you are wrong, you have a far greater duty to make restitution than if your victim is alive to refute and forgive you.And I genuinely could not understand their view, which seems to be that, while George Bell may in fact be guilty of the filthy crimes alleged against him, his wider activities in the great world are still somehow valid and worth “celebrating” or whatever the word is. This is such rubbish. The cruel violation of a trusting child, concealed by abuse of power, and unconfessed, as is suggested, would completely cancel out any public virtue and turn it into slime and ashes. One’s hands reach for a millstone.But I have had to put away my rage, and my growing fear for those who will not admit to what they have done. This is because the political victory cannot properly be exploited unless we, George Bell’s defenders, assert it.And so I do, and it is quite clearly such a victory. After a struggle lasting nearly as long as the First World War, we have plainly won.For the second time, allegations against him have proved on inquiry to be weak beyond belief, nowhere near the standard of proof of any court—and in the case of some of the latest ones actually laughable. In one of these accusations, the bishop is supposed to have engaged in homosexual congress, nine years after he was dead, with a man whose body was spread over some part (presumably the hood) of a Rolls Royce automobile which Bishop Bell did not ever possess. It is just possible to be charitable about whoever put this fantasy forward. This is plainly a troubled mind. It is impossible to be charitable to those who took it seriously and spent a ponderous year pretending to assess its worth, while Bishop Bell’s 93-year-old niece was kept in suspense about the outcome. You may study the embarrassing details here.I have written about this case for First Things and will not dwell on the details. George Bell was for many a pattern of courage when he spoke out, almost alone, against what is now increasingly recognized as having been the mistaken deliberate bombing of German civilians during the 1939-45 war. He knew it would damage him to say this, yet he still said it, which is what his Lord and Master would have wished, even though it was very much not what Winston Churchill would have wished. Today’s Anglican Church, a poor shivering thing these days, first smeared George Bell in October 2015. It was very worldly in its actions. It had issued a rather coy and ambiguous written statement on allegations against him which had emerged decades after his death in 1958. It was in fact so nebulous that there was later a quarrel about whether it had actually said he was guilty. It did not really matter by then, as several major newspapers, national and local, and the BBC had somehow or other gained the confidence to state beyond doubt and without qualification that Bishop Bell had been a child abuser. As a journalist myself, who knows how such things happen, I have always believed that somebody must have encouraged them to take this bold step. News organizations are wary of publicly condemning people even when they are dead. But I have never been able to find out who it was.What I am sure of is that their confident condemnations served the purpose of a Church trying hard to look decisive and stern about priestly abuse—a problem it has in fact handled very badly. For the Church, it was a free lunch. They could hurl a dead man’s reputation onto the rubbish-heap. Nobody would care, and they would appear to be showing resolve. Because they are new men, from a new era, they had no idea of the power and importance of the reputation they were destroying. Another generation on, and I suppose they would have got away with it. But they didn’t, and for that we can give thanks to the God of Justice and Mercy. You can expect to do a lot of praying if ever you get involved in such a case, because very often, despite your confidence in the rightness of your cause, you will be overpowered by the world’s willingness to tolerate and indeed defend naked injustice. Peter Hitchens is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday.
“You can expect to do a lot of praying if ever you get involved in such a case, because very often, despite your confidence in the rightness of your cause, you will be overpowered by the world’s willingness to tolerate and indeed defend naked injustice. “
But that’s the standard now, isn’t it? An accusation equals guilt? Think of the legal standards of the French Revolution, or the Salem Witch Trials. Or more recently, the Tawana Brawley accusations, the Virginia fraternity accusations, or the Duke lacrosse case.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is so, so 19th century…
In fact, nobody cares. That’s as disgraceful as anything. No one will be held to account for this. The press won’t cover it. The false accusations will continue to be repeated.
It’s not so much “the left” (what left?) as a mediatic frenzy machine.
As has its sister church, the episcopal church in America.
Today’s Anglican Church, a poor shivering thing these days….The Church of England has become a department of the Social Services – with the full range of ideologically correct opinions on every conceivable secular malaise.
It is a very honorable thing to defend the reputation of the dead, and Peter Hitchens desrves our wamest congratulations. The unbridled extend of the present moral panic leaves no stone unturned in the search for possible suggestions of wrong doing across the length and breadth of church history. Of course it is not only clergy who are defenseless against calumny. Academic departments have become rumor mills in which the close study of literary and philosophical texts are replace by speculation about their authors’ dirty linen.
Yet another admirable commentary by Peter Hitchens. He’s surely aware that the Episcopal Church of which I have remained a longtime member is as much “a poor shivering thing these days” as our mother church across the Atlantic. I could point to the distinguished Anglo-Catholic church in Boston where I was confirmed almost sixty years ago whose recently retired rector told his parishioners a while back that anyone of us who spoke out against present-day Islam was guilty of “hate-mongering”. Lest I point out that it isn’t very nice to see our fellow Christians decapitated around the world he followed up by telling me to “soak your head in water ” which I took to be his recommendation that I go drown myself.
Not much hope for the future of my church in the United States when I see it headed by the fellow who made such a fool of himself at the royal wedding last year
This is the first time I’ve ever heard this about bishop Bell. He was very close with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Protestant German theologian involved with a plot to kill Hitler during ww2, and a man who helped jews escape the camps and death. I’ve read nothing but good about him. Why is it that the left has to attack all things and people who are virtuous?
Feb 1 2019 – With Three Days To Go…
Information received yesterday [Thursday 31/01/2019]:
2. Submission by Professor Peter Billingham (who will be one of the six speakers on Monday) – in response to the Chichester Observer Article (above):
I am writing following the reported comments of Bishop Martin Warner in the Chichester Observer (Thursday 31 January 2019).
He states unequivocally that “Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty”. Whilst I agree, Martin Warner’s words – with their implicit moral certainty – directly contradict the position that the Church, Diocese and Cathedral have adopted over the last three years.
From the time when ‘Carol’s’ unsubstantiated allegations against Bishop Bell were made in October 2015, at the public meeting organised by the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, it was made clear to all present by the then Curate that George Bell was clearly and unconditionally guilty. At the same meeting, the Dean inferred and reinforced this view. Local and national media subsequently reported that the late Bishop had to all intents and purposes been a paedophile.
In the subsequent period, George Bell House was renamed and references to Bell in the Cathedral’s Visitors Guide were changed in a way which clearly implied Bell’s guilt.
Shakespeare observed through one of his most infamous villains Iago:
“Good name…is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash. ‘Tis something nothing
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed”
Bishop Bell’s ‘good name’ has been ‘filched’, despite the findings and conclusions of both the Carlile Report (commissioned by Archbishop Welby) and the Briden Report (commissioned by Bishop Warner) – which concluded that all allegations investigated were ‘unfounded’.
Bishop Warner nevertheless states that ‘There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved’. What is this ‘uncertainty’? The original claimant’s unsubstantiated claims might be viewed as ‘unfounded’, as were the other twelve allegations investigated by Briden, bringing just resolution without of course imputing her character.
Will those who have unjustly robbed Bishop Bell make clear, unconditional and immediate restitution for their offences against him? Should this not start with the restoration of 4 Canon Lane at the Cathedral to George Bell House: its former name?
Actions as well as words would speak volumes and be warmly welcomed by many.
Yours sincerely
Professor Peter Billingham PhD FRSA FDAD
3. Statement by General Synod Members Martin Sewell and David Lamming – for Feb 4 conference
No doubt those who gather to honour Bishop George Bell this year will be pleased due process has occurred and progress has been made in bringing closure to a sad chapter in the life of the Church.
We have to be pleased the reports of Lord Carlile and Tim Briden have brought clarity, rigorous analysis, and impartial judgment; in place of an unsatisfactory initial investigation. We also hope you will applaud the support by Archbishop Justin for the erection of a tribute to George Bell in Canterbury Cathedral Close, and welcome Bishop Martin when he joins you today.
He [Bishop Martin] has been in a very difficult position throughout, and he had an obligation to support institutional decisions in a collegial way. For those who have not read the entire Carlile Report, it may not be appreciated he was one of a minority within the initial Core Group who expressed concerns at the sufficiency of the evidence from the outset. If bridges are to be built, engaging in constructive dialogue with your local bishop is a very good place to begin.
We cannot ignore the fact there is still frustration of the assertion that George Bell “remains under a significant cloud”. Sometimes in cases where the complainant’s allegations fail to meet the proper legal standards of proof, there is residual debate about the “presumption of innocence“. We are in no doubt this is the only proper approach, however much sympathy one may have for the accuser who may have experienced abuse at the hands of somebody. Justice must be blind and fair to all parties.
With this in mind, we shall be asking members of General Synod to sign the Private Members Motion advanced by David (Lamming). We need 100 signatures before it can be debated; it seeks to ensure the Church restores the status quo ante. Inevitably, many members decided to await the decision of Tim Briden on the later allegations, before putting their names to the motion.
There is still time for you to lobby your General Synod representatives to ensure the motion can be debated, if you have not done so.
The efforts that you, and many others, have put in to ensure the case of George Bell was properly investigated has had consequences beyond the individual case. It has provided the best case study of the inadequacies of Church procedures in other cases, and some survivors of clergy abuse have welcomed the transparency and accountability we have brought to a Church which in past times was able to manage cases in privacy, and prioritising the reputation of the institution.
The House of Bishops have been listening and learning across the board; complainants, those accused, and the families of all, are indebted to what was begun here.
We should thank all who contributed to these improvements; the Bell Group, the Bell Society and without embarrassing him excessively, Richard, whose enthusiasm for the task was only matched by his painstaking compiling of a chronology on which we could rely when we needed to remind ourselves of obscure developments when constructing the arguments over the many months.
We wish you a good meeting, and assure you we shall continue to serve the cause of justice and good process in order to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion, not least building the bridges towards Christian reconciliation which, we are sure, Bishop Bell would have commended all of us to work towards.
Feb 1 2019 – Lord Alex Carlile writes…
“I now believe we are inching towards total vindication”
Has the time not come to recognise the vindication of the late bishop, asks Peter Hitchens
Letter – The Guardian – 1 Feb 2019
George Bell. Photograph: PA
On 23 October 2015 you ignored the presumption of innocence essential to proper justice and reported an allegation of child sex abuse against the late Bishop George Bell as if his guilt were a proven fact. You resisted attempts to correct this. Now, two independent inquiries have shredded these claims and Bishop Bell’s vindication and rehabilitation are so total that a statue of him is soon to be placed on the west front of Canterbury Cathedral. Has the time not come to recognise this vindication? Peter Hitchens London
Archbishop Welby posted a link to the announcement on Twitter, last Friday. He wrote: “I warmly welcome the announcement today that the statue of Bishop George Bell will in due course be completed and installed at Canterbury Cathedral, as a permanent reminder of his unique contribution to international peace and to the Church of England.”
His comment echoed his apology for the “mistakes” made in handling the original allegation, which he previously said had left a “significant cloud” over the name of Bishop Bell, despite protests from historians that Bell’s name should never have been implicated (News, 22 January 2018).
Bishop Bell’s biographer, Professor Andrew Chandler, has been campaigning with the Bell Society to clear Bell’s name. “To invest the authority of high public office, and the name and the resources of the Church itself, in a sustained denigration of an innocent, dead man, is profoundly disturbing,” he said this week.
“To maintain that denigration in public, even in the face of the most authoritative, experienced, and principled criticism, for over three years, is something very serious indeed. It does represent, in a fundamental way, an abuse of moral power.”
A spokesman for Church House suggested last week that Chichester Cathedral might “review” its decision to remove Bishop Bell’s name from its grant scheme. It was up to individual institutions, however, to decide whether to reinstate his name on buildings, he said.
Several buildings dedicated to Bell have been renamed in the past three years, including George Bell House, a conference centre in Chichester Cathedral close, which was dedicated in October 2008, on the 50th anniversary of his death (Features, 3 October 2008). The building was renamed 4 Canon Lane in 2016.
An event — “Rebuilding Bridges” — is being hosted there next week by the Bell Society. It will ask whether the Dean and Chapter will restore the name of Bell to the building, and whether Bishop Bell be “cleared of abuse” by the Archbishop.
Feb 1 2019 – “The Briden report on Bishop Bell”- Church Times Letters – Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson and Peter Billingham
Feb 1 2019 – “George Bell: the life matched the legacy” – Andrew Chandler – Church Times
Feb 1 2019 – Media Press comment – Andrew Brown – Church Times
Feb 1 2019 – Tim Hudson’s Letter Submission to Chichester Observer
Feb 1 2019 – Statement from Lord Carlile
“I hope that this event [‘Rebuilding Bridges’] will add to the clamour for the Church to admit the awful mistakes it has made in dealing with unsubstantiated allegations against Bishop Bell. His name should never have been publicised before allegations were investigated. The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him”
“NO NATION, NO CHURCH, NO INDIVIDUAL IS GUILTLESS WITHOUT REPENTANCE AND WITHOUT FORGIVENESS THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION” ~ BISHOP GEORGE BELL 1883-1958
In an unexpected turn of events, Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester, refused to unequivocally exonerate Bishop George Bell of allegations of child abuse, while addressing the Rebuilding Bridges Conference in Chichester. “We are not able to speak with any certainty in any direction,” Bishop Warner told a shocked audience on Monday.
Warner apologised for the “shortcomings” of the process, recognised the “hurt and damage” to Bell’s family and his supporters and “put on the public record” the Church of England’s failures in the original investigation. However, he defiantly resisted calls to clear Bell of the first set of allegations, claiming that “the quest for certainty has been defeated by the passage of time.”
Maintaining that the Church of England’s internal investigation led by senior ecclesiastical lawyer Timothy Briden had cleared Bishop Bell only of the second set of allegations, the recent Briden report “made no statement about the original allegations,” Warner said.
“Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty. We ask those who hold opposing views to recognise the strength of commitment to justice,” Warner added. “Lord Carlile’s report opened up new areas revealing failures from the past. The phrase I used is that ‘we are not able to speak with any certainty in any direction,’” Warner insisted.
The audience responded by heckling Warner and shouting: “That’s not right, that’s unacceptable.”
Voices from the audience reminded Warner that the Briden report did not deal with the original allegations against Bell made by an unidentified woman known only as “Carol” only because the Church of England had set specific terms of reference, explicitly excluding “Carol” from its internal investigation.
Moreover, Lord Carlile, in his earlier investigation had concluded that the case would not have gone to court, let alone found Bishop Bell guilty. “Salisbury Cathedral celebrated the Magna Carta, but we undermined it,” the same member said, noting that the Established Church was contradicting the position of prominent legal figures.
Another conference member challenged Warner regarding “Carol’s” allegations, which he said had to be balanced against the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. “Bishop Bell is innocent—most here are troubled because the idea of innocence until proven guilty touches everyone. We are defending a tradition here,” he added.
Bishop Gavin Ashenden, one of the speakers at the conference, explained how “the terms of references stopped Lord Carlile saying Bishop Bell was innocent” as “the scales were weighted against Bishop Bell from the start.”
“Those terms of reference were imposed on Lord Carlile and Briden. Lord Carlile speaks up quite clearly saying that Bishop Bell was innocent. Why were the terms of reference not allowed to examine the cogency of Carol’s claim?” Ashenden asked, noting the “non-apology” of Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Welby’s reluctance “to accept the truth.”
Drawing a comparison with the political situation in Germany in the 1930s, which Bell resisted, Ashenden warned that in a context where freedom of speech was increasingly restricted and presumption of innocence dangerously undermined, the tools of a new totalitarianism were in danger of re-emerging.
Earlier today Ashenden told the media: “Lord Carlile’s insistence that the Church should clear Bell’s name has been refused by Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner of Chichester. Consequently a growing number of public figures are looking to initiate the Clergy Disciplinary Measure against both Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner for failing to act with the highest standards of integrity that their office requires.”
Rebel Priest media has contacted Bishop Warner asking if he would be willing to, once for all, put on record his statement declaring without any qualification the innocence of Bishop George Bell and uphold the ancient judicial principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” The Bishop of Chichester’s office has not responded.
Editor’s note – 06/02/2019: Bishop Martin Warner’s office has responded to Revd Jules Gomes media request: “As of this time + Martin has nothing further to add to what he outlined on Monday at the conference”
Feb 6 2019 – RWS Note
“With no word from the Church about Bishop Bell’s innocence, the present Bishop of Chichester and Archbishop of Canterbury are now left straining to defend a ‘crock of s###’ and thus becoming morally and legally constipated”
~ Richard W. Symonds
Feb 6 2019 – Letter Submission by Christopher Hoare
Dear Editor
It is to the credit of Martin Warner Bishop of Chichester that he briefly attended the well-attended ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ conference in the Cathedral City last Monday.
As the title suggests, the conference was reaching out to Bishop Bell’s would-be destroyers, hoping for an apology and restoration of at least some of Bishop Bell’s ‘airbrushed’ and obliterated memorabilia.
There was to be bitter disappointment. The Bishop, who presided over the original discredited investigation, claimed he was unable to speak with any certainty owing to the “passage of time”. He expressed regret, not at condemning an innocent man but, despite previous trumpeting about transparency, at having published the outcome.This was tantamount to saying: ‘If only we had swept it under the carpet, I would not be here trying to justify my stance’ !
Sadly, I am drawn to the conclusion that both the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby – who has not yet withdrawn his statement about there being a ‘significant cloud’ over Bishop Bell’s name – and the Bishop of Chichester (notwithstanding the presumption of innocence; the findings of an independent group of academics; nor the detailed reports by Lord Carlile. and more recently – with regard to a subsequent case – by Timothy Briden; nor the lack of credible evidence) are determined to sacrifice the reputation of one of our greatest Bishops – rather than their own – and thus will be making one of the most profound mistakes in the history of the modern Church.
Yours sincerely
Christopher Hoare
Chichester
West Sussex
Feb 6 2019 – Emailed Letter to Martin Warner Bishop of Chichester from Richard W. Symonds
Dear +Martin
My apologies for not sending the Draft Transcript earlier (spelling errors not yet corrected). I had only sent it out to those who expressly requested the script at the earliest opportunity
There were aspects of your talk at the Rebuilding Bridges conference which did concern us yesterday – not least a lack of an explicit statement of Bishop Bell’s innocence in law by the guiding principle of justice – the Presumption of Innocence.
Also, the Cathedral was given the substantial asset, George Bell House, as a memorial to the man.
Despite being effectively exonerated by rigorous legal inquiry you still appear to remain doubtful about honouring him. That is your right, but we disagree profoundly.Breaking the trust of the donors is not ethical.
It seems to be a proper way forward to place George Bell House into the hands of independent trustees so that you may remain unsullied by the allegedly tainted memory of the person memorialised, whilst respecting the wishes of the original benefactors.
Anything other than this seems dishonourable and puts financial consideration and expediency above the principles of integrity.
As to the “significant cloud” sentiments, that “cloud” seems to be moving across to your Archbishop – and, by association, to you.
That is deeply regrettable as you were the only one, it seems (in the early stages), who was expressing strong reservations about Bishop Bell being ‘thrown under a bus’.
With that said, we still very much appreciate your attendance at the conference yesterday morning.
Thank you.
Kindest regard
Richard (Symonds)
Feb 6 2019 – News Release – Rebuilding Bridges/Bell Society
Feb 6 2019 – “Suspicion over Bell ends” – Private Eye – ‘Church News’ – 8 February – 21 Feb 2019
“When two commissions have both declared George Bell innocent and when the judicial principle of presumption of innocence is at stake, how can two very senior clerics [Bishop Warner & Archbishop Welby] defy this principle and continue to maintain Bell’s guilt, even to a degree?”
“The Church threw Bishop Bell under the bus and threw the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence into the bin. Who is responsible for such a moral and legal disgrace? The buck stops where?”
“With Lord Carlile QC and Timothy Briden upholding the moral and legal principle of the presumption of innocence and justly declaring Bishop Bell innocent in law, should Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner be allowed to defy this principle by refusing to declare Bishop Bell innocent?”
Bishop of Ely and familiar figure at Oxford and Cambridge who was an ardent admirer of the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer ~ The Times
Bishop Peter Walker
With the death of Peter Walker, the Church of England loses its last living link with Bishop George Bell of Chichester. He knew him well, and like him had a great interest in the arts and an appreciation of the theology of Bell’s friend Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran pastor and martyr. Walker had vast contacts in Church and State, especially in Oxford and Cambridge, and was a regular figure at memorial services….
Feb 11 2019 – From The Archives [Jan 25 1985 – “Power Unlimited And Exclusive” – ‘Nuclear Arms and the Vision of George Bell’ – A Booklet originating from a Talk for Christian CND, given by the Rt. Revd. Peter Walker [Bishop of Ely] at Blackfriars, Cambridge – in the Week of Prayer for World Peace and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity – Hat-Tip: Professor David Jasper]
Newsnight showed the full correspondence between Ms Zaman and the Lords’ Commissioner for Standards to Lord Carlile [QC – Ed] – a barrister and former deputy high court judge. He said the rules should be clarified.
“If someone comes to you for help, particularly if they’re vulnerable…and you form a sexual relationship, actually that’s disgraceful,” he said.
He added: “If it is not clear to the commissioner, who is a very experienced lawyer, then I think the rules need to be clarified and in particular the guide to the code of conduct needs to be clarified.”
“She went to Lord Ahmed because she believed he was in a position to do something influential for her”, he added. “So it’s absolutely clear to me that what he was doing was in his role as a member of the House of Lords.”
Lord Carlile said a sexual relationship between Lord Ahmed and Ms Zaman could breach two clauses in the code of conduct: one covering conflicts of interest and another which stipulates that Lords must behave on “their personal honour”.
But in a statement to Newsnight, Ms Scott-Moncrieff, said: “Though credible and substantial, the complaint provided insufficient evidence that contact with the member was in relation to his parliamentary duties… To conclude otherwise, as Lord Carlile has done, is to misunderstand the code.”
Mr Javid added that there were a range of measures available to “stop people who pose a serious threat from returning to the UK, including depriving them of their British citizenship or excluding them from the country”.
Security chiefs in London could also control Ms Begum’s possible return through a Temporary Exclusion Order.
The controversial legal tool bars a British citizen from returning home until they have agreed to investigation, monitoring and, if required, deradicalisation.
However Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said Ms Begum would have to be accepted back into the UK if she had not become a national of any other country.
Under international law, it is not possible to render a person stateless.
Chichester Cathedral – RWS Photography
Feb 15 2019 – Christopher Hoare reacts to the Bishop Bell Crisis
“I am drawn to the conclusion that both the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby…and the Bishop of Chichester [Martin Warner]…are determined to sacrifice the reputation of one of our greatest Bishops – rather than their own – and thus will be making one of the most profound mistakes in the history of the modern church”
Feb 15 2109 – The Church Times reacts to the Bishop Bell Crisis
‘Stop burying your heads in the sand’ – Broxtern Wallpaper and Pictures Collection
Feb 15 2019 – Letter from the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey to the present Lord Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey (left) – Wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell (right)
Dear +Martin
I read with interest the report of your talk at the ‘Rebuilding Conference’ on Monday and wonder if you will allow me to offer some reflections.
You may know that I am a member of the George Bell Group which was brought together by Andrew Chandler, the biographer of George Bell. In your talk you observed that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’. That is a very odd way to express the position that the Carlile and Briden Reports leave us in. If he cannot be proven guilty he is ‘de facto’ innocent. The fact that you do not say that is probably because of the weight you have given to ‘Carol’ and her evidence. This is also the reason why the Archbishop has not retracted his statement that ‘a significant cloud rests’ over George Bell. But the very fact that an allegation has been made does not lead irrevocably to the conclusion that a cloud remains! If the facts do not justify the conclusion, the conclusion is false.
Lord Carlile sent a message to the conference which ended: ‘The Church should accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full and Bishop Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him’.
While you and the Archbishop are quick to offer apologies for the mistakes made by the Church, it has not gone far enough. Even now, it would be relatively easy to put right the injustice you have done to George Bell’s reputation and the surviving members of his family. I urge you to set the record straight and state that there is no ‘cloud’ over Bell and that he deserves the presumption of innocence.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Bishop Tim Thornton at Lambeth Palace with whom I am in conversation concerning the Archbishop’s remarks.
THE Archbishop of Canterbury has welcomed plans for a statue of the late Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, to be completed and installed in Canterbury Cathedral, hours after apologising for the Church’s botched handling of an allegation of sexual abuse against the Bishop.
Plans for the statue were halted in 2015, after a woman known as “Carol” alleged that Bishop Bell, a former Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, had sexually abused her in the 1940s, when she was nine…
THE blackening of George Bell‘s name would not have happened had there been a confidentiality clause governing the payment made to “Carol”, who accused him of sexual abuse, the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner, said on Monday.
Dr Warner was addressing supporters of Bishop Bell at the Rebuilding Bridges conference, held at 4 Canon Lane, Chichester, to which supporters wish to see the name “George Bell House” restored…
The resolutions which the Bell Society has promoted for some time are these:
Archbishop Justin Welby to apologise for his “significant cloud” remark concerning Bishop Bell
Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, to invite Barbara Whitley, Bishop Bell’s niece, for a face-to-face meeting. (She has already requested such a meeting.)
Chichester Cathedral’s Dean and Chapter to restore the name of 4 Canon Lane to George Bell House
Chichester Cathedral’s Chancellor and Canon Librarian, the Rev’d Dr Anthony Cane, to permit the reinstatement of Bishop Bell’s portrait and plaque
Chichester Cathedral’s Dean, the Very Rev’d Stephen Waine, to correct page 37 of the Cathedral Guide: Society and Faith
The General Synod to undertake a Full Debate at the earliest opportunity, regarding the serious implications arising from Lord Carlile’s Report
It will be interesting to see if Questions asked at General Synod next week produce any further answers.
“The only ‘significant cloud’ existing in the Bishop Bell case is the one inside, and over, the head of Archbishop Welby. If heads are not seen to apologise, they must be seen to roll”
Wednesday Feb 20 – 17.45-19.00 – Questions – David Lamming
“Has the House of Bishops considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgement he expressed on 15 December 2017 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’, particularly in view of the Briden Report dated 17 January 2019 and the recent statement by Lord Carlile that ‘The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him’?”
40. The decision of the Right Worshipful Timothy Briden (acting in his capacity as commissary to the Bishop of Chichester) was published by the Bishop of Chichester and the Archbishops’ Council on 24 January 2019. The decision related to ‘fresh information’ brought to the attention of the Church following publication of Lord Carlile’s independent review into the Church’s original handling of allegations against the late Bishop George Bell. The terms of reference for the independent investigation and independent ‘decision-making body’ (Timothy Briden) did not involve re-investigating the allegations made by ‘Carol’, for which a civil settlement had already be made.
“Has the House of Bishops considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgement he expressed on 15 December 2017 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’, particularly in view of the Briden Report dated 17 January 2019 and the recent statement by Lord Carlile that ‘The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him’?” ~ David Lamming
In answer to David Lamming’s written question regarding Bishop Bell (Q 93), the Bishop to the Armed Forces – Tim Thornton – replies on behalf of Archbishop Welby:
“The legitimate quest for certainty in connection with allegations made against the late Bishop George Bell has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant, ‘Carol’, has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved”
This is word-for-word what the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner said at the ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ conference 2 weeks ago (Feb 4).
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has already written to the Bishop of Chichester regarding this monstrous ‘linguistic gymnastics’:
“In your talk you observed that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’. That is a very odd way to express the position that the Carlile and Briden Reports leave us in. If he cannot be proven guilty he is ‘de facto’ innocent. The fact that you do not say that is probably because of the weight you have given to ‘Carol’ and her evidence. This is also the reason why the Archbishop has not retracted his statement that ‘a significant cloud rests’ over George Bell. But the very fact that an allegation has been made does not lead irrevocably to the conclusion that a cloud remains! If the facts do not justify the conclusion, the conclusion is false”.
As to the Warner-Thornton-Welby comment: “nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant ‘Carol’ has been discredited”, nobody I know is claiming that ‘Carol’s’ testimony has been “discredited”. There is little to no doubt ‘Carol’ was abused as a child by someone in authority at Chichester – she is believed and thus should be supported – but it is clear it wasn’t Bishop Bell. It was almost certainly a case of mistaken identity.
The Bishop to the Armed Forces is defending the indefensible. It is near-criminally disgraceful.
Lord Carlile CBE, QC has already stated: “I hope that this event [‘Rebuilding Bridges’] will add to the clamour for the Church to admit the awful mistakes it has made in dealing with unsubstantiated allegations against Bishop Bell. His name should never have been publicised before allegations were investigated. The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.”
The Bishop to the Armed Forces, the Bishop of Chichester and the Archbishop of Canterbury seem to be putting themselves above the law by defying the judgement of this eminent QC.
Bishop Bell is innocent in law. Period. Bishop Bell must be completely vindicated and exonerated. Period.
If heads are not seen to unequivocally apologise, they must be seen to roll.
Says the Bishop to the Armed Forces Tim Thornton representing the Archbishop (in answering David Lamming’s Q93): “The House asks those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognize the strength of each other’s commitment to justice [Bishop Bell – Ed] and compassion [‘Carol’ – Ed]”.
This seemingly innocuous remark is preposterous and divisive, insulting the intelligence of anyone who can think for themselves – and clearly.
These weasel words by this Bishop – the exact same used by Bishop Warner – attempt to create two opposing ‘camps’ – one concerned with justice (Bishop Bell), the other concerned with compassion (‘Carol’)…implying those in defence of George Bell are not primarily concerned with compassion towards ‘Carol’ (and those in defence of ‘Carol’ are not primarily concerned with justice towards Bell).
This, of course, is a nonsense – no-one should be fooled – and it’s doing a serious disservice to both accused and accuser.
There is little doubt ‘Carol’ was abused as a child in Chichester – and we should all reach out in compassion because of that. But it was not Bishop Bell, so we should all reach out in justice because of that too. That’s not difficult for most of us, but it does require a moral wisdom, courage and discernment which seems beyond the reach of most of those within the ‘purple circle’.
I’ve read the answers to the questions (relating to Bishop Bell) for this Wednesday evening at General Synod, and I still see a Church hierarchy institutionally incapable of admitting wrong-doing, with a pathological inability to say sorry and apologise.
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q93 Has the House of Bishops considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgement he expressed on 15 December 2017 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that “a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name”, particularly in view of the Briden Report dated 17 January 2019 and the recent statement by Lord Carlile that “The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.”? The Bishop to the Armed Forces to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops: A The National Safeguarding Steering Group accepted all but one of the recommendations made by Lord Carlile. In particular, it accepted that any posthumous allegation should be assessed on the civil standard, i.e. whether the information presented is made out on the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard, and following appropriate due process. The legitimate quest for certainty in connection with allegations made against the late Bishop George Bell has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant, ‘Carol’, has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved. The House asks those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognize the strength of each other’s commitment to justice and compassion.
RWS Note
“Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty”, says the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner and the Bishop to the Armed Forces Tim Thornton. As James Byron says: ‘They’re in effect demanding that his innocence be proved, a direct attack on its presumption. This can’t be allowed to rest”. And as the former Archbishop Lord Carey says: “…cannot be proven guilty”…is a very odd way to express the position that the Carlile and Briden Reports leave us in. If he cannot be proven guilty he is ‘de facto’ innocent”
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [IICSA] – Monday March 5 2018 – Page 129 – Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]:
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Feb 19 2019 – Anne Dawson on ‘Carol’
“A person can be authentically telling the truth as they perceive it, whilst being factually wrong. The case is not two dimensional – conflating distant traumatic memories of abuse with the identity of the alleged perpetrator are separate issues.
“There can be some resolution by affirming Carol compassionately but acknowledging the margin for error in a young child’s mind, retold more than half a century later.
“The NST don’t need to bring Carol back into the situation at all. They just need to admit there is no evidence and the identity of her abuser is unknown.
“Lord Carlile has clearly said in his statement 1.2.19 that “George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.” Lord Carlile is not confused over the two standards of proof; criminal or civil. He is saying that even the lower standard of civil proof is unmet.
“To quote Martin Luther King Jr. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
“Was this not the process that created the Bishop George Bell debacle? The Church of England leadership will still not follow the plain and increasingly irritated advice of its independent investigator Lord Carlile, who said: “The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him….
“If witnesses accounts and denials of knowledge (if appropriate) are not captured in a timely way, may not their reputations be placed “under a cloud” of complicity in the cover-up by some future archbishop without evidence, just as Justin Welby has tainted the memory of Bishop George Bell? Justice requires due process to victims and those under suspicion alike. We are woefully failing many in this case”
COMMENTS
Len
“The church in trying to preserve its reputation has all but lost it. Kicking allegations ‘into the long grass’ and then throwing long dead Bishops ‘under the bus’ has all added to the loss of credibility of the church and its hierarchy…“
3. Andrew Graystone’s words rang a few bells: “You cannot preach repentance until you have repented” [Booklet “We Asked For Bread But You Gave Us Stones – One Tear (sorry, Year)”]
4. General Synod’s Martin Sewell has safeguarded my illusion of sanity with his ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ article…maybe: “‘General Synod has no confidence in the Church of England’s capacity to regulate its own safeguarding culture’”
5. Talking of Martin Sewell, he was mentioned at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [IICSA] last March: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
6. “Contemporary Cynicism” – a booklet written by G.F. Woods in 1964 (mentioned in “Power Unlimited And Exclusive” by the late Bishop of Ely) – seems to be a critical read for those who might be tempted to fall prey to such pathology at the moment.
“‘Pot, kettle, black’ comes to mind with these pontifications by Archbishop Welby, especially when it comes to that ‘Elephant at Synod’ called Bishop Bell. There are many of us outside the General Synod ‘bubble’ of Church House Westminster who have no wish to be cynical, nor dampen any non-cynical spirits therein, but Archbishop Welby’s exhortations are becoming a little too hard to digest by those of us who take Matthew 7 v 5 seriously. I’ve now lost both confidence and patience in an Archbishop who wilfully and inexcusably refuses to take a leader’s responsibility for Bishop Bell’s character assassination; nor has he the moral courage to apologise for perpetuating an injustice which is staring in everyone’s face except his own”
Feb 23 2019 – From The Archives [Jan 25 1985 – “Power Unlimited And Exclusive” – ‘Nuclear Arms and the Vision of George Bell’ – A Booklet originating from a Talk for Christian CND, given by the Rt. Revd. Peter Walker [Bishop of Ely] at Blackfriars, Cambridge – in the Week of Prayer for World Peace and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity – Hat-Tip: Professor David Jasper]
EXTRACTS
Bishop Bell – “The Church is not a sort of universal boudoir where people meet and take their ease…There is an intensity in the conflict with evil…”
Bishop Walker – “Bell had set out very clearly the principles he saw governing the Church’s function in war-time [and peace-time – Ed] in a paper in the ‘Fortnightly Review’ in November 1939”:
Bishop Bell – “So when all the resources of the State are concentrated, for example, on winning a war, the Church is not part of those resources…It possesses an authority independent of the State. It is bound, because of that authority, to proclaim the realities which outlast change…It is not the State’s spiritual auxiliary with exactly the same ends as the State. To give the impression that it is, is both to do a profound disservice to the nation and to betray its own principles”
Feb 24 2019 – RWS Note
Richard W. Symonds
“It is increasingly clear an increasingly Orwellian Church of England is being controlled by increasingly powerful Machiavellians – and we are pitifully unaware of it”
Feb 24 2019 – From The Archives – Oct 2015 Media Articles on Bishop Peter Ball leading up to the Church Statement on Bishop George Bell – Oct 22 2015
“Bishop Bell has been a victim of a Church in search of a scapegoat”
~ Richard W. Symonds
March 1 2019 – The Principle of Canon Law of Presumption of Innocence
14th of the Pope’s 21 ‘Reflection Points’ outlined in the Vatican’s Clerical Abuse Summit last week (Catholic Herald, March 1 – page 17):
14. The right to defence: the principle of natural and canon law of presumption of innocence must also be safeguarded until the guilt of the accused is proven. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent lists of the accused being published, even by the dioceses, before the preliminary investigation and the definitive condemnation.
“Regarding the Bishop Bell disgrace, I am not angry Archbishop Welby is wrong, perpetuating an injustice and abusing his power. I am angry because he continues to pretend he is not. As regards the institution of the Church itself, there are ‘dark elements’ deeply embedded within it to ensure certain truths will remain forever concealed. That’s not a conspiracy theory; it’s an institutional analysis of Established Church hierarchy. It’s all about power and control. Power requires the Presumption of Guilt to control. To do that it must destroy the moral and legal principle of the Presumption of Innocence. There is something deeply sinister going on, to which even Archbishop Welby is pitifully unaware – or pitifully in denial”
“Just over two years ago, the Church of England authorities hurriedly condemned George Bell because of claims that he had abused a child nearly 70 years ago. They paid money to the alleged victim. Bell, Bishop of Chichester and the leading British supporter of Christian resistance to Hitler, died in 1958. Many protested at the process by which Bell had been condemned. No contemporary documents seemed to have been studied and no surviving witnesses, such as his domestic chaplain, had been asked for their testimony. The mere accusation carried all before it. So great was the anger that the Archbishop of Canterbury courageously decided to review the decision to which he had been party and called in Lord Carlile QC to review the process which damned Bell. Lord Carlile reported in early October, and the steer was that the church would release his report roughly now. On Monday, however, a C of E press release said that the authorities ‘are at the stage of responding with feedback from those who contributed’. ‘This is the process with all independent reviews, there is a period of a few months between receiving the first draft and final publication,’ it explained. A few months! Obviously those criticised should be allowed to comment privately on what the report says, but there was only one accuser and only one supposed perpetrator. This is not the Chilcot report. Two thoughts occur. The first is that the delay strongly suggests that Lord Carlile has found the process to have been severely wanting. The second is that the ‘safeguarding’ team at the heart of the process are being much better safeguarded than ever poor Bell was” – Charles Moore
Bishop George Bell’s reputation lies in tatters following revelations in October 2015 that the Diocese of Chichester has issued a formal apology and paid an out-of-court settlement after an allegation that the bishop sexually abused a young child in the 1950s. The establishment has rushed to distance itself from Bell. His name has hastily been deleted from associated institutions, like the Bishop Bell School in Eastbourne, and there have even been suggestions that his memorial in Chichester Cathedral might be removed. The manner in which the Church of England has dealt with the allegation has itself caused a furor among Bell’s supporters, who accuse the authorities of throwing the deceased bishop overboard in a panic, instead of defending his innocence until proven…
“We realise that a significant cloud is left over his name. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. No human being is entirely good or bad.” (Archbishop Welby 22 December 2018).
“He was still speaking, when, lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son'” [Matthew 17 v 5]
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith…” [Hebrews 12 v 1-2]
March 6 2019 – “The Cloud of Unknowing” by an Unknown Author in the 14th century
“I hope that habitual gossips, boasters, flatterers, fault-finders, busybodies, whisperers, liars and character assassinators never see this book” [Preface]
“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong” – Judge David Clarke (on the David Jones case)
March 6 2019 – RWS Note
“Archbishop Welby says ‘We realise that a significant cloud is left over his name. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. No human being is entirely good or bad’. I think this is yet another example of ‘mistaken identity’ regarding Bishop Bell. Archbishop ‘No-Smoke-Without-Fire’ Welby has mistakenly identified a Cloud for Smoke. The Archbishop’s monstrous ‘significant cloud” remark against Bishop Bell – which he refuses to retract or apologise for [even after the Carlile and Briden reports] – could be better described as “significant deceit” (‘Graham’), in which ‘smoke & mirrors’ have replaced cloud and light” – Richard W. Symonds
…The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was told “rumours were rife” about the late MP for Chester, Peter Morrison….giving evidence to the inquiry former Labour Party official Grahame Nicholls said the allegations were hushed up by the political parties. He said: “It was a Chester cover-up. Nobody was going to break ranks.” … Mr Nicholls told the inquiry a local paper, the police, council officials and both Conservative and Labour parties in the city were aware of the claim. He said: “A lot of people knew and a lot of people did nothing.” The inquiry previously heard claims relating to Mr Morrison’s “penchant for small boys” were passed to security services but they did not investigate or report them to police.
Child abuse inquiry: Police ‘not told’ of allegations against MP
4 March 2019
Abuse inquiry will not rule on truth of Westminster claims
31 January 2018
Child abuse inquiry: Children in custody ‘still not safe’
28 February 2019
March 11 2019 – RWS Note
“When is Archbishop Welby going to lift that non-existent ‘cloud’ which doesn’t hang over Bishop Bell’s head?” (Hat-Tip: ‘PM’)
“Bell shared the Anglo-Catholics’ conviction that the church was not, and must never be, the creature of the state. When he spent Christmas 1914 at Canterbury with the Archbishop, Davidson, he noted in his diary on 29 December that this was the day on which Becket was murdered, and went to the Cathedral to visit the place of his martyrdom. Indeed Becket was to become increasingly influential in the twentieth century Church of England, reminding it that there are times when the church has to stand against the state”
~ Alan Wilkinson [Source: “Britain and the Threat to Stability in Europe, 1918-45” – Ch 5 ‘Bishop Bell and Germany’ – Page 77]
It was often said during the war [WW1], outside as well as inside the churches, that if only the churches had been unified across Europe, the war might never have broken out. In the post-war period the pursuit of the ecumenical vision evoked some of the same hope and idealism as the League of Nations, of which it was in many ways the ecclesiastical equivalent” [p. 79]
March 17 2019 – “Sorry seems to be the hardest word” ~ Elton John
It’s sad, so sad It’s a sad, sad situation. And it’s getting more and more absurd…
Sorry seems to be the hardest word ~ Elton John
“A Dark Cloud hangs over an Archbishop and Bishop unable to apologise” ~ RWS
“On the basis of the two reports that have been issued – Carlile’s and Briden’s – I don’t see how Welby can justify his ‘significant cloud’ remark. If he had any justification for it at the time, he hasn’t now. He could admit to a statement that appeared justified at the time, but which now needs to be withdrawn in the light of investigation of the evidence. I wouldn’t think any the worse of him for fessing up to a mistake. He’s allowed, like the rest of us, to get things wrong but he’s obliged, like the rest of us, to admit a mistake once it is clear” ~ ‘GT’
“I am trying to understand why Bishop Warner and the AB are so reluctant to pronounce innocence. I can only think that is for pastoral considerations for ‘Carol’ and the embarrassment of having given her a large sum of money.
This is not to condone their silence but to try to understand it.
If they were to say that her story is true but that is a case of mistaken identity (as you suggested a year or two ago!) there could then be those who want proof that there is substance to such surmise and I certainly don’t think that another court case is the way forward.
However, regardless of pastoral concerns, the only right way forward is for them to declare BB innocent” ~ ‘PK’
March 18 2019 – Letter of the Week – “Scottish lady” to the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey
Dear Lord Carey
This is a message of support for you and all the good people who are speaking out on behalf of the saintly Bishop. There is no need for you to reply.
I am a 74 year old Scottish lady, a practising member of the SEC who had never heard of Bishop Bell until Peter Mullen’s writing brought the sorry business to my attention, which it has never left.
The behaviour of Bishop Warner and more especially of Justin Welby, has led me to conclude that the integrity of the Church of England (and indeed the SEC) has completely unravelled.
I have seen your recent letter to Bishop Warner and I rejoiced at it. He and his friend Welby seem to believe they are above the Law; perhaps the counsel of a former Archbishop of Canterbury, with far more wisdom and intellect than their own, will persuade them to look in a mirror.
I also think that Justin Welby treated you very badly over Bishop Ball. You made an honest mistake and you had the courage and humility to accept that. In my opinion Justin Welby calculated to use Bishop Bell as another scapegoat; he has never admitted this. Courage? Humility? Not a chance.
Hypocrisy? Yes. Bearing false witness? Most certainly.
I send you my very best wishes and gratitude that you are still speaking up for Bishop Bell.
Yours sincerely
REPLY FROM LORD CAREY
Dear #######
Thank you for your most helpful email.
You have summed up the sorry mess very well. We must continue to fight against hypocrisy and deceit, even it comes from leaders of the church. Your support matters a lot.
My wife, Eileen, is a Scot: her mother was born in Dunoon and father in Ayrshire. We regularly return to Scotland to enjoy its beauty and people.
While my letter to the Ministry of Justice with regard to this subject on your behalf has been transferred to the Home Office, I am continuing to follow up concerning a response. When my office receives this I will update you.
“So to answer the question put to me this morning by the Bell Group, ‘How should we proceed?’, there is only one answer and it is clear: the Bell Group should call for Warner and Welby to resign – as indeed they ought to have done once Lord Carlile’s report had been published”
~ Rev Peter Mullen
My “Troublesome Priests’ article [below] on George Bell and the evil Warner and Welby in the current issue of The Salisbury Review.
They’re never going to lift that non-existent “cloud” which doesn’t hang over George’s head!
~ Rev Peter Mullen
March 19 2019 – Dr Gerald Morgan calls for Archbishop Welby’s Resignation
Dear Richard,
If the Archbishop of Canterbury (Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge) is a man of honour and integrity he will indeed now resign.
The besmirching of the reputation of Bishop George Bell remains a national scandal.
It is time that leader of the Church of England spoke out about the crime of bombing innocent civilians, as directed by Yvette Cooper, Theresa may and philip Hammond in Iraq in March 2003.
Kind regards,
Dr Gerald Morgan, FTCD (Leader: English Parliamentary Party, 2001)
Dr Gerald Morgan, FTCD (1993)
Lydbrook School (1946-1953),
Monmouth School (1953-1961),
Meyricke Exhibitioner, Jesus College, Oxford (1961-1964),
“To be worthy of the offices entrusted to them, both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chichester should do as Lord Carlile urges them; and for the safety of their own posthumous reputations, as well as ours, declare Bishop George Bell innocent of the allegations that have been tested, and fallen a very long way short of persuasiveness – let alone proof”
“No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong” – Judge David Clarke (on the David Jones case)
March 21 2019 – ‘PT’ Note
“Having read the article by Rev Peter Mullen on ‘Troublesome Priests’, in the current Spring issue of The Salisbury Review, I agree with him absolutely on his opinion concerning the conduct of the current Bishop of Chichester and, more importantly, the Archbishop. The two “Ws” should – having been responsible for this kangaroo court – have the decency to resign. A good man’s reputation and character has needlessly been castigated”
March 21 2019 – RWS Note
“If the Bishop of Chester Peter Forster is called upon to resign, then the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby must be called upon to do the same – for the same reason”
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Sir – I think I may be able to enlighten Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson (Letters, March 24) who writes about the case of Bishop Bell, as to the Church of England’s thinking on safeguarding.
At a recent parochial church council meeting in the Chichester diocese, a parish safeguarding officer gave a briefing on the introduction of a programme being trialled inthe diocese. Bishop Bell and others were mentioned, along with the stance taken by Archbishop Justin Welby.
The meeting was told that a change of mindset is needed. The old idea that one is “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply when dealing with a safeguarding complaint; the view has to be that there is a case to answer, and the defendant must prove his innocence.
Clearly Lord Carlile was operating under the old rules and Bishop Bell can never comply with the new rules.
In this way, church leaders are able to accept almost all of Lord Carlile’s report but still maintain there is a shadow over Bishop Bell.
“The first ecumenical conference held in Chichester in 1984 to celebrate Bishop George Bell proved so valuable that the regular ‘Coburg conferences’ were born. Held every other year, delegates from the Diocese of Chichester, the Evangelical Kirchenkreis Bayreuth, the Lutheran church in Berlin-Brandenburg, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bamberg meet for discussions, lectures and workshops on a variety of topics and current issues. It is an opportunity to share and solve problems together and exchange news of parish links. A very strong bond of support, fellowship and understanding has developed. There are resources relating to Coburg available in the related resources side panel of this page”
I really cannot see the Conference being of any great importance UNLESS the “significant cloud” hanging over Bishop Bell is lifted by Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner before the event ~ Richard W. Symonds
“The Revd George Mitchell, wearing his monocle, stands behind Bishop George Bell” – ‘The Bloomsbury Group in Berwick Church’ by Peter Blee [page 100] – Mural Painting by Duncan Grant c. 1941 – Photo by Richard W. Symonds – August 1 2018
A Lovely, Gentle Way of Striking a Blow for Truth and Justice
Here is a possible counterblast to the Church of England’s horrible Stalinist attempt to suppress and obscure the memory of the late Bishop George Bell, whose memorial in Chichester Cathedral was for some months disfigured with prejudicial ‘safeguarding’ notices, whose name has been stripped from several institutions and schools which it used to adorn and whose statue lies unfinished in a stoneyard at Canterbury cathedral, where he was for some years a most distinguished Dean. All this without anything remotely resembling a fair trial, let alone a finding of guilt.
If you dislike this sort of behaviour, you can do something constructive and rather wonderful, by helping to preserve some unique and rather lovely wall-paintings at the Church of St Michael and All Angels at Berwick (no, not that one) a village in East Sussex close to Virginia Woolf’s old home at Charleston. The Virginia Woolf detail is important, as you will see.
For some months now the campaign to get justice for George Bell has been treading water. Many of you will remember the devastating verdict which Lord Carlile QC pronounced on the Church of England’s kangaroo-court condemnation of the late Bishop.
For anyone unfamiliar with the case, the neccessary information is here . To begin with for the really keen, are almost all the necessary documents
Here is an account (in a newspaper which initially wrongly assumed Bell’s guilt) of the vindication, and of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s miserable failure to accept it
And here is the report by Lord Carlile QC, after which Lord Carlile said to me that, having reviewed the case very thoroughly, this distinguished advocate did not believe he could have won a prosecution on the evidence provided. This is as near as he could come to saying he thought Bell not guilty (since he was specifically not asked to rule on Bell’s guilt or innocence, I wonder why?)
So now let us go back to Berwick, a small, not-very-old church on the edge of the chalk downs of Sussex, chosen by George Bell for an artistic experiment in the 1940s. The full details of this are here
You can discover how George Bell (who loved all the arts and sought to harness them to the cause of Christ in the modern era) persuaded three Bloomsbury artists (not famous for their piety) to decorate the church with wall-paintings depicting Biblical themes. You can see pictures of what they did, many of which I find rather splendid and extraordinarily English, in a way that seemed to die out of our painting after about 1945.
Among them are, as a war memorial, pictures of a soldier, a sailor and an airman which I find extremely evocative. There is the birth of Christ in a Sussex stable, the Supper at Emmaus (to me the most moving moment in the entire Bible ‘Abide with us, for it is towards evening and the day is far spent’) with the chalk hills in the background, and an Annunciation with an English garden visible through the window.
And, which was only just, there is a representation of George Bell himself, his plain clergyman’s face well-depicted, resplendent in his Bishop’s robes. Gosh, I bet there are people who would be happy if that were to crumble away.
tells you how, if you are moved to do so, you can help achieve this. You might want to visit as well, I am told it is a very pleasant part of the country. I certainly plan to do so. But if you can help, what a lovely, quiet, good way of supporting truth justice and the English way of doing things, which does seem to be so very much under attack.
“A CDM is being issued against the Bishop of Chester Peter Forster – the only Lord Bishop who has openly supported Bishop Bell’s exoneration (and defied his Archbishop). This is very disturbing – and very reminiscent. The Church of England needs to keep its powerful hounds on a short, moral and legal leash, or else risk the tail wagging the dog. Please forgive me for stating the obvious, but if the Bishop of Chester Peter Forster is facing a CDM for his alleged inaction in the Dickenson case, then surely the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby must face a CDM for his inaction in the John Smyth case.
~ Richard W. Symonds
Lord Alex Carlile QC
“I am shocked by recent developments” – Lord Alex Carlile QC
We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the full story.
We are now publishing our analysis of the way in which the allegation against Bishop Bell has been handled by the authorities of the Church.
We note that the public has been consistently assured that the process by which the Church of England reached a view on Bishop Bell was ‘thorough’ and ‘objective’, and that it commissioned ‘experts’ whose ‘independent reports’ found ‘no reason to doubt the veracity of the claim[s]’ of sexual abuse made by the complainant.
However, although the nature of this process has never been publicly disclosed, we have discovered enough to establish its severe limitations which render it quite inadequate as a basis for assessing the probability of Bishop Bell’s guilt. The scope of the independent experts’ inquiries was limited to a degree that made a proper analysis of the complainant’s allegations virtually impossible. Our criticisms of the investigation are highlighted in paragraphs 15 to 17 of the enclosed Review. What is more, little or no respect seems to have been paid to the unheard interests of Bishop Bell or his surviving family – a serious breach of natural justice.
In view of the evidence that we have gathered and examined we have concluded that the allegation made against Bishop Bell cannot be upheld in terms of actual evidence or historical probability.
“NO NATION, NO CHURCH, NO INDIVIDUAL IS GUILTLESS WITHOUT REPENTANCE AND WITHOUT FORGIVENESS THERE CAN BE NO REGENERATION” ~ BISHOP GEORGE BELL 1883-1958
“In this CDM case against the Lord Bishop of Chester Peter Forster – an outspoken critic of the Church in its handling of the Bishop Bell case [as well as Lord Bishop Carey] – it really makes me wonder who is the monkey and who is the organ-grinder”
April 3 2019 – Bishop Bell: Making The Case For Mistaken Identity
“It is wrong that the possibility of misidentification is not being investigated more vigorously”
~ ‘G’
“…you do not restore confidence in the Church acting unjustly or by perpetuating an injustice. To be credible, and to ‘do what the Lord requires’ the Church must ‘act justly’ (Micah 6.8). The continuing arguments over the Bishop Bell case show what can follow from a failure to act justly”
~ ‘D’
“The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner has said: ‘The legitimate quest for certainty has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time’. Really? The legitimate quest for certainty has NOT YET been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Lord Carey is ‘suffering’ nightmares, so he says – the idea that he might one day be accused like Bishop Bell. So I suppose might I – or you. We don’t have to do anything, just wait until someone makes a mistake of identification.
“Bishop Bell needs an apology which removes the cloud from above his head. The Archbishop parallels Bishop Bell’s good works with unproven allegations. That’s a ‘non-sequitur’ – a nonsense. I believe that ‘abuse’ occurred, but the identification of the abuser was mistaken. What is needed is simple – ‘I’m sorry’, ‘I’m wrong’. It’s simple – it’s Christian. No trace of any cloud should be left over Bishop Bell’s head.
“The judgement of Lord Carlile in his review: traducing George Bell’s name was “just wrong”. The Church “rushed to judgement”. Have we really dropped the idea of ‘Christian decency’? This the Church – a bastion of truth and integrity. I am ashamed. The Church has been dragging its feet for over twelve months – three months should give any decent, Christian organisation time to review and apologise. The Church could have done that at General Synod.
“Shall we be generous? A deadline of Easter Sunday 2019 for the Church to admit that the accusation of Bishop George Bell is false, and to apologise to the family of Bishop George Bell, to the Cathedral at Chichester, that Diocese, and in the wider world. What a witness for Christ in a needy world!
“The devastating injustice promoted by the Church, in the disgracing of a saintly man of God, must result in humility, repentance and reparation…the condemnation came from the top…it may even result in honourable resignations, sad though they may be….It is time for standards of honesty and integrity to prevail.
“A question can be asked – needs to be asked: Who is the greater ‘criminal’…those in the Church who have gravely slandered Bishop Bell, hindered the police, and have misled the church and public? It is hard to think of a more despicable crime than blackening a ‘saint’ with this. The foolishness of falsely condemning Bishop bell, and going public, must be rectified – the sooner the better. For the Lord’s sake, do not procrastinate any longer.”
They should resign and all safeguarding handed over to an independent body. The church ‘hierarchy’ won’t want this of course. It opens too many cans of worms….
The majority of English people, I suggest, know nothing of all this, not because they don’t care about abuse, but because the Church of England is completely irrelevant to them—it’s much less important to them than, say, what’s happening in Corrie or Eastenders or Holby. And if this topic is raised—I know from experience—the response is “what do you expect from vicars?” Mr Ineson is absolutely right—the sooner safeguarding is in the hands of an independent body, the better. The church is manifestly, perhaps criminally, incompetent.
Barry
What is at issue in the Bishop Bell case is evidence, and the evidence submitted to support Carol’s claims that she was abused by him does not meet standards which would hold up in a court where, as Mr Symonds says, we must assume innocence until compelling evidence of guilt is presented. However much we may dislike the idea, the law must be concerned with evidence and not feeling. Furthermore, everything that is known about Bishop Bell’s character, his convictions and his lifestyle argues against Carol’s claims. This information was largely ignored by the initial investigation, later lambasted by Lord Carlile, as was the possibility of false memory. (Before the Carlile Report was published, someone who remembers the Bishop’s Palace in Chichester as it was in Bell’s day commented to me that some of Carol’s descriptions were inaccurate.)
I abhor the very idea of child abuse, but when the atmosphere surrounding the issue is as emotional as it is at present, it’s more than ever important that we go by evidence. I do not say this to excuse in any way those bishops and others who have protected abusers, and I am sure that all allegations of abuse must be taken seriously. What I dread is the situation to which we are perilously close of assuming Guilt By Accusation. I, like many other defenders of Bishop Bell’s memory, am quite prepared to believe that Carol was abused as a child, and had solid evidence of Bell’s guilt been given then I would accept it. This has not been the case. The whole business has been a fiasco, and the refusal of Justin Welby and Martin Warner to make an adequate public apology rankles, as does the thought of the pain caused to Carol and to Bishop Bell’s niece.
Richard W. Symonds
My ‘passion’ (eg feelings & emotions) springs more from a very deep sense of injustice than anything else.
The former Archbishop of Carey George Carey expresses this far better than myself – in his letter to the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner:
“In the case of George Bell you have stated that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’. Ipso facto, under our law, he is innocent…I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion ‘therefore he must be considered entirely innocent’ “
Yes, I will defend ‘to the death’ the principle of presumption of innocence – a foundation of international law and jurisprudence. There’s too much at stake. Our humanity and sense of natural justice demands it.
If we compromise on this principle – and replace it with a presumption of guilt – no-one is safe – you, me or anyone else.
If we compromise on this principle people can be made, as ‘Barry’ puts it, “Guilty by Allegation”.
If we compromise on this principle, what’s to stop someone accusing me, you or anyone else – of raping a child, and making that accusation ‘stick’ without evidence?
Justice demands that we right this wrong – or else we are at risk of losing more than our humanity.
The following paragraph may be of particular interest:
6.3 PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NEEDS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION – GRIEVANCES AND COMPLAINTS – WHERE BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS ARE INVOLVED, OPTIMISE OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY
By a Bishop’s own admission at IICSA, the Church assumes clergy are right. As the Peter Ball case proved years ago, this is even more true once Bishops and Archbishops are involved. The current two Archbishops and the previous two Archbishops of Canterbury have all failed to be open about major safeguarding failures.
April 5 2019 – From The Archives [May 3 2001 – “Dean denies cover-up” (page 2) – Chichester Observer – mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital) – Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014]
April 5 2019 – From The Archives [June 2001 – Edi Carmi is asked to review the Chichester case. The CARMI Report is completed in 2004, but only its Recommendations are published. In 2014 – 10 years later – the CARMI Report is published in full]
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
8.4 POSITIVE SENIOR ROLE MODELS OF HOLDING YOUR HANDS UP TO HAVING GOT IT WRONG (LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE)
The ability to learn from mistakes is fundamental to creating safe organisations. Grievances, complaints and whistleblowing processes are important feedback mechanisms whereby people who have had, or expected to have, a safeguarding response from the Church can flag up when things have gone awry and errors seem to have been made. They can be used to alert the Church to poor responses to non-recent cases or current issues, and some scenarios will include both.
The survey input highlighted how, from the perspective of people who come forward, the Church’s response at this stage (Stage Four in our model), provides a litmus test for the integrity and morality of the Church’s stance on safeguarding more broadly. People stressed that what they need to see is the Church responding with urgency and thoroughness, with openness and honesty. They need to see humility and readiness from all individuals to acknowledge past failings, regardless of the person’s current status within the Church.
There is a sense of needing to see a Church-wide responsibility for proactively seeking out and rectifying poor decision-making and practice to keep people safe, and active leadership to that end.
We do not, from the diocesan audits or the survey, have data with which to critique the diocesan or national complaints or whistleblowing processes or clergy disciplinary processes (CDM) for the extent to which it is set up to accomplish what survivors, and those coming forward to share concerns, say they need. With this finding, we raise a different, if linked, systemic issue: do any role models currently exist for how clergy put their hands up and openly acknowledge incidents where they have personally got it wrong in their responses to safeguarding issues? For example, where they may have failed to share information appropriately or follow-up when someone has disclosed abuse to them or where they have not flagged up safeguarding concerns about behaviour of clergy or people in Church-related roles, 123 that they knew was abusive. No such examples featured in aspects of safeguarding leadership identified in the diocesan audits. In other sectors, a blame culture often inhibits such openness and honesty about mistakes. The Church has potentially additional inhibitors, not least the question of how acceptable it is deemed to be for a person of God to get things wrong in life. This suggests that strong leadership is required to enable widespread confidence that if clergy do respond with openness and humility about their past personal failures to respond appropriately to knowledge of abuse or risky people or practices, they will themselves be supported, and enabled to work with the survivor to identify and make appropriate amends and not be scapegoated within the Church. Do senior people in the Church provide leadership in this regard? Are there any examples of Bishops setting the example? This could involve proactively bringing up past failures (rather than waiting for abuse survivors or the media to highlight them), and proactively seeking to find the best ways to rectify them? Where past failures have already been identified and dealt with through formal processes, a positive example could involve talking openly, humbly and constructively about them – what were the mistakes you made and why did they seem sensible at the time or at least the best of a bad set of options? How they were rectified and what have you learnt on a personal level? How would you respond differently in a similar situation today? Without such a public discourse in the Church, it is more likely that the bringing forward of poor practice and safeguarding mistakes, triggers negative cycles of response and counter-response by the Church and survivor, with no possibility of resolve.
Finding 3 summary: A lack of role models and leadership about how to hold your hands up to personal mistakes in responding to disclosures of abuse or safeguarding concerns, makes it more likely that people who come forward to flag up mistakes in the past will experience defensive responses when they raise poor past responses by people in the Church.
Questions to consider: Has there been adequate discussion within the Church of how to respond in an open and restorative manner to complaints and whistleblowing? Might case studies based on real life scenarios be co-produced with abuse survivors to help? Is enough known about the perceived and actual barriers to more proactive, open and honest responses, on the part of clergy particularly?
“He [Terence Banks] groomed and sexually abused children, both boys and girls, between January 1971 until just before his arrest in early 2000, the case review said”
[The father of Terence Banks – Eric Banks – died in 1989. The mother of Terence Banks died in 1994. Marjorie Alice Banks, sister of Eric Banks, married the 7th Viscount Bangor Edward Ward and died in 1991. She was the mother of actress Lalla Ward]
This looks to be good news. Ms. Caslake looks very well qualified for the role. Now they just need to appoint a full-time, permanent person to manage care of victims and survivors.
Martin Sewell
Janet beat me to asking the first necessary clarification. Is Ms Caslake focussed on Safeguarding ( preventative ) and/or victim care ( pastoral/supportive ) ?
“The Church of England has come a long way in improving its safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults in recent years, particularly since the establishment of the national safeguarding team in 2015″
This “courtier and civil servant” seems to have his eyes wide shut, not least to the Church Statement regarding Bishop Bell on Oct 22 2015:
Perhaps the Secretary General to the Archbishops’ Council missed this ‘elephant in the room’, and also what was said by a survivor in the SCIE Church Abuse Report:
“The current two Archbishops and the previous two Archbishops of Canterbury have all failed to be open about major safeguarding failures”
“But there is much still to do…”, says Mr Nye.
Indeed so.
April 11 2019 – IICSA to Richard W. Symonds
IICSA Investigation Team with Professor Alexis Jay (centre)
Dear Mr Symonds,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Inquiry on 5 April 2019 to enquire as to whether the Inquiry’s investigation into the Anglican Church will consider the possibility of ‘mistaken identity’ in relation to historic allegations made against Bishop George Bell.
Your observations regarding Bishop Bell have been noted. As the subject of an active investigation, it would be inappropriate for the Inquiry to provide comment on individual lines of enquiry relating to Bishop Bell prior to the formal publication of the investigation’s findings.
Thank you again for contacting the Inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
Jodie Yarborough
Head of Correspondence & Engagement Team Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
April 12 2019 – Chichester’s ‘Wall of Silence’ in the Banks’ Investigation
He [second survivor] said: “This CDM looks like selective accountability. What about other bishops who walked away from disclosures? What about the bishops who presided over an industrial-scale whitewash in the Past Case Review period (2008 – 2010) in which many dozens of cases were quietly ignored? What about bishops who’ve denied disclosures and distanced themselves from their own inertia?
“The crisis of the senior layer of the Church of England is that they haven’t found a way of putting hands up to past mistakes and owning their own failure.”
He and survivors group MACSAS (Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors) highlighted a report published on April 4 this year by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE).
A MACSAS spokesman said the document “illustrates the Church of England’s comprehensive failure in the treatment of victims of its own abuse”.
SCIE’s independent research indicates that fewer than one in five people who reported abuse in the church say they received a satisfactory response, and more than half never received any meaningful response at all.
The group spokesman said: “Those of us whose lives have been devastated by clergy abuse know this from long and bitter experience. We are victimized first by our abusers, and again by the church’s ‘defensive responses’ to criticism of its failings.
“For many years the Church of England has responded to the crisis of clergy abuse by saying ‘You can trust us. We’ve got this in hand’. The SCIE report confirms what we have known all along – that the church can no longer be trusted to manage disclosures of abuse.
“We repeat our call that this work should be handed over to a fully independent body.”
There is currently no UK law that requires the mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse – although campaigners have been pushing for such legislation.
However, bishops at the head of their dioceses have responsibility for safeguarding issues and are expected to pass on intelligence about suspected criminal activity to the police.
The Church has stressed it treats all complaints seriously and, aside from the CDM, Bishop Forster’s actions in 2009 are also being investigated by its National Safeguarding Team (NST)
April 13 2019 – RWS Note
“The crisis of the senior layer of the Church of England is that they haven’t found a way of putting hands up to past mistakes and owning their own failure” ~ ‘An Abuse Survivor’
One of their biggest past mistakes being, of course, the Bishop Bell debacle. The original investigating team, under the control of William Nye, acted as ‘judge, jury & executioner’ – in other words, acted as ‘a kangaroo court’ – the rule of the lynch mob.
The IICSA, Alex Carlile QC, Tim Briden, Lord Carey, Bishop Forster, Peter Hitchens, Charles Moore – and the George Bell Group – have already made this abundantly clear.
“The senior level of the Church of England” have been unable to admit their own failure in this regard – and have resorted to cover-up, obfuscation, scapegoating and smear campaigns.
This is a ‘cancer’ which is growing out of control.
A ‘cure’ has to be found – fast – or, as Chistopher Hoare said last February, its Archbishops and Bishops “will be making one of the most profound mistakes in the history of the modern Church”
She is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and forms an ulterior relationship with the Church of Scotland too, supposedly a free church. In the Church of England, the Queen appoints the archbishops, the bishops and the deans of course in consultation with the Prime Minister. In the House of Lords (Parliament), there are two archbishops and 24 senior bishops thus forming an important faction of the Parliament.
As the Established Church, Church and State are linked
April 14 2019 – From The Archives [May 2016 – A survivor of child sex abuse made a formal complaint under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure procedure against Burrows and five other bishops (Steven Croft, Martyn Snow, Glyn Webster, Roy Williamson, John Sentamu) for failing to act on his allegations. The survivor said he first told Burrows in 2012 about his abuse by a serving priest. All five bishops dismissed the complaint owing to the one-year time limit imposed by the CDM process.[4][5] The priest against whom the allegation was made went on to commit suicide the day he was due in court in June 2017 – See Sept 30 2016 – Protest]
April 14 2019 – From The Archives [Sept 30 2016 – Protest by Matt Ineson [and another] outside the Inauguration of Bishop Croft (formerly Bishop of Sheffield) as Bishop of Oxford. Leaflet distributed of 6 Bishops (incl. Croft) accused of misconduct – failing to report abuse – via a formal complaint under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure – CDM [See May 2016]. The abuser priest committed suicide in June 2017 on the day he was to appear in court].
April 15 2019 – RWS Note
“The crisis of the senior layer of the Church of England is that they haven’t found a way of putting hands up to past mistakes and owning their own failure” – ‘A Survivor’
One of their biggest past mistakes being, of course, the Bishop Bell debacle. The original investigating team, under the control of William Nye, acted as ‘judge and jury’ – in other words, acted as ‘a kangaroo court’. IICSA, Carlile and Briden have already made this abundantly clear.
“The senior level of the Church of England” have been unable to admit their own failure in this regard – and have resorted to obfuscation and scapegoating.
This is a ‘cancer’ which is growing out of control….
My chief criticism of ‘Safeguarding’ – as defined, implemented and controlled by the “senior layer of the Church of England – is that it perpetuates injustice by being so narrow in its definition, implementation and control.
To avoid miscarriages of justice, ALL parties must be safeguarded – and that must include those who are abused and those who are falsely and wrongfully accused of abuse….
Whilst it is true, sadly, there are ‘rogue elements’ embedded within the “senior layer of the Church of England” which are perpetuating injustices – such as the injustice to Bishop Bell – the Church itself, fortunately, has more deeply embedded within it the Christ-like principles and values (honed over the centuries) of truth and justice.
So, there is good reason to hope – not despair – in the sad situation we are in at present….
If he was alive today, what would the wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell do – and say – in this ‘safeguarding’ mess in which he was embroiled?
What would Bishop Bell do? Last February, one answer to that question was given by Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson – the daughter of Franz Hildebrandt [great friend and colleague of both the Bishop and Dietrich Bonhoeffer]:
What would Bishop Bell say? In 1993 [26 years ago], one answer to that question was [indirectly] given by Alan Wilkinson – “Britain and the Threat to Stability in Europe, 1918-45” (page 77):
“Bell shared the Anglo-Catholics’ conviction that the church was not, and must never be, the creature of the state. When he spent Christmas 1914 at Canterbury with the Archbishop, Davidson, he noted in his diary on 29 December that this was the day on which Becket was murdered, and [Bell] went to the Cathedral to visit the place of his martyrdom. Indeed Becket was to become increasingly influential in the twentieth century Church of England, reminding it that there are times when the church has to stand against the state”…
In the light of Bishop Martin’s words last year:
“The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong…” ~ The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester – 14 March 2018 – Page 21 Paras 14-18
the cause of ‘Safeguarding’ and ‘Rebuilding’ are ill-served by a continuing, deeply unjust lack of genuine apology – and restitution – for this wrong-doing against Bishop Bell (and others) by the Diocese of Chichester – and beyond…
If there had been somebody there [in the Core Group] to speak in Bishop Bell’s defence, as there should have been morally and legally, this mess – entirely of the Church’s own making – would have been easily avoided.
Why the Church – especially ++Welby and +Warner – cannot simply apologise and admit a mistake is beyond me.
Is it the deadly sin of Pride which makes for moral blindness and an inability to admit wrong?
Whatever it is, it is wrong – and we should expect more from an Archbishop and Bishop.
Meanwhile, Bishop Bell continues speaks with as much moral authority and wisdom today as he did during the war:
“It [the Church] possesses an authority independent of the State. It is bound, because of that authority, to proclaim the realities which outlast change…It is not the State’s spiritual auxiliary with exactly the same ends as the State. To give the impression that it is, is both to do a profound disservice to the nation and to betray its own principles…
“The Church is not a sort of universal boudoir where people meet and take their ease and keep their minds away from serious things…There is an intensity in the conflict with evil…I see the evil in the blindness and selfishness of all nations, including our own…I see it in the idolatry of wealth; I see it in the passive acceptance…I see it in the bitter nationalism which sets people against people and makes sheer power and domination the be-all and end-all of government; I see it in the totalitarian State; I see it in the brutality and cruelty…I see it in the outrages…And while I see it in all these forms, I cannot fail to see it, concentrated in a special form, in War…a war between God and the spirit of evil for the possession of the soul…”
“The area which he [Lord Carlile] has rightly…identified is that there was nobody there [in the Core Group] to speak for Bishop Bell, and that, again…is something that I think was wrong…”
~ The Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – Day 8 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester – 14 March 2018 – Page 21 Paras 14-18
Fiona Scolding QC and Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
Q. Can I turn now to the allegations made against 3 George Bell. An independent review was published 4 in December by Lord Carlile of Berriew. Paul, would you 5 mind getting that up? It is not in your bundle, chair 6 and panel, so we will get it up on screen. ANG000152, 7 Paul. Then we need page 64, which should be section K. 8 This is some conclusions that I am going to ask you 9 to comment upon that Lord Carlile made in respect of 10 the core group. 11 Maybe if I explain, what happened in respect of 12 the George Bell case is that something called a core 13 group was set up [Who by? Ed], which was a group of individuals. Did 14 that include you? I can’t actually remember?
15 A. I was present at some meetings, but not at others.
16 Q. So there were a number of people — so Colin Perkins was 17 involved, and we will hear some quite detailed evidence 18 from him about his view about the Carlile Report. So 19 I am not going to take you through it in any detail. 20 I just want to deal with this bit, as you were a member 21 of the core group at some point in time.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. They met regularly in order to, firstly, investigate, 24 and, secondly, to reach conclusions. 25 There is criticism of the core group. It is Page 20 1 described by Lord Carlile as “unmethodical and 2 unplanned” and “it was a confused and unstructured 3 process at which members had no coherent notion of their 4 roles and what was expected of them”. Would you like to 5 comment upon that? Is that your understanding?
6 A. These are stringent and harsh observations which largely 7 we accept. We were in a situation here of breaking new 8 ground. The formation of a core group was something 9 which we were unfamiliar with, which has subsequently 10 been regulated for us, and we were also, of course, very 11 aware of working in the context of a serious criminal 12 allegation (? – Ed) against a person of a massive international 13 and national reputation. 14 So I think the failures of consistency, of sense of 15 purpose and how we were to function, those 16 allegations — those criticisms are valid against us. 17 I don’t think, however, that that means we were 18 cavalier or unaware of the seriousness of 19 the responsibilities that we were trying to carry out. 20 Q. Paul, could we turn to the next page, because that’s in 21 fact where my quotation comes from. Yes. So we have 22 254(i). The other matter I want to put to you is, it 23 further comments down at (v): 24 “There was no organised or valuable enquiry or 25 investigation into the merits of the allegations, and 1 the standpoint of Bishop Bell was never given parity or 2 proportionality.” 3 What is your response to that?
4 A. The question of an organised or valuable inquiry is 5 something of a value judgment, I think, and we certainly 6 didn’t feel that there was no serious inquiry into that 7 which was undertaken through our insurers and their 8 legal representative in whom we had considerable trust 9 and regard and who Lord Carlile also recognises as 10 a responsible and able person. 11 I see him to say that the standpoint of Bishop Bell 12 was never given parity or proportionality. It was 13 certainly given proportionality. We understood 14 absolutely that was the case.I think the area which 15 he’s rightly also identified is that there was nobody 16 there to speak for Bishop Bell (how can that be proportionality? – Ed) and that, again, with 17 the benefit of hindsight, is something that I think was 18 wrong and we have welcomed —
19 Q. That’s (ix), chair and panel, just so that you know.
20 A. We would recognise it would represent best practice now 21 in the ways in which we have outlined our procedures.
22 Q. Can I ask, why was the decision taken to issue a public 23 statement about the George Bell case, because that’s 24 something that Lord Carlile does also critique?
25 A. Yes. Page 22 1 Q. Perhaps you would like to explain?
2 A. We were very aware of working in the light of 3 the recommendations in the interim report of 4 the archbishop’s commissaries (? – Ed) which had been very clear 5 that no settlement with a survivor should include 6 a gagging clause. Of course you could say there’s 7 a difference between a gagging clause and making 8 a public statement, but it was very strongly felt that 9 to settle and to write a letter of apology and to make 10 no public statement, with no indication as to whether or 11 not those actions would become public, would look very 12 quickly like cover-up. Therefore, we felt that there was 13 an obligation on us to be open about what it was that we 14 were proposing to do.
15 Q. If I can just identify that Lord Carlile at 16 paragraphs 267 and 268 of his report — ANG000152, Paul, 17 at page 68, says: 18 “I am sure that the archbishop does not think it 19 appropriate to support the publication of what may be an 20 unjustified and probably irreparable criticism of 21 anyone, whether a celebrated bishop or not.” 22 And at 268: 23 “I regard this as a case, perhaps a relatively rare 24 one, in which steps should and could have been taken to 25 retain full confidentiality, with a clear underlying Page 23 1 basis for explaining why it was done. For Bishop Bell’s 2 reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way 3 that occurred was just wrong.” 4 Do you have any comment you wish to make about that?
5 A. The first comment I would want to make is that, I think 6 we have learnt a painful lesson about the difficulty of 7 communicating through the media a very fine legal 8 nuance, and it’s recognised by Lord Carlile that we 9 never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell, but to 10 communicate that in terms that the general public are 11 going to understand through the media is a very 12 difficult thing to do. Therefore, I think he does raise 13 an important question here about dealing with posthumous 14 cases, but also about being fair, I think, and 15 recognising the legitimacy and substance to an 16 allegation which we certainly felt was necessary with 17 Carol, the name that’s used for the person who brought 18 the case. 19 Q. Can we turn now, if we may, to another topic
Q. Can I ask you now — I think begin to ask you — about 25 the situation in respect of Bishop George Bell. You Page 184 1 have provided a — you provided some details about it 2 within your first witness statement. But you also have 3 a supplementary statement in which you comment upon your 4 views about the report of Lord Carlile of Berriew. 5 I want to mainly take you, because I will say again, as 6 I have said several times, we are not interested in the 7 truth or otherwise of the allegations concerning 8 George Bell.I also understand from information which 9 has been — which is in the public domain that there is 10 another allegation. I will not be asking you about 11 that. 12 So if I can just identify, what happened in respect 13 of the George Bell case is that there was a core group, 14 you were part of that core group, consistently, which 15 was set up. What was your understanding of the purpose 16 of the core group?
17 A. If I may, I should say that the core group first met 18 13 months after the first email from Carol came in (May 2014 – Ed).She 19 emailed initially to Lambeth Palace April 2013. That 20 was forwarded to me.
21 Q. I think you set out — I don’t think we need to turn it 22 up, but paragraphs 392 to 398, chair and panel, of 23 the statement deal with what steps were taken.
24 A. Exactly. So the steps were essentially to offer support 25 and Gemma Wordsworth was the person who was doing all of 1 that throughout the rest of 2013, and actually 2 throughout. 3 A civil claim was entered in I believe it was early 4 2014and the core group was essentially — I think it 5 met in early — in May 2014, essentially to respond to 6 the matters arising from that. I don’t think we 7 initially called it a core group, because practice 8 guidance was still emerging at the time. So it was 9 effectively a meeting between key diocesan and national 10 personnel. It became called the core group because that 11 was the term in the emerging guidance. But I don’t 12 think it was initially called one.
13 Q. At paragraph 6 of your supplementary witness statement, 14 which is, just for the record, ACE0262843_003, chair and 15 panel, of that document, you refer to three documents: 16 a briefing note; a George Bell review timeline of key 17 decisions; and a safeguarding timeline overview. 18 Now, if we could get the first one of those up, 19 ACE026290. So this is the briefing note that took place 20 prior to the first core group meeting, which, as you 21 have said, wasn’t actually called that, in May 2014, and 22 this was just to inform everybody about the nature of 23 the case?
24 A. Yeah, myself and Gemma wrote this to make sure that 25 everyone in the meeting had an appraisal of where Page 186 1 things — where we were at.
2 Q. Just to — I mean, I think everyone is familiar probably 3 in this room with the allegations in respect of 4 George Bell, but there was an allegation made by Carol 5 of inappropriate touching in the late 1950s.It would 6 appear that the complainant wrote to Eric Kemp in 1995. 7 That letter was on a file. That was then not 8 discovered. Then she then wrote again in 2013 to 9 Lambeth Palace and it was then discovered that the 10 letter had taken place in 1995 and that matters then 11 progressed from there. But it does appear that the file 12 had not been subject to the 2008/2009 past cases review.
13 A. That’s so.
14 Q. I understand there is some reference in one of 15 the documents — and I’m afraid I couldn’t find it — 16 that somebody called it — it was found in the “naughty 17 boys’ cabinet” or something like that. What is that?
18 A. Gosh, that’s an unfortunate phrase, isn’t it?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. In the corridor in Bishop’s Palace, there is a cabinet 21 to the right which is effectively closed disciplinary 22 cases, so that’s — someone has called it the “naughty 23 boys’ cabinet”. So that’s what’s in there.
24 Q. I understand the reference, if we want to see it, is 25 ANG000030_017 to 018. Thank you, Mr Greenwood. Page 187
1 A. Opposite that is a cabinet of largely administrative 2 files that are nothing to do with personnel; maybe to do 3 with a particular trust or a particular building. Upon 4 receiving Carol’s letter, Gemma and I went to the palace 5 to see if we could find, well, anything on George Bell, 6 and so we happened to look in that cabinet, not really 7 expecting —
8 Q. Is that the “naughty boys’ cabinet” or the trust deed 9 cabinet, so to speak?
10 A. No, I would have already seen it if it was in the 11 disciplinary cabinet, because I’d gone through that when 12 I first arrived —
13 Q. Right.
14 A. — for obvious reasons. The administrative cabinet, we 15 found just a loose manila folder of — that contained 16 almost all correspondence about George Bell. It was 17 things to do with the 50th anniversary of his death. It 18 was largely people writing in, “I was visiting the 19 cathedral. I was thinking about George Bell and his 20 work in World War II”, et cetera, et cetera. It was 21 that kind of material. We really therefore had no 22 expectation of finding anything, and then we did find 23 this letter from 1995 and the associated material.
24 Q. So this briefing note was given to everyone. Could we 25 just look briefly through the briefing note. Can you Page 188 1 just talk us through it. I don’t think you need to talk 2 us through — could we go to — is it just one page or 3 does it go over to the next page? It goes over to the 4 next page. Right. It sets out basically the 5 chronology, what’s happened when and the fact that there 6 have been some difficulties. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. There is then a timeline of key decisions. So this was 9 prepared in advance of a review meeting held 10 in June 2016. This is ACE026297, tab 50. 11 I’m assuming that this is prepared for 12 Lord Carlile’s benefit?
13 A. Not — sorry, not at that point, no. This was the 14 meeting at Lambeth Palace, as far as I remember, this 15 was the meeting at which it was decided to commission 16 a review which then was the review that Lord Carlile was 17 asked to do. So this was that meeting. He hadn’t been 18 asked.
19 Q. Do you mind, Paul, if we just switch forward slightly on 20 this. There is more than one page. In other words, 21 it’s a chronology which says what happened when. So 22 you’ve got “Email” and then “Detail and comment” and 23 then where it comes from; is that right?
24 A. Exactly.
25 Q. Thank you very much. The third document is Page 189 1 “Safeguarding timeline overview”, which is, again, 2 another summary also produced for the June 2016 meeting. 3 That’s ACE026288, please, Paul. Again, what’s this?
4 A. I think it — I believe it was a summary of the previous 5 documents.
6 Q. So this is kind of, “We know that some people are not 7 going to read the entire document, so I’m going to give 8 you the headlines”?
9 A. Essentially.
10 Q. An executive summary, I believe is the word that’s 11 usually used?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That’s fine. Can you describe the approach that you 14 considered what then became known as the core group were 15 taking when they were looking at the situation in 16 respect of Carol? I mean, you detail this in your 17 submission to Lord Carlile in July 2017, but it would be 18 useful to have that precised, really?
19 A. Yes, I’m trying to think how to precis it. The approach 20 of the core group was — it was effectively to — or the 21 approach of the meeting that became the core group was 22 effectively to decide how to respond to the perhaps 23 fairly unique situation we were presented with. As 24 I said, by that point, support to Carol had been offered 25 for over a year. She’d spoken to the police. There’d Page 190 1 been some counselling provided, and so on and so forth. 2 But I suppose it was the situation that really arose 3 from the receipt of the civil claim, and it was — we 4 were very mindful of —
5 Q. Can I just check. In fact, the civil claim — one of 6 the difficulties with the Carol situation is the fact 7 that the church is not insured in claims against 8 bishops — well, I think it probably is now but it 9 wouldn’t have been at the relevant time that the 10 insurance arose?
11 A. Yes, and that was, I think, one of the prompts for that 12 meeting. I think that for me that is an essential part 13 of understanding what happened here, that we were in 14 a very unusual situation of a civil claim coming in that 15 was uninsured, and, therefore, it wasn’t clear to whom 16 that effectively — to whom the liability belonged. 17 I should say, as I think I allude to in my 18 supplementary statement, there was a backdrop here, and 19 the backdrop was that we would also — well, the church, 20 that any civil claim with regards to Peter Ball would 21 have been in that same position. 22 I wasn’t involved in any of the discussions around 23 this, but I was aware that discussions were taking 24 place, that there could have been a very — 25 a potentially large number of civil claims coming in Page 191 1 from around Peter Ball that would have also been 2 uninsured. So I think — as I said, I wasn’t involved 3 in any of those conversations, but there was an 4 awareness that any decision made around the George Bell 5 claim, there was a wider context.
6 Q. The approach that you have taken may — some people may 7 perceive it as a “believe anyone” approach. What were 8 you trying to do, or what do you think the core group 9 was trying to do? Because obviously Lord Carlile 10 thought that you were approaching it in the same way as 11 you would approach any other civil claim, so you were 12 trying to make a decision, you know, “Should this 13 individual be believed on the balance of probabilities 14 or shouldn’t they?” Was that the aim and objective of 15 the core group?
16 A. If I could just take those points in order?
17 Q. Of course.
18 A. In terms of the “believe anyone” approach, that’s 19 actually never been the approach that — I can only 20 speak for my team, but that — said in those terms, it 21 sounds quite pejorative. It sounds quite —
22 Q. That’s —
23 A. No, no —
24 Q. I’m saying it to challenge you.
25 A. I understand. Page 192
1 Q. Because that’s what critics of it would say?
2 A. Exactly. So I understand the caricaturing of that kind 3 of approach is a sort of naive, believing anyone no 4 matter how fantastical the allegation, that has never 5 been the approach of my team. But the approach of my 6 team has very much been a willingness to take very 7 seriously anyone making an allegation and to offer the 8 support that would be offered essentially if the 9 allegation is true. So it’s not assessing the 10 allegation before support is offered, but it’s 11 essentially offering the support on the assumption that 12 it could be true. I’m probably articulating that quite 13 badly, but that’s the approach of my team. 14 In terms of, by the time the core group met, we were 15 aware that the civil claim would have to be assessed, so 16 almost by definition, the core group didn’t meet with 17 that kind of “believe anyone” approach because it was 18 meeting to start thinking about how were we going to 19 assess that claim.
20 Q. But was it meant to be an investigative process, kind of 21 a way of saying — or was it — I mean, please explain?
22 A. Yes. The first meeting, May 2014, was essentially, how 23 are we going to proceed? The second meeting, I believe 24 it was in July 2014, was — the advice received from the 25 lawyer who — the lawyer who was acting in the civil Page 193 1 claim, although by that point it wasn’t entirely clear 2 who was instructing her because of this concern about 3 with whom did liability rest, but the lawyer acting in 4 that situation effectively — we were quite soon getting 5 into conversations about, should there be some kind of 6 publicity, should there be some kind of, you know, 7 acknowledgement that this claim or this allegation has 8 been made against this huge historical figure, and her 9 advice was very clear: you don’t have much ability to 10 test the claim, because it’s so old, but you do have — 11 sorry, to test the allegation, but you do have a civil 12 claim, so if you were to go public in any way before you 13 have tested that claim, before that claim is settled or 14 resolved, then you will be open to, you know, exactly 15 the kind of allegation of, “Well, you just — you know, 16 you jumped the gun”. So her advice was, allow this 17 claim to run, effectively; let’s do all of the things we 18 normally do in civil claims, instruct psychiatrists and 19 verify what can be verified and so on and so forth. 20 Once that is done, if the claim is settled, then 21 consider what to do about publicity. 22 So that’s what happened.
Really, looking back, we’d 23 all acknowledge that I think this was where the problem 24 arose, that at that point, very unusually indeed, the 25 core group became quite intricately involved with the 1 civil claim and the response to the civil claim — 2 perhaps not quite that they became synonymous, but it 3 was getting there. I think we’d all look back and say 4 that should have been held much more separately.
Page 94
5 MS SCOLDING: I don’t know whether, chair, this might be an 6 appropriate moment to break, because I’m about to start 7 on the response to the Carlile Report which I think will 8 take us past a reasonable hour. So I don’t know whether 9 now might be an appropriate moment?
10 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, 11 Mr Perkins.
12 MS SCOLDING: Don’t forget, Mr Perkins, you are under oath. 13 Thank you. 14 (4.24 pm) 15 (The hearing was adjourned until 16 Friday, 16 March 2018 at 10.00 am)
Fiona Scolding QC – Q. He [Lord Carlile] identifies that one of the other issues is that 24 there wasn’t adequate engagement and involvement of 25 Bishop Bell’s family or people speaking on Bishop Bell’s 1 behalf. I think you accept that critique, don’t you?
Perkins – 2 A. I accept that critique,
Page 24
15 Q. Was it the situation that there was scant, if any, 16 regard to Bishop Bell’s good character? Because that 17 comes out of this at various other points in his 18 conclusions? Paragraph 56 of Lord Carlile’s conclusion, 19 he says: 20 “… scant, if any, regard to … Bishop Bell’s good 21 character [was paid].” 22 Again, he also argued that there was deliberate 23 destruction of the reputation of George Bell. What do 24 you say to those two things?
25 A. In terms of the regard given to his good character, the Page 25 1 esteem, he also talks about that —
2 Q. You deal with this at paragraph 70 and onwards of your 3 witness statement. Maybe if you would like to turn that 4 up for your own benefit. Chair and panel, that’s 5 page 25 of Mr Perkins’ supplementary witness statement?
6 A. We were very mindful indeed of the reputation of 7 George Bell, and in many ways the reputation of 8 George Bell is why we were holding the core group in the 9 first place. I have just mentioned a number of other 10 allegations we’d received about deceased clergy. Most 11 of those are obscure clergy, and didn’t generate this 12 level of action. Because we were aware of the weight of 13 his reputation and the likely impact of people reacting 14 to any actions we took, to some extent that was the 15 reason that we were having this nationally chaired 16 meeting involving staff from both the national church 17 and Chichester. 18 But I am very surprised at the extent to which, 19 certainly throughout the last two and a half years, 20 there have been many calls, and I am concerned that some 21 of those calls have correctly or otherwise perceived 22 a high level of support from within Lord Carlile’s 23 report for the suggestion that a great man such as Bell 24 cannot possibly have also been an abuser. 25 As I outlined in my statement, that runs against Page 26 1 a lot of the evidence that I’m aware of internationally 2 with regards to child sexual offenders within 3 institutions. If I may, I think there’s one other point 4 that I particularly want to make on that, and for me 5 this is quite an important point: Carol gave an 6 interview to the Brighton Argus in February 2016 — 7 sorry, 2014 — no, I’m getting my dates wrong, it was 8 2016, in response to the controversy. In that interview 9 she said, “I know that George Bell was a man of peace, 10 but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do these things to me”. 11 It always struck me as very powerful that, of all of 12 the people in this narrative, she has managed to keep 13 the balance and she has managed to articulate very 14 powerfully that it’s possible that he was both.
15 Q. I think at paragraph 70 of your witness statement you 16 identify some research that the NSPCC did in educational 17 settings which often found that those who sexually 18 abused students are often the most competent and popular 19 of staff and are often — I think the word used by the 20 NSPCC is “adored”?
21 A. Yes. The evidence — much of the evidence this inquiry 22 has heard, much of the academic evidence throughout the 23 world, suggests, again, going back to Nigel Speight’s 24 quote, that people find it extremely difficult to 25 believe that especially their admired leaders, or Page 27 1 admired teachers within that educational setting, 2 sometimes the teachers that are the most popular could 3 also be guilty of abuse. We know that’s worldwide 4 research.
5 Q. There are two technical issues I want to raise. 6 Lord Carlile criticises the core group, and this is at 7 paragraph 167 of his report, page 044, chair and panel, 8 if you want to get it up, B47. He identifies — he says 9 that one of the things that you got wrong was not 10 understanding that he wouldn’t — had he been alive, he 11 wouldn’t have satisfied the arrest conditions, is what 12 he says. 13 So you mistakenly — what I think he indicates is, 14 having read the minutes, he believes that what happened 15 was, you all thought he would be arrested, he would have 16 been arrested, and therefore that was something which 17 fed into your consideration of whether or not the civil 18 claim should be settled?
19 A. Firstly, I’m not sure that he’s correct about that, 20 having worked with Sussex Police on a large number of 21 cases. I’m actually just not sure that he’s correct. 22 I think he may well have been. 23 But he largely suggested that we were so 24 inexperienced within the criminal justice system that we 25 conflated arrest with charge with conviction. As I say Page 28 1 in my statement, that is simply not the case. There 2 were plenty of very experienced safeguarding 3 professionals with, between us, decades of experience 4 within the criminal justice system who were perfectly 5 capable of separating those things out.
6 Q. Thank you. He also identifies that you hadn’t followed 7 the basic prosecutorial process of looking at whether or 8 not something had happened and whether or not — you 9 know, the two-stage test which the CPS identified. Do 10 you have any comment that you wish to make about that?
11 A. Well, he specifically criticises that Sussex Police 12 hadn’t communicated properly to us that process. He 13 identifies Detective Inspector EF as the person who 14 should have, but didn’t, correctly communicate that to 15 us. He identifies that from one email exchange in 2013, 16 right at the start, when we were arranging Carol’s 17 interview with Sussex Police. 18 As I say in my statement, between certainly myself 19 and Gemma, we probably had weekly contacts with DI EF 20 across a five-year period between Operation Perry and 21 Operation Dunhill, and I think it highlights my point 22 that making that conclusion based on one email exchange 23 rather than discussing that with us, where we could have 24 explained that level of contact, is one of my concerns 25 about the process of the report. Day 10 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 16 March 2018
Page 29 1 Q. He also recommends, Lord Carlile, at paragraph 170, that 2 there should have been specialist criminal law advice 3 provided to the group. What’s your view about that?
4 A. If I can just —
5 Q. It is page 44 of B47, chair and panel. Thank you very 6 much, Paul.
7 A. I’m just trying to find within my own statement —
8 Q. Oh, you deal with it at paragraph 57, Mr Perkins.
9 A. Thank you.
10 Q. Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58.
11 A. Thank you. Firstly, this was a civil claim, so tested 12 to the civil standard. So it’s still not clear, and 13 I believe not clear to others who are responding to 14 this, why a comment about whether or not it could have 15 been proved to the criminal standard would necessarily 16 help us in deciding whether it could have been proved to 17 the civil standard. 18 But, again, that comment seems to have ignored my 19 submission from July 2016, where I make really clear, 20 and the minutes make really clear, and the legal advice 21 provided to the core group makes really clear, we were 22 making a choice to believe. 23 There was — never at any point, in my recollection, 24 at any point in the core group, did anyone say, “He 25 would have been convicted for this, so we have no Page 30 1 choice”. That just wasn’t part of the discussion, which 2 I say in that paragraph.
3 Q. Which, again, Lord Carlile in his report at 4 paragraph 171 seems to identify that one of 5 the criticisms of the core group is they didn’t think 6 about whether or not he would have been prosecuted had 7 he been alive, and he identifies that the prospects of 8 successful prosecution were low. I think at 9 paragraph 57, you say —
10 A. Thank you.
11 Q. — “Well, we wouldn’t necessarily have asked ourselves 12 that question”?
13 A. We were fully aware that the chances of a conviction, 14 were he alive, were low, and, as I say at the end of 15 paragraph 57, external advice on that particular point, 16 was a criminal conviction likely, was not sought, not 17 because it never occurred to us to ask, but because the 18 answer was relatively obvious.
19 Q. Can I ask you just about two further points that he 20 raises at paragraph 155, if we can go back to that, 21 please, chair and panel, 038, please, Paul. Page 38, 22 chair and panel, of B47. 23 He identifies that one of the other issues is that 24 there wasn’t adequate engagement and involvement of 25 Bishop Bell’s family or people speaking on Bishop Bell’s Page 31 1 behalf. I think you accept that critique, don’t you?
2 A. I accept that critique, although in the submission from 3 the National Safeguarding Steering Group, I would also 4 emphasise the separation in that submission from the 5 action — between the actions of the core group, the 6 work of the core group, and the work of — I think it’s 7 called — a group — a body thinking about the 8 litigation. I am not sure that there should be within 9 the core group a person doing that, because the core 10 group is really managing a different situation. I think 11 that obviously and clearly should happen, but perhaps 12 within that different body. I think that’s the advice 13 from — or that’s the response from the National 14 Safeguarding Steering Group, which I would agree with.
15 Q. Two further issues: one about limitation; the second 16 about non-disclosure agreements. Obviously you are not 17 a lawyer, so I’m not going to ask you this. One of 18 the points that Lord Carlile raises is that nobody 19 seriously considered the limitation issue and/or that 20 the limitation issue should have been considered. Just 21 for the public, the usual rule is that such claims have 22 to be brought within — well, actually, in cases of 23 sexual violence, it is six years, but in cases of breach 24 of duty, ie negligence, it’s three years but with an 25 equitable time limit under section 33 of the Limitation Page 32 1 Act, which involves, in effect, looking at all the 2 circumstances and saying, is it there or isn’t it there. 3 Now, we understand from the Ecclesiastical Insurance 4 Office’s guiding principles that in an insured claim — 5 we dealt with this with Professor Macfarlane earlier in 6 the week — they only raise limitation exceptionally, so 7 to speak?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was limitation something which was considered and 10 discussed within the context of the group?
11 A. It was —
12 Q. Just to say, “It was just too long ago. We can’t 13 possibly settle a claim on this basis”?
14 A. It was considered and discussed extensively in the 15 second core group, July 2014. The minutes make that 16 very clear. In fact, the explanation you’ve just given 17 is possibly almost verbatim the explanation that was 18 given to that core group, and, as the minutes show, 19 there was then an extensive discussion. 20 I think, again, that goes back to my problem about 21 the process of the Lord Carlile review. 22 What the minutes do not say is, “The purpose of 23 limitation was clearly explained”, largely because 24 everyone was fully aware. They were clearly explained 25 but the minutes don’t clearly say that. Day 10 IICSA Inquiry – Chichester 16 March 2018
9 (Pages 33 to 36) Page 33 1 Q. Of course, the issues of vicarious liability have 2 changed markedly over the past 10 years in respect of 3 cases of sexual violence against individuals?
4 A. Exactly.
5 Q. To make them a lot more generous than they were, shall 6 I put it that way?
7 A. Yes. But, as I say, the very fact that we had an 8 extensive discussion suggests that that — the point of 9 limitation was fully understood. That is certainly the 10 case: it was fully understood.
11 Q. Non-disclosure agreement. The other significant 12 criticism that Lord Carlile makes is, why wasn’t there 13 a confidentiality agreement put to this in order to 14 avoid what he considers to be unfair besmirching of 15 Bishop Bell’s reputation. I mean, that’s probably 16 putting it slightly higher than Lord Carlile puts it in 17 his report, so I’m slightly overegging that, but he 18 considers that it’s unfair. I think the church has 19 responded and said, “We think it was right that there 20 wasn’t a non-confidentiality agreement and we don’t 21 agree to — confidentiality agreements, I think, rather 22 than non-confidentiality agreements — think about NDA, 23 the US word for them. What’s your view about that, if 24 you have any?
25 A. As you said, the church has already rejected that Page 34 1 proposal. I was very glad to see that. As you said, 2 I’m not a lawyer, so I possibly shouldn’t stray into 3 this, but my understanding of —
4 Q. Well, from the perspective of somebody — you’ve 5 identified that you started this process trying to work 6 from the perspective of providing compassionate support 7 to victims and survivors? 8 A. Exactly.
9 Q. From that perspective, that’s your view?
10 A. From that perspective, my understanding of 11 Lord Carlile’s recommendation with regards to the 12 non-disclosure agreement or the confidentiality 13 agreement, he also suggests — my understanding of his 14 report is — that we should have settled the claim 15 with —
16 Q. Sort of no admission of liability?
17 A. No admission of liability. From my point of view, from 18 the perspective you just described, that would have 19 effectively been saying, “We are not accepting your 20 claim. We are not going to apologise. We are going to 21 perhaps provide some monetary settlement and we are 22 going to require you to sign a non-disclosure 23 agreement”. That is exactly the opposite of where 24 I think the church should be on this issue, from my 25 perspective. Page 35
1 Q. Can we now — that’s been very helpful, and I think we 2 have got a very clear view from you of your critique of 3 that, which I know you were very clear that you wanted 4 to give to this inquiry. 5 Can we now turn to the more mundane topic, or maybe 6 more exciting topic, of what you actually do on 7 a day-to-day basis?….
George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – Chichester Cathedral – before the name change [Picture: Alamy]
“…there is an opportunity to celebrate Easter Sunday with a delicious three course lunch at the former archdeaconry at 4 Canon Lane, a beautifully restored eight bedroom house situated in the historic Cathedral Close” – Chichester Cathedral “spokeswoman”How deeply tragic this Eastertide the “spokeswoman” for Chichester Cathedral failed to mention that 4 Canon Lane was once called George Bell House up until 2015. It is hoped that by next Easter this great wartime Bishop of Chichester will have had his name rightfully restored in the Cathedral City ~ Richard W. Symonds
His Grace [Archbishop Welby – Ed] did not give a convincing account of either himself or of the CofE’s position with regard to Smyth and the Iwerne Trust. I found my toes were curling as he equivocated. The interviewer gave him an out by introducing the subject of the chaotic home life he had endured but it all felt very unsatisfactory. I was left feeling that for all the difficulties he faced he has enjoyed a hugely privileged life that many of the victims and survivors of clerical abuse could only dream of; and he of all people has the power to give them the justice they deserve if he chooses to. His “not me guv’nor” approach doesn’t really cut it when you’ve got the top job.
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
“In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective, and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties….” – Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
April 20 2019 – From The Archives [Oct 22 2015 – “I would be grateful…if you could refrain from including George Bell in your guided tours and external presentations” – Dean of Chichester Cathedral, The Very Reverend Stephen Waine – to Cathedral Guides]
FIONA SCOLDING QC TO THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER MARTIN WARNER
22 Q. Can I ask, why was the decision taken to issue a public 23 statement about the George Bell case [Oct 22 2015 – Ed], because that’s 24 something that Lord Carlile does also critique?
25 A. Yes. Page 22 1 Q. Perhaps you would like to explain?
2 A. We were very aware of working in the light of 3 the recommendations in the interim report of 4 the archbishop’s commissaries (? – Ed) which had been very clear 5 that no settlement with a survivor should include 6 a gagging clause. Of course you could say there’s 7 a difference between a gagging clause and making 8 a public statement, but it was very strongly felt that 9 to settle and to write a letter of apology and to make 10 no public statement, with no indication as to whether or 11 not those actions would become public, would look very 12 quickly like cover-up. Therefore, we felt that there was 13 an obligation on us to be open about what it was that we 14 were proposing to do.
15 Q. If I can just identify that Lord Carlile at 16 paragraphs 267 and 268 of his report — ANG000152, Paul, 17 at page 68, says: 18 “I am sure that the archbishop does not think it 19 appropriate to support the publication of what may be an 20 unjustified and probably irreparable criticism of 21 anyone, whether a celebrated bishop or not.” 22 And at 268: 23 “I regard this as a case, perhaps a relatively rare 24 one, in which steps should and could have been taken to 25 retain full confidentiality, with a clear underlying Page 23 1 basis for explaining why it was done. For Bishop Bell’s 2 reputation to be catastrophically affected in the way 3 that occurred was just wrong.” 4 Do you have any comment you wish to make about that?
5 A. The first comment I would want to make is that, I think 6 we have learnt a painful lesson about the difficulty of 7 communicating through the media a very fine legal 8 nuance, and it’s recognised by Lord Carlile that
we 9 never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell,
but to 10 communicate that in terms that the general public are 11 going to understand through the media is a very 12 difficult thing to do. Therefore, I think he does raise 13 an important question here about dealing with posthumous 14 cases, but also about being fair, I think, and 15 recognising the legitimacy and substance to an 16 allegation which we certainly felt was necessary with 17 Carol, the name that’s used for the person who brought 18 the case. 19 Q. Can we turn now, if we may, to another topic
April 21 2019 – “New policies to reduce the risk of future abuse have been developed, but then we hear of resistance by foolish clergy on the ground who think they know better” ~ Martin Sewell
His Grace [Archbishop Welby – Ed] did not give a convincing account of either himself or of the CofE’s position with regard to Smyth and the Iwerne Trust. I found my toes were curling as he equivocated. The interviewer gave him an out by introducing the subject of the chaotic home life he had endured but it all felt very unsatisfactory. I was left feeling that for all the difficulties he faced he has enjoyed a hugely privileged life that many of the victims and survivors of clerical abuse could only dream of; and he of all people has the power to give them the justice they deserve if he chooses to. His “not me guv’nor” approach doesn’t really cut it when you’ve got the top job.
Richard W. Symonds
An example of such unholy equivocation can be seen in eight words by the Archbishop’s ally, the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner:
“We never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell”
[Source: IICSA Transcript – Wednesday March 14 2018 – Page 23 – Para 9]
To add to the equivocation – and confusion – the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner followed up his statement “We never asserted the guilt of Bishop Bell” with “George Bell cannot be proven guilty”.
That led to a letter by the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey to Bishop Warner, which ended: “I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion therefore he must be considered entirely innocent”.
But the Bishop of Chichester is unjustly equivocating – refusing to clear Bishop Bell’s name by declaring him innocent in law. Why?
One reason can be found in what Bishop Gavin Ashenden says:
“When, following the Carlile report, the Church of England was invited to clear Bishop Bell’s name, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s response astonished many. He insisted that there remained ‘a cloud hanging over George Bell’”
This is beyond equivocation.
John Swanson
“I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion therefore he must be considered entirely innocent”.
In (a) a court of law, when (b) someone is charged with a criminal offence, (c) in the current UK legal system, the corresponding conclusion to “cannot be proven guilty” is indeed “must be considered entirely innocent”. We need to remind ourselves once again that this conclusion ceases to follow in most other contexts.
(That is a general point of principle that applies regardless of whatever conclusions we might draw about innocence of guilt in the specific Bell case.)
Sister Dominica says: “In this country you are supposed to be innocent until you are proved guilty. But in any kind of safeguarding issue, it feels as if you are guilty until proved innocent…But if you don’t go to trial, you are never found innocent”
In her case, the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] took no further action due to “insufficient evidence”, thus “finding herself in a form of reputational limbo – publicly accused of serious crimes but neither convicted of them by a jury nor able fully to clear her name”.
When comparing this case to that of Bishop Bell’s, the unjustified ‘no smoke without fire/significant cloud’ position – taken by both the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – is completely untenable.
Both holy men – and others – should read “No Smoke. No Fire” by football manager Dave Jones – it’s a deeply disturbing read. But I sense this will not happen for as long as their own holiness blinds them to the injustices they are perpetuating – especially in the Bishop Bell case.
Please forgive me for focusing more on those falsely or wrongfully accused (eg Bishop Bell), than those who have been victims of sexual abuse.
But, as it has already been said, these critical abuse issues are “two sides of the same coin” (below):
IICSA Transcript – Monday March 5 – Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
A Church paved only with good and godly intentions is not enough to protect and safeguard children [and others) from abuse – sexual or otherwise. There are the Police, Courts of Justice, and other professionals who must follow the rule of law and due process in this regard. The Church is not above the law – nor its Archbishops and Bishops, or those that control them.
John Swanson
Richard
My reading is that it is the failures of process in handling complaints of abuse that were described by Mr Sewell as “two sides of the same coin”, and not, as you extend it, that those falsely accused of abuse and those who are victims of abuse are two sides of the same coin.
Being falsely accused of abuse is, clearly, a dreadful thing to have happen and it can have devastating consequences for the person thus accused. But it is not, I submit, of the same order as being a victim of sexual abuse (either in terms of the likelihood of it happening or of the severity of its effect, or, indeed, of the moral culpability of the perpetrator), and I think it is wrong to imply that it is.
I think that’s a fair point – thank you – but the Bishop Bell case is such a catastrophic failure of process that it is very, very wrong for Archbishop Welby to IMPLY Bishop Bell’s guilt by his monstrous “significant cloud” comment.
Bishop Bell is innocent in law. Period. Archbishop Welby puts himself above the law by refusing to accept that.
Jo B
I think there are so many variables in play it’s hard to compare the impacts of false accusations with the impacts of abuse. There are some commonalities, in the victims often not being believed, in the desperate soul-searching that can lead to the victim blaming themselves, in the feeling of betrayal by someone you trusted. There are of course also differences, but false accusations wreck lives. Even a false accusation can stop you ever working again.
Susannah Clark
“Please forgive me for focusing more on those falsely or wrongfully accused (eg Bishop Bell), than those who have been victims of sexual abuse.”
I’m sorry Richard, but you’re doing this again.
I regard it as wrong of you to state as *fact* that Bishop Bell has been falsely or wrongfully accused.
You do not know that.
None of us do.
What a terrible thing to say about a woman, ‘Carol’, who for all we know may have made an entirely true allegation.
You seem to be conflating the ‘legal technicality’ of “not guilty” without proof, and the entirely different thing – the factuality of events. Regardless of the legal technicality of “innocence”, you cannot state as *fact* that Carol’s allegations are false or wrong.
Bishop Bell may be innocent. He may be guilty.
What you cannot reasonably claim as fact is that Carol’s complaint is “false” or “wrong”.
Sadly this kind of championing of the accused against the possibly abused’s complaints is not conducive to other abused people taking the incredibly difficult and brave task of coming forward to call out an abuser.
Campaigns that make false claims on facts are in danger of creating a hostile climate for any woman (or man or child) who ‘dares’ to come forward and complain about abuse at the hands of a predator, no matter how great or good they may have been in many areas of their lives.
And by that, I don’t imply Bishop Bell IS guilty. I won’t do what you have repeatedly done: state an absolute fact where such a fact cannot be established.
Good process is not helped or promoted by false assertions of truth. Ironically that seems to be exactly what you have done in the sentence I quoted.
I apologise if I sound sharp. Factual veracity is really important, and whether the Bishop was guilty or innocent (which none of us knows), at the very least we owe it to living abuse victims NOT to dismiss their claims as wrong or false if we can’t prove that. They deserve better process than that. You are conflating fact and uncertain opinions in a way that I do not feel helps handle this case appropriately.
And you keep doing this. Talk about probabilities instead, and you are entitled to assert an opinion. More than that and I think you show disrespect for truth, for process, and above all for the victims of abuse. Their accounts *may* be true. How does it help to assert factually that they are not, when you simply cannot prove that. Nobody can.
Beyond the legal technicality, I’m sorry to say Bishop Bell is not “innocent”. The events cannot be proven, and he may be innocent or he may be guilty. It’s not proven either way. It is impossible to know that he’s been ‘falsely’ or ‘wrongly’ accused. Your championing may be at Carol’s expense – and it also intimidates other people who may feel like they’ll be discredited if they dare to speak out.
Susannah, I understand what you are saying but I strongly disagree with you on a number of levels – and I know for a fact I am not alone in that disagreement with you.
John Swanson put it well [above]:
‘“I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion therefore he must be considered entirely innocent” [Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey to present Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – Ed]
‘In (a) a court of law, when (b) someone is charged with a criminal offence, (c) in the current UK legal system, the corresponding conclusion to “cannot be proven guilty” is indeed “must be considered entirely innocent”. We need to remind ourselves once again that this conclusion ceases to follow in most other contexts.
‘(That is a general point of principle that applies regardless of whatever conclusions we might draw about innocence of guilt in the specific Bell case.)’ ~ John Swanson
Sister Frances concludes: “If you don’t go to trial you’re never found innocent”.
Football manager Dave Jones managed to go to trial in his ‘sexual abuse’ case – although his life was almost destroyed by doing so – and was found not guilty.
Judge David Clarke QC concluded: “No doubt there will be people who are going to think there is no smoke without fire. I can do nothing about that except to say such an attitude would be wrong. No wrong-doing whatsoever on your part has been established” [Source: ‘No Smoke, No Fire’ by Dave Jones – Page 136].
In the Bishop Bell ‘sexual abuse’ case, no wrong-doing whatsoever on his part has been established.
Susannah Clark
“In the Bishop Bell ‘sexual abuse’ case, no wrong-doing whatsoever on his part has been established.”
No it hasn’t. I agree.
But that doesn’t justify you saying that Carol has wrongly or falsely accused him.
That is my complaint, Richard.
That denigrates a poor woman. If that’s the culture of our Church, I want no part in it.
It really doesn’t help the process.
I repeat: we don’t factually know that Bishop Bell is innocent or guilty. Nobody does. So you can’t just say that Carol’s allegations are wrong or false.
That is an intolerable climate for the many other people who have suffered abuse in the past, who may feel they too will just be discredited.
It’s unreasonable behaviour. You cannot say that Bishop Bell has been wrongly or falsely accused. You cannot dismiss Carol’s account out of hand like that. All you can say is that he is ‘legally’ innocent. You are not God. Only God knows what happened.
Meanwhile, the whole affair remains unproven, and FACT: Carol’s account may be correct and true, or it may be in some way mistaken. But NOT FACT: it is wrong or false. That’s not fact at all.
We cannot say, as FACT, that Bishop Bell has been wrongly or falsely accused. He may be guilty, though we do not know. I think we will never know. What I do know is you have no right to write off Carol’s (or any person’s) complaint as ‘wrong or false accusation’. You don’t know that. The best you ought to say is “We do not know whether it is false, or wrong, or true.”
That I would agree with that, because it’s a rational statement of fact.
I fear you are contributing to a culture of disbelief in the Church, and however much you want to defend good and decent men, I think it creates an intimidating precedent and climate for anyone who finally finds the courage to say: “I need to tell you that I have been abused, and this is what happened…”
Just think: what if Carol has now been abused twice by the Church – first by her abuser, and then by those who wage a huge campaign that alleges her account is ‘wrong’ and ‘false’. It’s insufferable. It’s insufferable because we cannot be sure that Carol isn’t telling the truth, we cannot be sure she isn’t right, and yet a huge campaign is saying (as you have said here) that the accusations are wrong and false, and stating that as fact. That is going too far, Richard. You need to tone it down.
You need to show more circumspect respect for the abused. For all those who report abuse.
This is exactly why we need professionals to handle this. We can’t leave it to vigilante pressure groups, who are emotionally motivated, and who extend claims beyond possibilities and theories, and into false assertions of fact that they cannot possibly prove.
“This is exactly why we need professionals to handle this”
That’s the problem – we left it to a bunch of amateurs, especially within the Church, who made a complete ‘pig’s ear’ of both (1) the process of investigation (eg no defence for Bishop Bell) and (2) the pastoral care/counselling for ‘Carol’. They tried to do both at the same time – and were allowed to do so.
And they are still being allowed to do so, with the same bunch of amateurs still running the ‘safeguarding’ show.
I won’t respond to your accusation that I am part of one of the “vigilante pressure groups” etc etc.
‘“In the Bishop Bell ‘sexual abuse’ case, no wrong-doing whatsoever on his part has been established.” No it hasn’t. I agree. But that doesn’t justify you saying that Carol has wrongly or falsely accused him. That is my complaint, Richard. That denigrates a poor woman’.
And this is one of my complaints against you, Susannah. I reject your accusation that my position “denigrates a poor woman” (ie ‘Carol’). I happen to believe she was abused as a very young girl, so she requires on-going pastoral support and deserves the compensation she was given. But I also happen to believe it was not Bishop Bell – and I [with others] can back up that statement with evidence [something ‘Carol’ has never been able to provide].
With that belief on my part – with evidence – I can legitimately ask [with others]: ‘If it was not Bishop Bell, who was it?’ That brings us inevitably to the question of mistaken identity.
We are almost there in discovering who was the most likely abuser of ‘Carol’, but the Church has made this extremely difficult – especially by their ‘wall of silence’ and lack of cooperation.
Anthony Archer
I hesitate to comment on this, although I have sparingly in the past, and as one who was fleetingly abused (once) a long time ago (1964), I certainly know that these events are rarely if ever forgotten. The details of the room, its exact location and the colour of the curtains may fade with time, but not much else does. Crucially the identity of the abuser is also something that doesn’t fade, and if my case had come to be examined I am sure some lawyer would have played the mistaken identity card. Bell is dead, safe with his Maker. His supporters are conveniently (but correctly) hiding behind the fact that in law he is innocent. So what? That is incontrovertible. No criminal case, so the presumption of innocence applies. But it is scarcely helpful in cases like this. Lawyers advised the Church to settle. That says something. This difficult case will go nowhere, absent of a further abuse claim against Bell, which looks unlikely. So guilty or innocent, the record will continue to show that a claim was made against Bell. Whether that is sufficient to talk about a ‘cloud’ I neither know nor care. It depends on your perspective. Stuff happens and I hardly think that the reputation of the dead much matters. How many go to their grave with their reputation in tact? That is something historians can work on.
Rowland Wateridge
I also hesitate to comment, having repeatedly said on earlier TA threads that Carol should be left in peace and, yes, I also speak as someone who experienced abuse (fortunately of a’mild’ kind) at school now more than 60 years ago. But emphatically no, the reputations of dead people are not to be sacrificed for expediency. I’m not sure that “lawyers advised the Church to settle”. There was an ‘investigation’ by unqualified people, inconsistency in attendance at committee meetings, material not read by some members, material not even received by other members. All of this was inexcusable as there is a body of specific expertise in this field of work. The necessary skills simply were not recognised or sought. I have said before that ‘no one likes lawyers’, but their involvement is crucial in gathering and evaluating evidence and applying the relevant law to those facts. I fear that many people taking a critical stance cannot have read, or have misunderstood, Lord Carlile’s report which sets out exactly how the matter should have been handled.
Justice was not done to Carol or to Bishop Bell. The fact that Carol has been subjected to further questioning after she was entitled to consider that closure had been reached is solely due to the mishandled original investigation.
I think I should add a PS to my contribution. I fully accept that Anthony Archer correctly remembers who abused him, and I wouldn’t want in any way to have given a different impression in concentrating solely on shortcomings of the Church’s investigation. Nor should we overlook that initially there was no response at all to Carol’s claims. She was further ill-served then.
Rev Peter Milligan
Thank you, Susannah for speaking up about the double abuse of Carol. The issue of Bishop Bell has had a full hearing here and it’s time to remember Carol, and be silent.
April 25 2019 – “How deeply tragic…” RWS Letter Submission to Littlehampton Gazette
Dear Editor
Chichester Cathedral “spokeswoman” states [“Easter services and celebrations at Chichester Cathedral”, Littlehampton Gazette, April 18)
“…there is an opportunity to celebrate Easter Sunday with a delicious three course lunch at the former archdeaconry at 4 Canon Lane, a beautifully restored eight bedroom house situated in the historic Cathedral Close”.
How deeply tragic this Eastertide the “spokeswoman” for Chichester Cathedral failed to mention that 4 Canon Lane was once called George Bell House up until 2015. It is hoped that by next Easter this great wartime Bishop of Chichester will have had his name rightfully restored in the Cathedral City.
Yours sincerely
Richard W. Symonds
The Bell Society
April 26 2019 – From The Archives [July 21 2018 – The George Bell Group]
We are an independent group whose members represent a concentration of experience in public life, in the fields of law, policing, politics, journalism, academic research and church affairs. This group began to meet in response to the 22 October 2015 statement issued by the Church of England about Bishop George Bell. See this BBC report for the original story.
The George Bell Group, together with admirers of the Bishop worldwide, heartily welcomes Lord Carlile’s independent review of the process which led to the statement by the Church in October 2015 painting Bell as a paedophile. Lord Carlile deserves congratulations for producing such a comprehensive and authoritative report.
In his response to the report Archbishop Welby has chosen to emphasise that Lord Carlile has not sought to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for the alleged assaults. That is not surprising, it was no part of Lord Carlile’s terms of reference from the Church to say whether Bell was innocent or not. But his devastating criticism of the Church’s process shows that Archbishop Welby was wrong in 2016 when he described the investigation as ‘very thorough’ and the finding of abuse as clearly correct on the balance of probabilities. A close reading of the detail of Lord Carlile’s report can only lead to the conclusion that he has thoroughly vindicated the reputation of man revered for his integrity across the Christian Church.
It is no wonder that the Church’s investigation has been compared by Lord Carlile to the discredited police investigation of Lords Brittan and Bramall. The Safeguarding Group appear to have gone about their work looking for reason to doubt the veracity of the complainant. A proper investigation would have looked to see whether they could find independent corroboration of the complaint. That Bishop Bell had been dead for over half a century did not justify depriving him of the presumption of innocence or of due process. As Sir Richard Henriques pointed out in his report for the Metropolitan Police on historic sex offence investigations, the policy of believing victims shifts the burden of proof onto the suspect and ‘has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale’.
The misconceived approach of the Safeguarding Group, described by Lord Carlile as neither fair nor equitable, was aggravated by the failure of their investigation to reveal easily discoverable evidence:
They failed to speak to Bell’s domestic chaplain during two of the four relevant years, who lived with the Bells in the Bishop’s Palace. He could have explained to them precisely why the complainant’s account did not add up; nor did they speak to Bell’s biographer, the historian Professor Andrew Chandler, who has studied the layout of the Bishop’s Palace at the relevant time; they did not interview former choristers of Chichester Cathedral who might be thought to have been aware if Bell had been a paedophile. Eleven of them wrote to The Times complaining that the Bishop had been smeared to suit a public relations need.
Lord Carlile’s report has now left the Church with many searching questions, including how best to remedy the many defects in the current Practice Guidance so as to ensure that such an injustice can never recur. But most important of all, the time has now come for the Church of England to redress, without hesitation or qualification, the immense damage done to the fine reputation of a man who served it for so long and with such courage and devotion. Those institutions which summarily removed Bell’s name from their titles should now fully restore it.
Archbishop Welby, who has said in his response to Lord Carlile that he realises that ‘a significant cloud’ is left over Bell’s name, should join with the Bishop of Chichester in removing that cloud. The Church deprived the Bishop of due process, they should not deprive him of the presumption of innocence. There is not just no fire, there is no smoke. We share Lord Carlile’s disappointment that the Church has rejected the protection of innocence as a clear and general principle.
As Bishop Bell said in a broadcast to the German people in December 1945, now engraved in the Bell Chapel at Christ Church in Oxford: ‘Without repentance and without forgiveness, there can be no regeneration.’
Ray Galloway is the Director of Blue Light Investigations and Training Limited. He retired from North Yorkshire Police in 2013 as a Detective Superintendent having previously worked for Merseyside Police, a total of 30 years in a range of investigative roles.
Ray Galloway is a fully accredited Senior Investigating Officer with a breadth of experience in the investigation of homicide, organised crime and covert operations. He is also a trained and experienced Hostage Negotiator…
Ray’s roles in the police service include those of Head of Major Crime, Head of Serious and Organised Crime and Director of Intelligence. He was the Kidnap and Extortion Champion for North Yorkshire and a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) national working group that identified best practice relating to the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences.
My starting point was a social sciences degree with honours in social work from the University of Cape Town. I recognised that the injustice of the legal framework of apartheid South Africa was of more interest to me than working on the frontline in social work. It was about having a vehicle to try and change things at source rather than deal with the symptoms of unjust and immoral law. I converted to law.
Personal circumstances brought me to England soon after. I did the London University external LLB (the UK did not recognise my South African degree). It was so comprehensive, covering everything from constitutional law to jurisprudence, and forced me to do subjects I had no interest in (like company law). The LPC which followed gave me the basic skills I needed in practice, and my training contract built on that.
The hardest challenge I’ve faced as a lawyer is finding a way through the post-Jackson costs reforms, holding on to making my niche practice as a child abuse lawyer sustainable.
Memorable highlights include JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938. The Court of Appeal held that a bishop could be held liable for wrongdoings (sexual abuse) by priests in his diocese. It was a landmark case with potentially wide-reaching consequences extending to other organisations where quasi-employees commit wrongdoings for which their ‘employers’ can now be held liable.
Another is ABB & Ors v Milton Keynes Council [2011] EWHC 2745 (QB). The local authority was held liable for the shortcomings of social work provided in the early 1990s to a family whose children suffered sexual abuse by their father for many years. My clients were made the highest ever awards of damages in such a case in the UK.
All my clients are survivors of abuse, usually by someone in authority. The betrayal of trust they have experienced sometimes carries through into the solicitor-client relationship, which requires the highest level of client care possible.
My least favourite law is the Limitation Act 1980 which imposes a time limit on ‘historic’ abuse claims, which is the claimant’s 21st birthday. The nature of sexual abuse is such that it can take a person years to speak about their abuse, for reasons of shame, fear and simply because they have been so emotionally manipulated by their abuser. It is not uncommon for survivors to wait until their abuser is dead, by which time a civil action is almost impossible. This time limit rule does not apply in the criminal law (defendants can be prosecuted for sexual offences decades after the alleged events) so why can’t the civil law be consistent with this?
Survivors of abuse have remedies available to them which they did not have when I first started doing this work 15 years ago. In practice, however, their ability to access justice has been eroded by massive cuts to the legal aid budget and extortionate court fees. So funding their claims is becoming harder and harder.
The Church of England ‘botched’ its investigation into alleged cases of abuse…”
“It seems beyond outrageous the Church of England hierarchy can dictate, control and manipulate an agenda in such a way that the Bishop Bell issue – and others like it – can be kept off the agenda”
The Church of England has today published a report into its handling of the 2007-2009 Past Cases Review [PCR]. The full text of the report can be downloaded from here.
There is a press release: Report into handling of Past Cases Review which explains the background. Sir Roger Singleton authored the report and chaired the independent scrutiny team.
…In November 2015, in his report to the Archbishops’ Council, the newly appointed National Safeguarding Adviser noted ‘growing recognition of shortcomings of PCR’; inconsistencies in the application of the House of Bishops Protocol designed to bring consistency and independence to the process, cases of abuse coming to light that should have been identified in the PCR and survivors not being engaged in the process.
Following an initial screening process by the National Safeguarding Team, Sir Roger Singleton was asked to independently review the adequacy of the Past Cases Review and makes recommendations to the Church of England.
The report sets out the findings of this independent scrutiny and makes nine recommendations. These have been accepted by both the Archbishops’ Council and House of Bishops, and action is now being taken to address both the shortcomings of the original PCR and to instigate a further review known cases and new appointments made since 2007.
Today’s report will be sent to the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) to which Sir Roger Singleton gave evidence during the Chichester Case Study public hearing in March of this year…
The BBC had a report about this earlier, Church of England ‘s 2010 abuse inquiry was ‘flawed’ and ‘failed‘, which currently notes that the report is not due to be published until next month. There were items on the Radio 4 Today programme about this too, including an interview with Sir Roger Singleton.
…The PCR looked at more than 40,000 case files relating to allegations of abuse dating as far back as the 1950s and concluded that just 13 cases of alleged child sexual abuse needed formal action.
After survivors complained that the report was inadequate, Sir Roger was commissioned to carry out an independent review of how it was conducted.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that it was “botched in three ways”.
“The survey wasn’t completely comprehensive,” he said. “It didn’t include some cathedrals, it didn’t include employees working with children in some parishes.
“The attempts really to make the survey absolutely complete were flawed.
“In the public statement that it issued reporting on the review, (the Church) rather failed to give a comprehensive picture of the concerns that existed.
“It narrowed down the definitions of who had actually been responsible for abuse by limiting it to just new cases and cases where the Church took formal action. This had the impact of reducing the numbers from probably nearer 100 to just two which appeared in the public statements.”
Asked whether he found that Church officials were concerned to avoid reputational damage, Sir Roger said: “I think that is one of the factors that led those who prepared the press statement to emphasise the positive points for the Church and rather to downplay the negative aspects.”
He said it appeared “extraordinary” that some survivors were denied the chance to give evidence.
“There is no doubt that some victims and survivors came forward and offered to meet with the reviewers carrying out this work and that offer was refused,” he said.
Comments
“Case law”, as I read it (but I might be wrong), seems to define the clergy – and bishops – as “quasi-employees”
“JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938. The Court of Appeal held that a bishop could be held liable for wrongdoings (sexual abuse) by priests in his diocese. It was a landmark case with potentially wide-reaching consequences extending to other organisations where quasi-employees commit wrongdoings for which their ‘employers’ can now be held liable”
What is deeply disturbing in the Bishop Bell case is that an Archbishop – ++Welby – can say anything with immunity and impunity, and therefore puts himself above the law. His libellous “significant cloud” comment is a case in point.
BBC Panorama this Monday (April 29) will feature interviews with survivors of church-related abuse in a programme entitled ‘Scandal in the Church of England’. We have worked with the producers to provide information and a response to the range of issues raised, particularly around the Past Cases Review. There will be a personal response from Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church’s lead safeguarding bishop, once the programme has been aired. Bishop Peter has also been interviewed for the programme.
Plans for a statue of a revered bishop at Canterbury Cathedral will go ahead after an investigator dismissed abuse allegations against him.
The Archbishop of Canterbury apologised yesterday for “mistakes” in the handling of allegations against the late George Bell, who was Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958, after five claims of abuse were ruled to be unfounded. He added, however, that an earlier allegation of child abuse could not be “swept under the carpet”.
The church faced criticism in 2015 when it issued a public apology to a woman who accused Bell, who died in 1958, of having abused her as a child in the 1940s. The church said that it could not prove her allegations, but paid her compensation…
It goes much deeper than the Archbishop wants people to know. Mark Ruston, the Cambridge priest who undertook the first enquiry into Smyth and the Iwerne Trust camps, was Welby’s landlord while he was at Cambridge. In an interview with The New York Times, Welby described Mr Ruston as one of his old friends and a great influence on him. Since Welby was involved with Iwerne at the time, it is inconceivable he wouldn’t have known of the inquiry or the concerns about Smyth. Apart from anything else, Ruston would have known that Welby might be able to give valuable first-hand evidence of what went on at the camps, how often Smyth was there, etc. Welby has never denied that his NYT description of Ruston as a friend and great influence was untrue, so we are left with a conclusion that he is being economical with the truth.
Somewhat unusually, the Church of England issued a statement about this programme last Friday:
Statement from National Safeguarding Team
BBC Panorama this Monday (April 29) will feature interviews with survivors of church-related abuse in a programme entitled ‘Scandal in the Church of England’. We have worked with the producers to provide information and a response to the range of issues raised, particularly around the Past Cases Review. There will be a personal response from Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church’s lead safeguarding bishop, once the programme has been aired. Bishop Peter has also been interviewed for the programme.
There have been several media reports ahead of broadcast:
Following transmission the Church of England has issued this press release:
Bishop Peter Hancock, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop said: “It has been harrowing to hear survivors’ accounts of their abuse – shared on BBC Panorama – and we issue an unreserved apology for how we have failed them. We acknowledge that the Past Cases Review, PCR, from 2008-10, however well-intentioned was in hindsight clearly flawed, as shown in the independent scrutiny report by Sir Roger Singleton published last summer. The ‘stringent criticisms’ of the PCR, shared with IICSA, are being acted upon and all dioceses are now carrying out a second past cases review, PCR2. We fully acknowledge that it was a serious mistake not to work with and hear from survivors during the original PCR. The new review will ensure survivors voices are heard. We are aware of the courage it takes for survivors to come forward knowing that the effects of their abuse are with them for life.
I would urge anyone affected by the Panorama programme to call the NSPCC helpline number 0808 800 5000.”
Lead Bishop for Safeguarding Peter Hancock said in the Panorama programme:
“I think there was too much concern about the reputation of the Church, and there was not enough care for those who are themselves victims of abuse”
I wish he had also added: “Nor was there – or is there – enough care for those who are themselves victims of false and wrongful accusations of abuse”
This is in much the same vein as the concluding sentence of the former Archbishop George Carey, in his letter to the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner:
“I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion, ‘therefore he must be considered entirely innocent'”.
“It goes much deeper than the Archbishop wants people to know. Mark Ruston, the Cambridge priest who undertook the first enquiry into Smyth and the Iwerne Trust camps, was Welby’s landlord while he was at Cambridge. In an interview with The New York Times, Welby described Mr Ruston as one of his old friends and a great influence on him. Since Welby was involved with Iwerne at the time, it is inconceivable he wouldn’t have known of the inquiry or the concerns about Smyth. Apart from anything else, Ruston would have known that Welby might be able to give valuable first-hand evidence of what went on at the camps, how often Smyth was there, etc. Welby has never denied that his NYT description of Ruston as a friend and great influence was untrue, so we are left with a conclusion that he is being economical with the truth”
– J. Gibbs
“I personally would not fault the Archbishop in that matter. I knew Mark Ruston well – a man of unswerving honesty and an attractive holiness. I simply can’t see him confiding in ++Justin”
“I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion, ‘therefore he must be considered entirely innocent”
~ Lord Carey to Bishop Warner [concluding sentence to letter]
A Spokeswoman of #Chichester Cathedral told the Littlehampton Gazette on April 18th:
“…there is an opportunity to celebrate Easter Sunday with a delicious three course lunch at the former archdeaconry at 4 Canon Lane, a beautifully restored eight bedroom house situated in the historic Cathedral Close”.
What a shameful omission not to take the opportunity of Easter Sunday to restore its former name to #GeorgeBellHouse.
The name was changed when ‘Carol’ accused #BishopGeorgeBell (who died in 1958) of molesting her over sixty years earlier.
In normal life people accused of crimes must still be alive and are found Guilty or Not Guilty, but the Church of England is insisting that Bell be found ‘Innocent’. In so far as anyone dead can be found innocent of an accusation from long ago and with no supporting evidence, Bell has been so found. Yet the prelates, who have much ‘face’ to lose, insist that a cloud still hangs over his name.
Fortunately it is for the Dean and Chapter, not the #BishopofChichester or the #ArchbishopofCanterbury, to restore the house’s name. Why have they not done so?
“I have just watched last night’s Panorama programme on Catch-up. In the light of the numbers of deceased clergy against whom allegations have subsequently been made, it is obvious – if it wasn’t before – that George Bell was a convenient scapegoat whose downfall was orchestrated not only to show the Church authorities to be politically correct, but could be used to try to portray present senior clergy with their outsize inferiority complexes in a superior light”
~ Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson
May 1 2019 – Thought Bytes – ‘J’
“All say ‘I see no ships’. But this June is the 80th anniversary of the formation of the Friends by Bell. Hugely successful and raised millions. They cannot gloss it over”
~ ‘J’
May 1 2019 – Thought Bytes – ‘GM’
I have followed the campaign in support of the Rt. Revd George Bell (1883-1958), Westminster and Christ Church, Student of Christ Church 1911-1914, Bishop of Chichester (1929-1958) closely because of my similar experience as a Fellow of Trinity College Dublin.
Bishop Bell was not only a great churchman of the Church of England but also a moral leader of great courage and foresight in his opposition to area bombing of Germany in 1941-1944.
If he is innocent, and we must presume without evidence to the contrary that he was, then the Church of England is doing us all a great disservice, especially in an age when governments bomb civilian populations ruthlessly (e.g. Britain under Tony Blair in Iraq in 2003), and individuals bomb themselves and innocent congregations to death in the very act of worship, and indeed at Easter, as in Sri Lanka only ten days ago.
Perhaps we must focus more positively on Bishop Bell’s reputation in the light of this institutional failure of the Church of England.
The failure to respect the presumption of innocence in respect of the wickedness of the Guildford and Birmingham Pub Bombings (5 October and 21 November 1974) made those acts of wickedness much worse and deepened hatred between England and Ireland.
This is a lesson we all have to learn. We cannot hide behind expressions of uncertainty if we are to give spiritual and moral leadership in a wicked world.
Dr Gerald Morgan, FTCD (Leader: English Parliamentary Party, 2001)
I do hope one day Bishop Mark will be able to explain his role in the patently absurd act of unholy moral stupidity by the Church of England on October 22 2015:
“There is a reference to “a newly uncovered file in the York Diocese mentioning a number of abuse cases that have not been examined”. I presume that this file was not damaged in a flood!”
EnglishAthena [Comments – BBC Panorama…Thinking Anglicans][above]
If you were designing an institution that would maximise the incidence of abuse, of all kinds, something like the Church of England would be it. Even incumbents are lords in their own parishes. There is little or no oversight, often exaggerated respect, snobbery. (As in clergy are believed, laity often not). And very little training, which is often viewed with irritation and downright anger. Bullying is rife, and even the sorts of abuse such as keeping fees, or getting the Reader to take services at very short notice go unnoticed. Radical reform would deal with all of these, at least in part. But it has to be recognised that protection and prevention are hard. What can, relatively easily, be done, is reacting correctly to such incidents. Do Dioceses all have people victims can contact? Whose names and contact details are easily available? Where you don’t have to talk to a secretary to make an appointment?
May 2 2019 – From The Archives [April 23 2018 – “Police drop investigation into bishop besmirched by Church / Archbishop urged to retract statement smearing bishop” – Olivia Rudgard – Daily Telegraph]
“Andrew Chandler, the bishop’s biographer, told The Times:
‘If they are determined to persevere in their own private investigations and processes, many people will wonder what they can possibly be worth. The church caused deliberate, calamitous damage to Bishop Bell’s reputation in October 2015, by inciting a public judgement that he was a paedophile'”
“…The programme concluded with a number of story-lines unfinished. There was Matt’s story which still has many unanswered questions to be faced, particularly in respect of his official complaints against named individuals. These remain unresolved. There was also mention of a newly uncovered file in the York diocese mentioning a number of abuse cases that have not been examined. We still were left with the feeling that for whatever reason, the Church remains defensive and highly secretive. Any control of information, which still appears to be happening, is a power tactic. If there is still secrecy and an attempt to bury the past, all such attempts to do this will likely fail. Truth, as I have said before, has a habit of spilling out to the embarrassment of those who want to suppress it. The secrets that are held in order to protect reputations have the capacity to wreak enormous damage on institutions. The Church of England has much to lose if it does not get its house in order over safeguarding” ~ Stephen Parsons
May 2 2019 – ‘RWS’ Thought Byte
“The Church of England has a State propaganda machine at its disposal, locked into the mainstream media systems to keep the rabble in line. Difficult to fight, but fight it we must”
“The presence of strident voices in the public arena which have sought to undermine the survivor’s claims has added in this case to the suffering of the survivor and her family. To that extent it is not surprising that she felt it necessary to take the courageous decision to speak out in public and reveal the personal details which the Church could not” – Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
For key representatives of the Church to either not be able to respond clearly to questions about the number of cases or be unprepared to do so, calls the management of these cases into serious question and makes one wonder who exactly is in control? The need for transparency and true accountability has never been as needed as it is today.
What is needed within the Church of England (and frankly elsewhere across the wider Church and beyond) is authentic leadership. Leadership that is prepared to lead by example in a proactive exercise of self-reflection that leads to open and honest dialogue (particularly with survivors). Leadership that is not governed, coerced or muzzled by either insurers, lawyers or any other stakeholder that may stand to lose from just exposure and open remorse and repentance.
Sir, — Church leaders, from the Archbishops up, acknowledge that the Church is failing in its care of victims of clergy abuse. But ask them who is responsible for sorting out the mess, and nobody knows. Is it the job of the Archbishops’ Council? or the General Synod? or the National Safeguarding Steering Group? or Lambeth Palace? or the House of Bishops? Or is it, perhaps, a matter for each individual diocese?
Everybody points to someone else. Nobody steps forward. After a decade or more of crisis, which continues to eat away at the Church’s standing in society, there has been a complete failure from those in authority to grasp the issue. One reason that some survivors of church abuse are so painfully vocal is that they are filling a vacuum of leadership on this most crucial of issues for the Church.
Monday’s Panorama, with its focus on the shameful mismanagement of abuse in Lincoln diocese, was entitled Scandal in the Church of England. It could have been made at any point in the past decade, and it could have focused on almost any diocese. Stories will continue to emerge, and the scandal of abuse past and present will continue to undermine the Church’s wider mission, until some individual or body takes responsibility and institutes decisive action.
In the mean time, it is victims of abuse, past and present, who bear the cruelty and pain of the Church’s failure.
ANDREW GRAYSTONE 17 Rushford Avenue Manchester M19 2HG
Andrew Graystone says in the Church Times: “Church leaders, from the Archbishops up, acknowledge that the Church is failing in its care of victims of clergy abuse. But ask them who is responsible for sorting out the mess, and nobody knows…”
If that is the case, intervention is required by The Supreme Governor of the Church of England Her Majesty The Queen – just as the Pope was required to intervene in the Catholic Church.
“The public want, as far as possible, to encounter real human beings who can speak for the church. The people of England relate to real people, people who, like them, are living lives of joy mixed with pain. They will never want to identify with a group when they suspect that the information put out is being manipulated and managed before it is shared with them. In short, let bishops be bishops, shepherds of the flock, not puppets being controlled by forces that are invisible and are not necessarily working for the good of all”
“The Church therefore ought to declare what is just” ~ Bishop Bell in 1939.
In 2019 – 80 years on – the Church seems to be more in denial, declaring what is more expedient than what is more just.
An example of this denial and expediency is the declaration of the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell at the Anglican Consultative Council in Hong Kong last week [“Approval for Safer Church guidelines”, Church Times, 3 May 2019 – page 7]:
“We now have marvellous guidelines and policies”
Who is he kidding?
Bishop Cottrell seems to be amnesic, especially to what he said about Bishop Bell in 2016 in the House of Lords:
The use, misuse and abuse of NDA’s by Church lawyers is also an outrage. NDA’s have been used extensively in the Bishop Bell case – for example, has anybody heard anything from any member of the George Bell Group recently?
“Like the Spire of Chichester Cathedral in the 1800’s, the Church of England’s House of Cards – built upon the Bishop Bell allegation – is on the verge of complete collapse. And it’s not the abuse and incompetence which will cause the collapse, but the cover-up and denial”
Madonna has broken her silence over the Michael Jackson sex abuse allegations, saying “people are innocent until proven guilty”….she told British Vogue: “I don’t have a lynch-mob mentality, so in my mind, people are innocent until proven guilty.
“I’ve had a thousand accusations hurled at me that are not true. So my attitude when people tell me things about people is, ‘Can you prove it?'”
Asked what would constitute proof of Jackson’s guilt, she replied: “I don’t know, I haven’t seen the film. “But I guess it would be people recounting actual events – but then, of course, people sometimes lie.
“So I always say, ‘What’s the agenda? What do people want out of this? Are there people asking for money, is there some kind of extortion thing happening?’
“I would take all of those things into consideration.”…
Jackson’s brothers Tito, Marlon and Jackie, and his nephew Taj, have dismissed the allegations against the late singer.
Jackson, who died in 2009 aged 50, has been labelled a “master manipulator” who “groomed the world”….
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
In other words,
The Presumption of Innocence – We’re Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.
A LOBBY group formed to save the reputation of the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, from the accusation of child sex abuse in the 1940s has suggested that the victim, “Carol”, may have wrongly identified her abuser.
The Bell Society met on Monday in St Margaret’s Parish Rooms, Crawley, to “celebrate” the more than 2000 supporters to have signed its petition to investigate claims against the late Bishop Bell further.
Richard Symonds, who created the petition, told a small gathering: “There is little doubt Carol was sexually abused by a man of the cloth in Chichester, but was it Bishop Bell?” His presentation also considered whether the Bishop of Bath & Wells, the Rt Revd Peter Hancock, newly appointed to safeguarding, “can ensure justice is done”.
The Bell Society is informally connected to the George Bell Group, formed in March by clergy, lawyers, MPs, and historians (News, 24 March 2016). The George Bell Group website openly questions the consistency and validity of Carol’s account of her ordeal (News, 5 February), and states: “It confirmed nothing, neither provided any proof of the allegations.”
But the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Revd Paul Butler, has rebuffed the demands of the group for a re-examination of the evidence. He wrote last week: “It is singularly unattractive to suggest that, because there might be no legal consequences to breaching Carol’s confidence, the Church should simply provide sensitive material to a group of individuals with a keen interest in, but no connection with, the case. The Church has a wider duty to Carol than that.”
The diocese of Chichester settled a claim for sexual abuse, said by Carol to have taken place when she was a young child in the late 1940s and early ’50s (News, 22 October 2015).
Meanwhile, lawyers representing the victims of Peter Ball, who was imprisoned last year for sex offences in the 1980s and ’90s, have called for the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey to be investigated over a possible perversion of the course of justice, The Times reported.
Ball resigned as Bishop of Gloucester in 1993, after being cautioned for gross indecency with a teenage boy, but was later given permission to continue some ministerial duties. Senior church leaders, including Lord Carey, then Archbishop, are accused of failing to pass on to the police six letters from victims, and verbal correspondence, which could have been used as evidence.
2. ‘Mistaken identity?’ – Rebuilding Bridges Conference – Feb 2019
IS THE ACCOUNT BY “CAROL” AS TO HOW SHE WAS TAKEN OFF BY BISHOP BELL TO BE READ A BED-TIME STORY CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS?
The Diocese of Chichester claims that the state of the law prevents them from making public details of Carol’s complaint such that the credibility of her story may be judged. (The Support Group believes that view of the law to be mistaken for reasons set out in the analysis by HH Alan Pardoe QC and Desmond Browne QC on this site). It is only the fact that Carol herself chose to describe aspects of her alleged abuse in an interview given to the Brighton Argus published on 3 February 2016 that allows outsiders to judge any part of the truth of her account.
In her account given to the Argus Carol claimed that “under the pretence of reading her a story, [Bishop Bell] would take her to a private room”, where the assaults would take place. In contrast, in an interview broadcast on BBC TV South on 9 February 2016 the allegation was that the Bishop “molested her in the cathedral [emphasis added] as she sat listening to stories”. That account contained little detail, and this analysis will concentrate on the detail contained in the Argus.
The account published in the Argus headlined Carol’s words: “My strongest memory is seeing this figure all in black standing on a stair, waiting.” Her account explained:
“If you go into the Bishop’s kitchen there’s a wooden stair that comes down and he used to wait on there, half way down it.
And then he’d go, ‘Oh, Elsie, I’ll take Carol and read her a story.’
He used to take me off down this long corridor and there was a big room at the end and he used to take me in there.
There were books all around the room. And then he’d shut the door.”
It is clear that the “Bishop’s kitchen” to which Carol was referring is not the domestic kitchen used by the Bishop but the medieval Bishop’s Kitchen on the west side of the Palace complex. The reason this is clear is that the article states that the counselling of Carol (for which the Diocese paid) “included a return to the scene of her abuse, which she hated.” According to the article the counsellor had taken Carol back to the scene two years before. The journalist described Carol as “visibly upset” as she explained:
“The lady who was giving me counselling, actually took me to the Bishop’s kitchen.
The Cathedral had some sort of pottery exhibition on there, and she said ‘we’ll go, and see how you feel’.
Well I got in there, and I said ‘Can we leave now ?’. We had to leave.”
The author of the article stated that “Carol’s voice only broke once in the course of a three hour interview, when she recalled how it felt to stand back in that room, at the foot of those stairs.” It might be thought open to question what good was served by the counsellor taking Carol to the alleged scene of the abuse. It confirmed nothing, neither provided any proof of the allegations. It also gave rise to a risk that what she was shown of the lay-out of the Palace may have served to confirm Carol’s self-belief that she had been assaulted there having been led out of the Bishop’s Kitchen.
The two-storey mediaeval Bishop’s Kitchen has been the site of annual pottery exhibitions since 2007: see the photographs on:
The short point relied upon by the Support Group is that the Bishop’s Kitchen does not have a staircase leading out of it. There is no stair case on which Carol from the Bishop’s Kitchen could have seen Bishop Bell standing. In the Support Group’s Review of 17th March 2016 we pointed out that:
“The Bishop’s Kitchen (and for that matter the staircase outside it) was not part of the Bishop’s domestic residence or where he worked. Away from the door to the domestic quarter, it was a quite separate complex, at that time in regular use by the Theological College, its staff and students.”
Canon Adrian Carey (now in his nineties) was a student at the Theological College between August 1947 and August 1948, and he confirms that many of the students’ lectures were held in the Bishop’s Kitchen.
Further recent research by Dr Andrew Chandler, Bishop Bell’s biographer, in the Church Commissioners’ archives at Bermondsey has shown that at the relevant time only 11,000 square feet of the Bishop’s Palace building was occupied and used by the Bishop and his household. The remaining 5,300 square feet (including the Bishop’s Kitchen) was on a 14-year lease to the Theological College. From April 1947, when the students moved in, the two parts of the building were (to use the Church Commissioners’ word) “severed”. A door between the two parts was replaced with an oak partition wall. The other door between them remained so that the students could worship in the chapel. This door was on the ground floor and led straight into the passage where the chaplain’s office was situated so that he could monitor the main door.
Dr Chandler points out there are a number of reasons why Bishop Bell would not have been in the area of the Bishop’s Kitchen:
(i) He was only able to use the Bishop’s Kitchen for particular events by applying to the Theological College Council.
(ii) He had neither need nor reason to be there. The area held by the College was private and obscure from the rest of the Palace. Living and working at the far end of the Palace, Bishop Bell would not have known when Carol was in the Bishop’s Kitchen.
(iii) At that time if the Bishop was regularly in the College part of the premises, he laid himself open to liability for a share of the costs. This is far from fanciful; each side watched the other closely – indeed there was even a wrangle over a meter for the organ in the chapel.
(iv) Finally, the nearest staircase outside the Bishop’s Kitchen led only to students’ rooms, one of them along a long corridor. Following the replacement of the old door with the oak partition, there was no entry into the domestic part of the Palace from this staircase.
In its statement of 22 October 2015 the Diocese stated that none of the “expert independent reports” it had commissioned had found any reason to doubt the veracity of the claim. It is a matter of regret that the Diocese has said so little about its investigation of the alleged abuse that outsiders cannot know whether its experts considered any of the highly relevant matters set out in this analysis.
4. Kaya Burgess – The Times Religious Affairs Correspondent
He [Archbishop Welby] added, however, that an earlier allegation of child abuse could not be “swept under the carpet”.
Mr Katz said that it was one of Banks’s most recent victims, now aged 18, who had triggered the police investigation. “This victim told his girlfriend what had happened to him and then approached police out of concern for other young boys,” Mr Katz said.
“He told police that the abuse had ruined his life and led him to drink heavily and said he was an emotional wreck and the abuse had confused him about everything, including his sexuality.”
“His courageous declaration was the start of this inquiry and it well and truly opened the floodgates.”
Sonia Woodley, QC, for the defence, said that Banks had been abused as a child by a teacher and other adults. She said: “Because of a lack of love from his father [Eric Banks – Ed] he enjoyed the attention from his abusers.”
After the case one of the abused boys, now aged 32, issued a statement of behalf of all Banks’s victims. He said: “It has been noted that Mr Banks received support from the Church since his detainment, but at no time during this difficult period has the clergy offered any support to the victims.
6. 2001 – Dean Treadgold and the Bonfire of Files – IICSA
A senior clergyman burnt church files, an inquiry heard today, after he failed to report the systematic abuse of children by a priest to the police.
John Treadgold, the former dean of Chichester Cathedral, returned to the empty deanery after he retired in 2001, took files from the basement and burnt them in the garden, his former colleague Peter Atkinson said.
IICSA – Peter Atkinson was Chancellor at Chichester Cathedral under John Treadgold and is now Dean of Worcester.
It happened as Terence Banks, the head steward of the cathedral, was convicted of 32 sexual offences against 12 boys over a period of 29 years. He was sentenced to 16 years in jail in 2001 after an investigation by Sussex police.
However it later emerged through a report conducted by Edina Carmi in 2004 that Treadgold had been told of Banks’ abuse by a victim in 2000 but had not reported it to the police, the child protection adviser or social services.
Of Banks’ 12 victims, all were under 16 years of ago and some were as young as 11. He was eventually convicted in 2001 of 23 charges of indecent assault, five of buggery, one of indecency with a child under 14 years, and two of attempting to procure acts of gross indecency.
The current dean of Worcester, Peter Atkinson, was chancellor of Chichester Cathedral at the time, and told the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse that Treadgold came back to the deanery after he had retired and burnt files that were in the basement.
‘What I remember of the episode is that he returned to the deanery, which was then empty, removed a number of files from the deanery basement and had a fire in the garden,’ Atkinson told the inquiry today.
‘I don’t know what the files were,’ he added.
‘It is a bit odd that he moved away and then came back to do this. It was sufficiently troubling for us to mention this to the police.’
He said the police ‘took it very seriously’ but ‘ultimately no future action was taken’.
He described Treadgold’s dealings with the police as ‘defensive’ and said he blurred homosexuality with paedophilia in his attitude.
‘The conflict over homosexuality and abuse was, like many men of his background and his generation, there was an unease about her whole idea of homosexuality and a sort of presumption that homosexual men where unsafe in relation to other men, particularly younger men or boys.’
Q. Before we move on, we should deal briefly with one other matter touching on Dean Treadgold. Is it right that at the time of his retirement, or thereabouts, there came a time when he burnt a number of files held within the cathedral?
A. Yes. He had retired in the autumn of 2001 and moved a short distance away. What I remember of the episode is that he returned to the deanery, which then was empty, this was long before Dean Frayling arrived, removed a number of files from the deanery basement and had a fire in the garden. I don’t know what the files were. I think there is some indication that they might have been old chapter files, but they may well have been his own. It’s a bit odd that he’d moved away and then came back to do this, and it was sufficiently troubling for us to mention this to the police, which happened.
Q. And the police subsequently investigated it, including interviewing, I understand, Dean Treadgold under caution?
A. They took it very seriously, yes.
Q. But no further action was ultimately taken?
A. Ultimately, no further action was taken.
Q. Did anybody within the cathedral or the chapter think to get him back in, have a word with him and say, “What were you burning and why were you burning it?”, because, in theory, there’s a potential hole in your record keeping now?
A. I don’t remember that happening. I think the person who spoke to the police, as far as I can remember, was Canon John Ford, who by then was the acting dean between the two deans, and I can’t remember that we took further action ourselves, knowing that the police were involved. I think we took the view that that was police business.
Q. Once they’d taken no further action, why not then? Why not then say, “Hang on a minute, somebody who has moved away from the cathedral, who has retired, has come back, potentially taken chapter files and burnt them. We need to find out why and what they have burnt, if for no other reason than to find out where we have now got record gaps, or even take disciplinary action”?
A. I’m not sure what disciplinary action might have been taken against a retired dean. The answer to your question is that I don’t remember that kind of internal investigation happening.
April 5 2019 – From The Archives [May 3 2001 – “Dean denies cover-up” (page 2) – Chichester Observer – mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital) – Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014]
April 5 2019 – From The Archives [June 2001 – Edi Carmi is asked to review the Chichester case. The CARMI Report is completed in 2004, but only its Recommendations are published. In 2014 – 10 years later – the CARMI Report is published in full]
8. Joanna Bogle – Rebuilding Bridges Conference 1 – Church House Westminster – February 2018
Joanna:That is very helpful and I entirely agree.I would like to pick up the point about it not being a complex case.In one sense it is complex, years have elapsed, but I would like to add to this because this was my initial interest – I am an historian and most of my historical work has been the nineteenth and twentieth century and one of the interesting things is that with any major public figure of the 20th century, there is an enormous amount of, quite fantastic amount of paperwork available, because although a great deal was being done by telephone in the 1940s and 50s, a great deal more was done by letter.
The point I felt when all this story began to emerge was it is extremely easy, no, it is difficult but possible and very interesting to find out when Dr. Bell was in England and when he was in Germany, for example.When he was in Chichester and when he was out doing confirmations in some Sussex village, when he was in Chichester or London, because letters were written and train tickets were bought, and so on.And although a certain amount was done on my telephone this would tend to be annotated.I am speaking as one who has written up complex things about the Second World War but you can find out from a Royal Air Force squadron log which pilot crashed and you can find out from the Bishop’s diary whether he was at the Palace that day or somewhere else, so it is possible to discover what years and dates and even – up to a point – days thingswere happening.It is fiddly work and it is to that extent complex.It is quite satisfying, it is the work of an historian.
It is also very possible to discover about false memories also about good things actually, people surprisingly will be there hauling people out from the rubble of the blitz when in fact they were not, it was a later bombing, not the blitz itself, I am giving silly, not poignant examples I recall.1940 is a more emotive word than 1944, for example and it seems no effort was made at all to contact the Bishop’s papers which would be substantial and interesting and to some extent full of domestic, in the general sense of that word, and relevant material.
And although it is unfair to tax a very elderly person who might be rather confused about dates and times, it is awfully important, it really is.So it seems to me you are right, in one sense it was not a complex case.Above all you have to keep, when writing about it, the facts clear.Something is alleged or it did happen.Bishop Bell did champion the German opposition of Hitler, he did not, for example, no one is alleging he did, for example, go on 20 July 1944 to Germany and help Colonel Stauffenburg plant a bomb.
After the Second World War he spent a great deal of time in Germany building bridges and indeed we owe something of our modern strong relationship with west Germany and so on to his noble work, so it seems to me a lot of work wasn’t done.It was complex in one sense, fiddly perhaps, but in another way rather interesting since we have had a couple of sound bites, one extremely good of Bell, one realised the possibilities that exist.
As I know only too well and perhaps others in the room do too, ploughing your way through detailed archives can be dazzling, you get eye glaze, but if what is at stake is true, it really is important.This is particularly important, in the case of Bell, who was in Bishop’s House at any time with reasonable accuracy.It is not difficult.It is tricky, but not difficult in the sense of translating a very ancient document or, for example, finding out who was in the Bishop’s palace in 1459.
Modern life, it is incidentally for what it is worth, going to be much harder for those who come after us because of wretched emails! It is really annoying.The handwritten letter is helpful, the carbon copy filed and annotated, tickets bought, Bishops despatched to Stuttgart, well, you are right, to that extent it is not a complex case.I am also concerned that people who knew quite a lot about Bell were clearly not consulted and it includes his niece.That seems to me relevant.
[From the floor]: And his chaplain…
Joanna: …and his chaplain.
[From the floor]: Who was effectively the Pretorian Guard and knew every movement.
Joanna:This is what I was saying.As I said, my own experience from writing biographies is that you can place precisely this.And it is tricky, fiddly work but not difficult in the marathon sense, it is actually the stuff of the research you are doing and in its own way very satisfying when you produce something readable and interesting and relevant.I’m particularly interested in the comment that it was not to that extent a complex case.I am concerned about the new allegations for the same reason and your point about openness, how long it will take, seems to me very relevant to ask, and the case you mentioned the same, justice delayed is justice denied, isn’t that another tenet.And I think openness is very important.And I am absolutely unconvinced of any need to refer to Bishop Bell if new allegations to refer to him.I would have thought it important that his name is not mentioned, precisely in order that things can be looked appropriately.It would be better if people said further investigation about some historic cases would allow research to be done without prejudice in the first instance.
Chichester Cathedral [from George Bell House, 4 Canon Lane]
RWS Comment
Initial reflections regarding the IICSA Report – as they relate to the Chichester Diocese and the Bishop Bell case:
Para. 434. “In 1995, some 37 years after Bishop Bell’s death, a letter was sent to his [Bell’s] successor as Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp. The author of the letter is known by the pseudonym ‘Carol’. Carol alleged that when she was aged between five and eight years, she was sexually abused by Bishop Bell. The abuse occurred every few months during visits to the Bishop’s Palace in Chichester. It included digital penetration, forced masturbation and attempted rape. The [IICSA] Inquiry cannot determine the truth or otherwise of these allegations”
Nobody can determine the truth or otherwise of these allegations by ‘Carol’, but if the ‘exclusive’ in the Brighton Argus [giving a detailed analysis of Carol’s abuse] – and the detailed analysis of her allegations by the George Bell Group – are accurate, her account simply doesn’t add up.
Para. 454. “It seems to be acknowledged by all that the process was significantly flawed, particularly in its failure to establish at the outset who should be responsible for managing the civil claim. In its response to the Carlile review, the [Chichester] Diocese suggested this should be a separate ‘litigation group’ which should consider whether the claim was proven on the balance of probabilities. We [the IICSA Inquiry] agree that this would be a sensible course of action”
A “litigation group” is a very good suggestion by the Chichester Diocese, and it would be a very sensible course of action.
But has the suggestion been followed by action? No.
Para. 460. “In a document produced to the Synod by the National Safeguarding Steering Group in June 2018, the Church itself recognised that there may need to be independent investigation of complaints against senior clergy. This would include posthumous allegations [eg Bishop Bell – Ed]. The Church is to undertake a scoping exercise, during which it will consider the appointment of an independent ombudsman to deal with complaints about safeguarding management. Both of these issues require serious consideration. They may present a practical solution to the concerns raised in the Carlile review” (eg regarding Bishop Bell – Ed].
A “scoping exercise” (?) by the Church and an “independent ombudsman” are very good practical solutions to the serious problems.
But isn’t this too little, too late? These solutions to such problems should have taken place at least four years ago.
IICSA Q. Once they [the Police] had taken no further action, why not then? Why not then say, “Hang on a minute, somebody [Dean Treadgold] who has moved away from the cathedral, who has retired, has come back, potentially taken chapter files and burnt them. We need to find out why and what they have burnt [The Banks’ File?], if for no other reason than to find out where we have now got record gaps, or even take disciplinary action”?
Bishop of Gloucester, police caution and resignation
After having been translated to the see of Gloucester in 1992, Ball resigned from his position as Bishop of Gloucester in 1993 after admitting to an act of gross indecency with a 19-year-old man and accepting a formal police caution for it.[6] In 1993, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyers said that “sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence” existed that Ball had committed indecent assault and gross indecency.[4] At the time, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Barbara Mills, decided not to prosecute Ball[7] though the CPS believes today that prosecution in 1993 would have been in the public interest.[8]
At Ball’s trial in 2015 it was stated that a member of the royal family, a lord chief justice, JPs, cabinet ministers and public school headmasters—”many dozens” of people—had campaigned to support him in 1993. There were a further 2,000 letters of support. The Reverend Graham Sawyer, an abuse victim, wants a full investigation and blames corrupt elements in the British establishment. Sawyer believes that the establishment is still too strong and its links with the church should be investigated.[5] Phil Johnson, who claims Ball abused him when he was 13 years old, said it looked like a deal was done between the Church of England, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, and said, “I think there was great effort made to avoid bad publicity and to avoid the embarrassment of trying a bishop in public.” David Greenwood, a solicitor acting for some victims, said that “With more power comes the ability to work in a culture where you feel that you can get away with it. It seems Peter Ball has been able to do that.”[8][9]Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the NSS, believes this was an orchestrated campaign. Wood wants to find out who was behind the alleged campaign and also wants to see copies of relevant letters examined and a comprehensive list obtained of callers and writers, particularly of high profile and influential campaigners. There has been a call for the Goddard Inquiry to look into why Ball was not prosecuted in 1993.[10][11] May 11 2019 – “IICSA on Chichester – Some comments” – Stephen Parsons – ‘Surviving Church’
The IICSA report on Chichester Diocese and the case of Bishop Peter Ball finally appeared today (Thursday). file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/inquiry-publishes-report-diocese-chichester-and-peter-ball.htm The rehearsal of events in and around the diocese was a damning and sad indictment of a dysfunctional culture in both the Cathedral and in the upper echelons of the Diocese and the national Church….
Two words…struck me fairly early on in reading the document. They sum up many of the issues around the use and abuse of power that operates in the church. It is the problem of a church and its difficulties with managing power that is at the heart…
In the introduction the report spoke of ‘clericalism’ and ‘tribalism’. Both words speak to us of ways of avoiding fear and vulnerability. Clericalism operates as a system to benefit one particular group; it will always seek to protect the clergy and promote their interests as much as it can. It operates like a masonic network and it will naturally always privilege the special rights of the clergy over the laity. In some settings, clergy will use a coded language to shut others out from their ‘in’ conversations. The use of these techniques to cement the clerical caste together, is no doubt to make the clergy feel secure. To be important as part of this group, is to rise more easily above anxiety.
The tribalism that the report referred to is a variant of the clericalism. The ‘tribes’ that were identified in the Chichester diocese context were to do with churchmanship interests. Fellow clergy were seen not as colleagues, but as members of a friendly tribe or a hostile one. The other side, the ‘them’, might be either lay people or members of a type of churchmanship disapproved of by your group. The Chichester Diocese for a long period has attracted to itself clergy practising a fairly thorough-going version of Anglo-Catholicism. This has its own set of cultural and theological idiosyncrasies. Ranged against this Anglo-Catholic group are a considerable number of members of the other Anglican grouping, those identifying with the conservative group REFORM. The close juxtaposition of these two versions of Anglicanism, made sometimes for a fractious diocesan culture. It was all too easy for an incumbent with a loyalty to one or other of these groups to put that loyalty above the needs of a survivor. A victim of abuse might well not find a sympathetic pastoral response if he/she named a perpetrator who was part of the same tribe to which the would-be helper owed allegiance. In some cases, such rejection by a priest could lead to the abused individual taking his or her life.
The description of this culture of clericalism and tribalism in the Chichester Diocese is chilling to read about. No doubt there are tonight many individual consciences that are being stirred to consider whether they could have done anything more to make a difference. An episode recorded in the report describes the atmosphere at one stage in part of the Cathedral congregation. This also appears to have been fed by similar tribal elitist assumptions. During the 90s, and early years of this century, there was some confusion about the precise boundaries in safeguarding responsibilities at the Cathedral. One notorious abuser [Terence Banks – Ed], who acted as a steward in the Cathedral, succeeded in avoiding challenge or confrontation over decades. This was, in part, due to a failure of communication between Diocese and Cathedral. No doubt, the similar dynamics of tribalism and rivalry between the two were playing their part in this situation of poor communication. The Diocesan Safeguarding Officer was denied easy access to Cathedral records and other information. When she finally spoke to parents of boys who had been abused, these same parents found themselves shunned and ostracised by members of the cathedral congregation. In a comment the report notes that some of the shunners were those who associated socially with the senior clergy at the Cathedral. Again, we appear to be observing a pattern endemic in the story of church abuse. The victims often become the enemy because they are upsetting the status quo. The forces of clericalism and tribalism seem to rally round to support a perpetrator rather than the victims. It is hard to see how this collusion to defend a guilty party (including Peter Ball) can be broken unless the responsibility for investigation is taken right out of the hands of people thinking tribally.
There are many other points in the report that I am not of course able to cover in a thousand words. But the criticisms, whether of Archbishop Carey, the central Church authorities or the various officers in the Diocese of Chichester, all seem to come back to the fundamental issue of self-protection and fear. For Archbishop Carey, there seems, as I have suggested before, to have been a large dose of naivety spiced with a strong instinct to protect and preserve ‘his’ Church. The same mistakes which allowed so many offenders to roam the Diocese of Chichester unchallenged for so long, hang on this desire to protect the institution and especially those who served it as clergy. As I suggested in my previous blog, the instinct to do anything and everything to protect an institution will be particularly strong when the same organisation is the one that which gives you self-esteem and identity. This ‘institutional narcissism’, as we described it, will be especially strong among the top officials of an organisation. From America we have been hearing a lot about ‘no collusion and no obstruction’ on the part of the White House when faced with the facts of the interference by the Russian state in the American elections. Any admitting of Russian interference in the elections would have the effect of undermining the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency, quite apart from uncovering criminal behaviour on his part. In the narrative of the IICSA account we catch glimpses of another organisation – the Church- that is overwhelmed with fear rather than confidence. This observation could be made about the entire Church of England at present rather than just the Diocese of Chichester. The narrative of secrecy, cover-ups, failures of communication is a language of fear and even the collapse of confidence. Once again, we beg the Church to come out of such behaving as though it is scared of the truth. We implore it to face openly the traumas of the past and work with men and women of goodwill to build a new future of honesty, truth and openness.
Comments
There was extensive coverage of this Report on national BBC news last night (9 May 19) including interviews and analysis.
Fear takes the path of least resistance. Omertà has been the path taken for the most.
But the strategy of silence and cover up will be changing as news of all this begins to seep into the mainstream.
Human decisions are seldom based on objective facts. We trust people we believe in. We follow their lead, often blindly, until we don’t. That turning point comes when we are brutally let down by their behaviour coming to light.
We turn against people we once trusted and we turn right against them. And we do it en masse.
Looking back at a skilled and charming manipulator like Peter Ball, with friends in high places, the turning against them can be delayed by decades. But when it comes, it comes. No one looking for a career in high society, be it clerical or otherwise, would be standing within a thousand miles of PB now.
I thank God that I’m not a person of influence in a high place. Because they’re just like us, but their mistakes and naivety are magnified a hundred times and exposed repeatedly and mercilessly to the public gaze. Like now.
Silence is now ineffective. The appalling facts are weekly being exposed on national TV.
If fear is the driver, any Diocese NOT disclosing and dealing effectively and honestly with its abuse skeletons is now in for serious public exposure. Leaders will be anxious to ensure they are the first to get their houses in order, not the last.
The turning point is like a tide. It’s unstoppable.
The ‘tribalism’ in Chichester diocese rings true. The only person I knew who did not fall under Peter Ball’s spell when he was Bishop of Lewes, was my vicar Gordon Rideout. Ball was very high Anglo Catholic; Rideout was Church Society (Calvinist conservative evangelical, this was before Reform was founded). He once said to me of Ball, ‘In my experience people who really pray talk about it less.’ Which was quite an astute comment, but deeply ironic considering Rideout’s later conviction of historical child abuse
I think you had to have known Ball in those days to grasp how powerful was the spell he cast over people (except Rideout). He had the whole area in thrall – it was a bit like the spell cast by the Kennedys in the 1950s and 1960s, when people likened the White House to Camelot.
Nowadays we are much more cynical, and that’s probably a good thing. But I was thoroughly taken in by Rideout, as I have been by a handful of other really expert con artists. I have some sympathy with those who were deceived – though none for those who, undeceived, still refuse to do the right thing.
In a way you were fortunate to hear Ball say something unpleasant at an early stage, since it made you distrust him. I never heard him say anything untoward, or saw him do anything out of order. I did hear him speak to an ecumenical evangelical renewal group – and hold the room in the palm of his hand. I have always thought the monk in ‘Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass’ was Ball.
I never really trusted Ball, but only because in those days I didn’t trust anyone who was Catholic or high church. But I fell hook, line and sinker for Gordon Rideout’s holy man act, because he was eminently ‘sound’. I read the IICSA report on Rideout today, and it made me feel sick.
Chichester still is tribal and secret. Our parish priest is part of a ‘religious’ society which, those of us who know how to read the meaning of SSC, indicates that he is part of a network which does not allow women priests near the altar of his church, MY parish church, whose congregation has never been given the opportunity to declare their objection to his exclusive attitude. I have chorused this in various places, even to the new bishop, when he was new. Nothing has changed in the jobs for the boys set-up, and now the Archdeacon is also a member, so no complaints will get further than his ear. The Safeguarding Team are the parish priest and the churchwarden. This says it all, even though outside telephone numbers and contacts are given for those who might need them.
The General Synod has decided, rightly or wrongly, that we are to live with those whose attitudes are less than inclusive. That is a good thing if it means a tolerance to those who have not travelled far enough along the road to realise that the earth is not flat. It becomes problematic when we find ourselves willingly or unwillingly party to the creation of a walled garden, ie a world created and defended by those who want to impose restrictions on others. That phenomenon can manifest itself in a church which pursues a particular narrow line, be it narrowly biblical or narrowly ritualistic or something else insidious. In those circumstances I consider it my calling to take every opportunity to remind those within the garden gently that there is a world outside. I have twice recently written at length to clergymen who have, in my view, either misbehaved or said something stupid from a privileged position. I do not look for agreement only to know that I have thereby rattled the cage. One must not let oneself be bullied, and one must look out for others who may be! I realise, though, that not everyone in a position of vulnerability in such circumstances is able to defend him or herself. That to me is the big challenge we have.
Thank you Rosina. As I had not written my piece before writing my reaction, I had not appreciated that there is less about churchmanship in the report than in the actual hearings which I followed fairly closely. Thus I inserted stuff into my comments which was not really drawn directly out of the report. Having admitted to that, there were revealed in the report a variety of underlying theological tensions, the role of the priest, the access to forgiveness and a dislike of women that reflect theological perspectives of a fairly marked kind. Your stuff about jobs for the boys and the unhealthy prolonged ‘reign’ of Bishop Kemp cannot have created a healthy set-up or atmosphere in the diocese. The theological issues in the diocese will have to be explored another day, but only indirect evidence of the problems is found in this report.
I do hope the currently higher profile bears fruit. My problems have mostly been caused by different things. Indifference, prejudice against women, mistaken loyalty to one in your tribe. But also, a huge lack of training as to how to deal with those who may have been abused. Even recently, where I am treated warmly, as a colleague and one of the team, I have not been offered tea and sympathy, I have had to ask, I have been hived off to see a counsellor, I have been shouted at with the stabby finger by the highly placed man who should have been able to support me. Most clergy, in my experience at least, simply don’t know how to react. More training please, many of these things are counter intuitive.
I would endorse all of the comments made. I read the full report (and all the evidence as it came out). There are a few painful solecisms, that might easily have been removed under the eye of a trained editor. In addition, I found it somewhat meandering.
Whilst I have no formal connection with the diocese, I attended services in every parish between 2009 and 2013 – in other words at the fag end of the Hind era. I think it would be fair to say that morale was then below rock bottom, especially in the Lewes area, and that several people who had come to Sussex from elsewhere remarked to me that they were astonished by what they had found. Attendance in the east of East Sussex was as bad as anything I have seen in East Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, north Bedfordshire or the Brecklands.
Mention has been made of the toxic tribalism. I think this was also attributable to two structural factors:
1. There was still a high proportion of two or three parish benefices in rural areas. This contrasted strongly with other south-eastern dioceses, such as Canterbury, Chelmsford and Winchester, where rural benefices were starting to have ten or more parishes for obvious economic reasons (and Chichester was then in some financial distress). The effect of creating such monster benefices is to dilute the influence of the stipendiary minister. The priest/minister perforce has a greater degree of influence where s/he is in a more intimate relationship with his/her flock. Of course, there are significant problems with large benefices, but it has struck me that ‘clericalism’ is less of a problem in dioceses that have followed that course.
2. Ancient landscape patterns in Sussex have ensured that settlements and lines of communication have evolved on a north-south axis. Absent the A27 there are scarcely any roads running from east-west, and during the Kemp/Hind years little of the A27 was a dual carriageway and travel was very slow. The diocesan bishop is based at one extreme of the county (as is, of course, the case elsewhere) with the diocesan offices at Hove. To some extent Kemp’s 1984 area scheme made sense because of the travel issues, but the formation of cabals and coteries was probably facilitated by geography as much as culture. Scarcely anyone knew of Hind east of Eastbourne; Warner is the first diocesan since Wilson to make the effort to know the whole of his jurisdiction.
Benn comes out of this affair very badly, but what struck me was that Kemp was, for all his learning, a truly awful diocesan: he was only really fit for one of the ecclesiastical history chairs. I was once rebuked on TA for stating this (on the dubious grounds that my comment might offend his widow, Kenneth Kirk’s daughter, now also deceased). Kemp should be taught in seminaries as a textbook example of how not to do things.
Also, most of the abuse took place in the Lewes area: one of the omissions was whether Ball knew of the abuse occurring under his charge, and what he…
Bishop George Bell was one of the great leaders of the Church of England in the twentieth century. As a member of the House of Lords, on moral grounds he bravely opposed the blanket bombing of German cities in WW2.
Two major reports in 2017 and 2019 established that allegations of abuse made against Bishop Bell sixty years after his death were unfounded.
We request that the name of 4 Canon Lane in Chichester Cathedral grounds should once more celebrate the memory of this great Bishop and be known again as George Bell House.
Comments
“Rededicating 4 Canon Lane restores the reputation of Bishop Bell. It also restores dignity to the Cathedral and the community of Chichester”
Susannah, if you make an allegation I raped you when you were 5-years-old, the onus is on you to provide evidence that I raped you. The onus is not on me to prove I am innocent.
If you cannot provide that evidence in a court of law, then however convinced you are that it was me who raped you, I am to be presumed innocent. That’s the law.
After two investigations (Carlile & Briden), ‘Carol’ – who has had the benefit of anonymity and been paid nearly £30,000 (?) in compensation – has provided zero evidence that it was Bishop Bell who abused her.
Therefore, Bishop Bell is to be presumed innocent. That’s the law.
But the Church seems to consider itself above the law by presuming Bishop Bell’s guilt and presuming the innocence of ‘Carol’.
“These are some memories of one of the women from Chichester diocese, who was ordained in 1994” – Peter Owen ‘Thinking Anglicans’ May 15 2019 – Jon WhiteJon WhiteThe Episcopal CaféChurches continue to defy demands for accountability
“it might seem most prudent to remove his authority for the time being“
It might be, yes. But whether we like it or not, prudence is _not_ the legal standard for when an archbishop may suspend a bishop. That is a very serious legal matter. And I really must now echo the frustration that Rowland Wateridge expressed above. These are issues of law, not of personal preference, and not even of individual assessments of prudence. Lawlessness (alleged sexual abuse or misconduct) cannot and must not justify further lawlessness (potential abuse of archiepiscopal power).
Michael Mulhern
“If these matters are found to be proven I consider that the bishop would present a significant risk of harm by not adequately safeguarding children and vulnerable people.”
I really do hope, for everyone’s sake, that this is not Justin Welby doing a ‘George Bell’ on it. Again. My sense is that this sentence could be seized upon by the Bishop of Lincoln’s lawyers. I’ve no doubt that John Rees and William Nye have been all over this statement before it was issued (or I hope they have!). Nonetheless, I think the CDM would give the Bishop of Lincoln considerable scope if the reasons for the suspension are unproven.
Yes, of course, any cover up is unacceptable and must be investigated. But detail like this should only be made public *after* the case against the Bishop is proven. And why has Lincoln been suspended and not Chester (despite retirement plans and Chester’s situation was as a result of a proven police investigation)? It didn’t stop them doing it to Michael Perham, and he was conclusively cleared of any wrongdoing.
This just tells me that there is inconsistency in the way the hierarchy are handling safeguarding. This is precisely why it need to be managed by a completely independent organisation, well outside archiepiscopal control.
Richard W. Symonds
Archbishop Welby is indeed doing a ‘George Bell’ on the Bishop of Lincoln – but at least this Bishop can mount a defence against this near-criminal libel by the Archbishop. The long-deceased Bishop Bell could not mount a defence – nor was there anyone to act in his defence.
This injustice is yet another moral obscenity which is being perpetuated by an incompetent Church hierarchy in denial.
Jeremy
Just looking at the texts of the reports and comments above, and without knowing any further facts, I’m not convinced that what the Archbishop is doing can be squared with the text under which he says he is acting. I do not think the definition of “present a significant risk of harm” can include what the Archbishop is saying–“not adequately safeguarding children and vulnerable people.” He seems to be saying it generally. I don’t think subsection (c) can be read that way. It says “put _a_ child . . . at risk”–in other words, a particular child or vulnerable adult. I would have thought that this requires a particular instance or case. Which the Archbishop’s use of “children and vulnerable people” would seem to contradict. In other words, on the archbishop’s view, subsection 36(2A)(c) (“put a child or vulnerable adult at risk of harm”) would apparently include not adequately following safeguarding policy or procedure. We shall see what the real issue is. But if it was failing to follow a policy generally, or to ensure proper procedures generally, then I think the Archbishop may be oversteering. Does anyone know of any precedent that supports the Archbishop’s apparent position?
Since the live charge against the CofE at IICSA is essentially that reputation has been more important than people, I hope that this is a risk-based decision and not a reputation-based one, but I am not confident that it is so.
Richard W. Symonds
Archbishop Welby on the Bishop of Lincoln Christopher Lowson:
“If these matters are found to be proven I consider that the bishop would present a significant risk of harm by not adequately safeguarding children and vulnerable people. I would like to make it absolutely clear that there has been no allegation that Bishop Christopher has committed abuse of a child or vulnerable adult”
Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner on the Bishop of Chichester George Bell:
“I refer to what I said earlier: this is not to denigrate in any way the amazing work done by Bishop George Bell. He was an astounding man and leader of the church. But we also have to recognise that it is possible for great people to make mistakes. In fact, if noble Lords read very carefully the statements that have been put out, they will see that there has been no declaration that we are convinced that this took place. It is about the balance of probabilities and what might have happened…”
Words fail me.
Bill Broadhead
Interestingly, the House of Bishops is meeting at the moment. Was the Bishop of Lincoln told to pack his suitcase and go? And is this statement just another case of a bad-tempered and over-stressed Welby having a bad day and lashing out? After all, Professor Coakley’s letter about episcopal appointments in yesterday’s Times will have upset his early morning run.
It is unprecedented that an individual bishop should have his reputation tarnished *prior* to any investigative process being concluded (although, I agree, they came pretty close to it with Michael Perham). I think it is a legitimate question to ask whether this is defamatory or libellous. Institutional reputation is one thing, but you don’t undo the mistakes and cover-ups of the past by throwing an individual under a bus by inferring that you’ve prejudged the outcome.
When is safeguarding, and the communication associated with it, going to be put on a professional and independent footing?
Rowland Wateridge
I am reluctant to speak about this case, but in response to your point about suspension happening before investigation, let’s assume a similar hypothetical situation.
Section 37 of the CDM (inapplicable material omitted) states: “Where – (e) The archbishop of the province in which a bishop holds office … is satisfied, on the basis of information provided by a local authority or the police, that the bishop … presents a significant risk of harm,
the archbishop of the province in which the bishop holds office … may with the consent of the two most senior diocesan bishops in that province … by notice in writing suspend him from exercising any right or duty of or incidental to his office:”
At the time, the Very Reverend Christine Wilson was said to have stepped down “for personal reasons”.
The simultaneous move from Paul Overend was explained by the cathedral as “for different reasons, connected to one issue”.
Christine Wilson was the 81st Dean of Lincoln and took up her position in 2016. Before this, she was the Archdeacon of Chesterfield in the Diocese of Derby since 2010.
Christine has also been a non-executive director of Ecclesiastical Insurance, the insurer trusted with advising the Church of England’s compensation claims, since 2017.
Lincoln Cathedral and the Church of England did not comment when asked if the company was providing services in relation to the investigation.
May 19 2019 – “In the George Bell scandal, Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner and the Cathedral Chapter [along with Archbishop Justin Welby] have brought shame and disgrace to the people of this ancient City – and to those who love its Cathedral” – Richard W. Symonds
“In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective, and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties” – Oct 22 2015
“The legitimate quest for certainty has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved. We ask those who hold opposing views on this matter to recognize the strength of each other’s commitment to justice and compassion” (Jan 24 2019 – Chichester Cathedral website)
2. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby
“The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has already questioned the Church of England over its response to the Bishop Bell case and the review by Lord Carlile. We expect that their report on our hearings will address further the complex issues that have been raised and will result in a more informed, confident, just and sensitive handling of allegations of abuse by the church in the future. We have apologised, and will continue to do so, for our poor response to those brave enough to come forward, while acknowledging that this will not take away the effects of the abuse. This very difficult issue therefore leaves the church with an impossible dilemma which I hope people with different perspectives on it will try to understand”
The Archbishop of Canterbury apologised yesterday for “mistakes” in the handling of allegations against the late George Bell, who was Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958, after five claims of abuse were ruled to be unfounded. He added, however, that an earlier allegation of child abuse could not be “swept under the carpet”. (Jan 25 2019 – The Times)
“I refer to what I said earlier: this is not to denigrate in any way the amazing work done by Bishop George Bell. He was an astounding man and leader of the church. But we also have to recognise that it is possible for great people to make mistakes. In fact, if noble Lords read very carefully the statements that have been put out, they will see that there has been no declaration that we are convinced that this took place. It is about the balance of probabilities and what might have happened…”
June 6 2019 – ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ Afternoon Meeting [2pm to 5pm] – The Old Court Room, The Council House, Chichester City Council, North Street, Chichester
“I am delighted that Peter Hitchens, ever-consistent in our mission to reinstate Bishop George Bell to his rightful place in history, and note that he has signed our Petition for Bishop George Bell. I also see that he draws attention to the George Bell Group’s updated and comprehensive ‘saga’ on the subject, I must strongly protest, however, at the description of Richard Symonds as a ‘local campaigner’. Nothing is further from the truth! As founder of The Bell Society, and constant updater of the Society’s own website, Richard’s work for Bishop Bell has been noted, supported and praised worldwide. Of particular value, as it was put to me during The Bell Society’s Conference, organised by Richard and which I was proud to chair, on 5 February 2019, in George Bell House ( soon, one hopes to be – and rightly – re-named), is his Chronology, which painstakingly lists every important contribution to the subject, over the years. ‘Local campaigner’? No! Richard is much, much more than that”
[a] October 19 2015 – Chichester Cathedral website
European Links
In the spirit of George Bell, Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958 and a great friend of the churches of Germany, the Diocese has links with the United Church of Berlin-Brandenburg, the Lutheran Evangelical Church (EKD) District of Bayreuth, Bavaria, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bamberg, Bavaria. Regionalbischof Dr Dorothea Greiner of Bayreuth, and Domkapitular Professor Wolfgang Klausnitzer are Canons of Honour of Chichester Cathedral.
[b] February 7 2016 – Chichester Cathedral website
European Links
The Diocese has links with the United Church of Berlin-Brandenburg, the Lutheran Evangelical Church (EKD) District of Bayreuth, Bavaria, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bamberg, Bavaria. Regionalbischof Dr Dorothea Greiner of Bayreuth, and Domkapitular Professor Wolfgang Klausnitzer are Canons of Honour of Chichester Cathedral.
Example 2 – Deletion: “In a powerful sermon, Bishop Greiner spoke of the close links between Chichester and the European churches, which began with the friendship between Bishop George Bell and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer more than 70 years ago”
“Whatever the nature or details of the “information” on which the Archbishop of Canterbury based his decision to suspend Bishop Christopher, in the light of the clear statement that “there has been no allegation that Bishop Christopher has committed abuse of a child or vulnerable adult”, the legal basis for the suspension is at least doubtful. An appeal to the President of Tribunals that would clarify the legal position would seem to be justified and appropriate”
So the Curia might have not been as thorough as it should have in applying law? And might have therefore drawn themselves into a greater muddle? What a massive shocker. In order to ‘get safeguarding right’, about which the whole church is rightly concerned, we actually have to get it fully right — which includes resisting an unseemly hurry (such as this, perhaps) to ‘do something’ (or indeed, be seen to), when the laws and guidelines properly applied would not support it. Presumption of innocence is so inconvenient.
Richard W. Symonds
A “significant cloud” hangs over the Archbishop and his moral and legal integrity.
Jeremy
I’ve always had questions about his sense of judgment.
Based on David Lamming’s analysis, I also wonder who is giving the Archbishop’s legal advice. Or is the Archbishop of Canterbury simply not following the legal advice he is being given? And here’s a question: Can Synod ask to see any legal advice justifying the first-ever “suspension” of a bishop?
“Bell shared the Anglo-Catholics’ conviction that the church was not, and must never be, the creature of the state. When he spent Christmas 1914 at Canterbury with the Archbishop, Davidson, he noted in his diary on 29 December that this was the day on which Becket was murdered, and went to the Cathedral to visit the place of his martyrdom. Indeed Becket was to become increasingly influential in the twentieth century Church of England, reminding it that there are times when the church has to stand against the state”
~ Alan Wilkinson [Source: “Britain and the Threat to Stability in Europe, 1918-45” – Ch 5 ‘Bishop Bell and Germany’ – Page 77]
Bernie Evans and Michael Meadowcroft respond to Martin Kettle’s article on the alarming similarities of Weimar Germany and Brexit Britain
Letters
Chancellor Adolf Hitler in Berlin on 24 March 1933. ‘Hitler’s rise initially was through democratic votes in general elections, with the Nazis becoming the biggest party in the Reichstag after the July 1932 election,’ writes Bernie Evans. Photograph: Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
As Martin Kettle says (Brexit Britain and Weimar Germany are perilously alike, 16 May), there exist in the UK at the moment far too many similarities with Weimar Germany for comfort. It is easy to see parallels in the falling out of love with parliament, the lack of cooperation between parties and the far right’s repeated message of national betrayal, and to link them with a possible surge in support for a rightwing autocracy.
It is worth mentioning, however, that Adolf Hitler’s rise initially was through democratic votes in general elections, with the Nazis becoming the biggest party in the Reichstag after the July 1932 election. It was after the November election of that year when they actually lost ground, when it was decided to offer Hitler the chancellorship, leading to the Enabling Act and the destruction of opposition parties.
Divisions on the left, with the inevitable lack of viable policies to challenge the promise of a strong Germany coming from Hitler, were an important factor in the rise of fascism, and must not be repeated here. The Labour leadership has a duty to provide a united opposition to the threat from the right; if Labour loses the support of its remain voters and their votes are shared around smaller parties, a significant and dangerous similarity could be created, with terrible consequences. Bernie Evans Liverpool
•Martin Kettle points to today’s echoes of 1920s and 1930s Germany. He is far from the only observer to make the point: in his final book, containing riveting biographical essays on individuals who stood up to Hitler, the late Paddy Ashdown wrote: “In reading this book you may be struck, as I was in writing it, by the similarities between what happened in the build-up to World War II and the age in which we now live. Then as now, nationalism and protectionism were on the rise and democracies were seen to have failed, people hungered for the government of strong men; those who suffered most from the pain of economic collapse felt alienated and turned towards simplistic solutions and strident voices … ‘fake news’ built around the convincing untruth carried more weight in the public discourse than rational arguments and provable facts.”Paddy comments wryly: “Painting a lie on the side of a bus and driving it around the country would have seemed perfectly normal in those days.”
Teaching the uncomfortable facts of history is crucially important and we neglect it at our peril. Michael Meadowcroft Leeds
This Brexit shambles exposes how far the Conservatives Party has degenerated. For all her faults, Mrs May remains the only adult in the room. At the top, the rest are just a bunch of self obsessed pygmies, charlatans and incompetents who should not be allowed to run a whelk stall
A good PM she is most emphatically not. But listening – and more specifically – watching Theresa May’s speech today, there are three qualities not even her worst enemies would deny her. Duty, Determination and Desperation.
May statement at 2.30. Undermined by her Party at home, humiliated by her friends in Europe, the PM has no credibility left. She should resign. And as a woman of duty, I think she will.
“Brexit? It is dangerous. We are being swept up, and swept away, in a wave of nationalistic fervour and hysteria. We have been there before. Let history speak: There is no happy ending. As Orwell said: ‘Don’t let it happen. It depends on you'”
Since October 2015 when the Archbishops’ Council announced that they had paid compensation to the woman given the pseudonym ‘Carol’, who alleged that she had been abused by Bishop George Bell, his defenders have criticised the Church authorities for never once affording the Bishop the presumption of innocence.
Now, after the inquiries of Lord Carlile and Timothy Briden, it can be seen that the allegations against Bishop Bell were unfounded in fact.
I have read, closely, what Andrew Graystone has written – and appreciate that he has done so.
I write the following in the hope readers will not think I am devaluing the victim of abuse, nor diluting his – or her – message.
Andrew’s “entirely different approach” can apply not only to victims of abuse by the Church, but also to victims of false accusation of abuse by the Church.
Andrew Graystone
Thank you Richard. I agree that we should be concerned about those who are accused of abuse, and I think there may be helpful read-across between the two situations. To be falsely accused is also a form of abuse.
Richard W. Symonds [unpublished]
If I may follow-on from that…if an Archbishop insists there is still a “significant cloud” hanging over a deceased Bishop accused of sexual abuse, even though the accusations have been proved to be unfounded, then that Archbishop is falsely accusing the deceased Bishop and thus is a form of abuse on his part – as well as breaking the Sixth Commandment of ‘bearing false witness’.
This disturbing case of the use and abuse of Church power has other implications. For example: If Archbishop Welby [and Bishop Warner] insist there is still a “significant cloud” hanging over the deceased Bishop Bell accused of sexual abuse, even though the accusations have been proved to be unfounded, then that Archbishop and Bishop are falsely accusing the deceased Bishop and thus is an abuse of power on their part – as well as breaking the Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness”.
~ Richard W. Symonds
“I witnessed the closing statement made on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council at the Inquiry’s Chichester hearing. They seemed to be saying that although they had got it wrong in the past they will do better in the future. I felt this was false. I do not think that they are doing better now, and I do not think that there is sufficient will to change the cultural attitude. The recent George Bell case shows the church not only doing things by its own rules but even trying to police the Police! Despite the abusive pressure I am still experiencing, I believe I have for the most part responded with graciousness yet firmness…The church has had to face some painful truths. It now needs to be unflinching in proclaiming its core message of reconciliation and finding ways of putting that that into practice, otherwise it has no reason for continuing to even exist”
– Revd Nick Flint of Rusper
Nick, I note with concern your comment: “In my evidence I also record my repeated concern that as recently as 2016 Martin Warner had not passed on to the Police information I gave him about a suspect.”
Nobody has picked up on this. Not surprisingly the discussion has focussed on the finer details of patronage, as this was the subject of the article.
It’s troubling if any bishop is not acting on information reliably given by a member of clergy or officer within the diocese. And astonishing really that after many layers of failure and cover-up in this diocese have been brought into daylight – this lack of response might still be happening under a current bishop.
I hope the situation has now moved forward a considerable pace since the time of your statement. I’d be surprised if it hasn’t. I imagine you have had help from the IICSA lawyers to ensure a definite response. To my mind the bishop’s inaction would be grounds for a CDM. But that piece of structure has been brought into considerable disrepute with dismissals within the purple circle, time limits, ‘floods’, etc.
Two CDMs brought against Bishop Wallace Benn by the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group (DSAG) were dismissed on the basis of 12 month time limits. It is worth reading the IICSA summary to be reminded just how dysfunctional Bishop Benn’s approach was. And startling to see how easily the time-bar protects bad practice.
IICSA says the CDM “is not a suitable tool to deal with ongoing issues of risk management.” That seems a right assessment. But in the absence of anything else that might hold bishops to account, it’s all there is. Sir Roger Singleton brought a recent CDM against the Bishop of Chester for failing to respond to a letter ten years ago. If there’s any consistency, that will be dismissed by the Clergy Discipline Tribunal. And the Measure descend into more of a farce than it already is. One can only assume that Sir Roger’s reason for bringing this CDM was to highlight the farce and demonstrate the total collapse of the CDM. And force the church to address glaring unaccountability.
At the very least, Bishop Martin Warner should be asked to explain his reasons for the inaction. I’m not surprised the media did not pick up on this at the time, as there are so many documents on the IICSA website. Unless a witness lands in front of Counsel in a hearing, much goes past the media who tend to report the ‘big stuff’. The material on IICSA might be source for historians and theologians in the future….
It charts a church in breakage, a gospel in collapse.
“The Bishop Bell case in the Chichester Diocese is one of a considerable number of major cock-ups by the Church of England hierarchy. This has led to major cover-ups – both at national and local diocesan level. The casualties of this ‘cock-up & cover-up’ safeguarding system are more often than not the lowly, dispensable clergy or church worker who are considered ‘collateral damage’ in the cleansing process”
June 6 2019 – “The giving of homely and friendly hospitality by West Sussex people was particularly valued by allied troops from overseas, and is a constant feature in their recollections. In Chichester, Bishop Bell held receptions for American officers in the Bishops Palace to meet local people. Elsewhere in the city, canteen facilities were opened for visiting troops such as in East Street and at Toc H premises in North Street [Ref 8 WSRO, MP 3730]
~ Source: “D-Day West Sussex – Springboard for the Normandy Landings 1944” – Ian Greig. Kim Leslie. Alan Readman – WSCC [First published 1994 – Reprinted 2019]
The Friends of Canterbury Cathedral was founded in 1927 by the then Dean, George Bell. The organization was the first of its kind in the world.
In 1928 Miss Margaret Babington joined Dean Bell as Steward. A redoubtable woman of enormous energy and tremendous vision, she made a huge contribution to the success of the Friends. She staged plays and concerts and enticed illustrious people such as John Masefield, Sir Adrian Boult, Gustav Holst, Dorothy L. Sayers and Dame Myra Hess to the Cathedral. Rudyard Kipling and George Bernard Shaw became enthusiastic members.
Margaret Babington, the energy behind the Friends when it started, handed over her baton to many other stewards and executive secretaries, all of whom have put their own stamp on the efforts of the Friends, and made it the successful charity and membership organisation it is today.
“After the conclusions reached by Lord Carlile and the Report of Timothy Briden, it is clear that in every legal, moral and intellectual sense, Bishop Bell is an innocent man. Therefore we, the undersigned, request the return of his name to 4 Canon Lane, ie George Bell House”
June 11 2019 – From The Archives – 3 years ago [April 4 2016 – “Group wants new look into case of late bishop” – The Argus – Reporter: Joel Adams – Vigil outside Chichester Cathedral + Photo – Sunday April 3]
June 11 2019 – Reactions to Richard Ashby’s comment on ‘Thinking Anglicans’
Richard Ashby has said this over at ‘Thinking Anglicans’ [see Comments] – resulting in a response:
Richard W. Symonds
Archbishop Welby again called upon to apologise for his “significant cloud” remark against Bishop Bell – following the ‘Welcome to George Bell House’ event in Chichester.
Guest
Richard Ashby
As one who had to run the gamut of the so called ‘Welcome to George Bell House’ demonstration last Thursday, I was dismayed by the inappropriateness of the event and the obstruction of the private highway which greeted those attending an entirely separate event in the house. I don’t think that the campaign did themselves any favours by this stunt.
Guest
Richard W. Symonds
As one who attended the ‘Welcome to George Bell House’ event at 4 Canon Lane Chichester [George Bell House up to 2015], I am left wondering if Mr Ashby was at the same event as myself:
All very friendly. No obstruction. And no “entirely separate event” at George Bell House, 4 Canon Lane. The whole building was taken over by the Chichester Cathedral Friends [CCF] to celebrate their 80th Anniversary – started by Bishop Bell in 1939. So it was entirely appropriate to have a ‘Welcome to George Bell House’ event.
Mr Ashby can read all about it – along with others – in the Chichester Observer next Thursday.
From Professor Peter Billingham:
In brief response to Richard Ashby’s comments re last Thursday’s successful George Bell protest:
A) We had correctly approached the Police who gave permission for this entirely peaceful protest The police officer assured us that we lived in a democracy where peaceful protest was to be supported and defended. We also understand that it is a Public Right of Way, allowing access for example to the Bishop’s Gardens.
B) At no point did we obstruct anyone neither was that ever our intention.
C) I, my wife and a close family friend were aggressively, verbally assaulted in public by a Friends female attendee at the event. What good or Christian impression did that create? We have only ever conducted ourselves with dignity and respect for others.
D) We have received many many expressions of support and have secured nearly 1000 signatures on our petition.
The love of and search for justice does not dissipate with the passing of time.
Canterbury & the Diocese could resolve this issue though a simple act of contrition and just action.
George Bell founded the Friends of Chichester Cathedral. He, in the form of his defenders and supporters, had every reasonable right therefore to be present at the meeting last week,
In a spirit of peace and justice
Peter
June 11 2019 – RWS Note
It is to be remembered Archbishop Welby has already inadvertently endorsed our search for the likely perpetrator by saying:
the original allegation [by ‘Carol’] cannot be “ignored or swept under the carpet”.[30] – Wiki
It is also to be remembered Bishop Warner said last February at the ‘Rebuilding Bridges’ conference:
“The quest for certainty has been defeated by the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty”. In other words, the truth may never be known.
There is no quest for “certainty”, but there is a quest for truth. And that unending quest for truth is never defeated by any passage of time.
And, as the former Archbishop George Carey says, if Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, then he is “ipso facto” innocent.
~ Richard W. Symonds
June 11 2019 – ALL victims – including those falsely accused
Reverend Nick Flint makes it very clear as to the reasons why we should “learn lessons” from the IICSA reports regarding ALL victims – including those falsely accused (eg Bishop Bell):
“I witnessed the closing statement made on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council at the Inquiry’s Chichester hearing. They seemed to be saying that although they had got it wrong in the past they will do better in the future. I felt this was false. I do not think that they are doing better now, and I do not think that there is sufficient will to change the cultural attitude. The recent George Bell case shows the church not only doing things by its own rules but even trying to police the Police! …… The church has had to face some painful truths. It now needs to be unflinching in proclaiming its core message of reconciliation and finding ways of putting that that into practice, otherwise it has no reason for continuing to even exist”
Statement to the IICSA – Revd Nick Flint
Richard Scorer also understands the critical importance of “learning lessons” from the Bishop Bell case:
IICSA Transcript – Monday March 5 – Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]:
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Reverend Graham Sawyer
The vicar, who has returned to the UK and waived his right to anonymity, told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: “The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained.
“I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave.”
He added: “It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed.”
June 11 2019 – RWS Note 1
“If truth, justice and humanity do not prevail in the Bishop Bell case, the Church of England will be dead in less than seven years”
~ Richard W. Symonds
June 12 2019 – RWS Note 2
After reading Stephen Parsons article, I grow in the conviction that if truth, justice and humanity does not prevail, then the Church of England – as an institution – is in danger of sowing the seeds of its own destruction, and thus in danger of destroying itself.
This conviction has grown recently, not least because of the words of Revd Nick Flint, Richard Scorer and Revd Graham Sawyer at the IICSA hearings:
Revd Nick Flint
“I witnessed the closing statement made on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council at the Inquiry’s Chichester hearing. They seemed to be saying that although they had got it wrong in the past they will do better in the future. I felt this was false. I do not think that they are doing better now, and I do not think that there is sufficient will to change the cultural attitude. The recent George Bell case shows the church not only doing things by its own rules but even trying to police the Police! …… The church has had to face some painful truths. It now needs to be unflinching in proclaiming its core message of reconciliation and finding ways of putting that that into practice, otherwise it has no reason for continuing to even exist”
Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]
“…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
Revd Graham Sawyer
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained.
“I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave.”
“It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed.”
“I was not a defendant, innocent until proven guilty. I was a cunning, psychpathic, dirty and drugged whore; guilty until proven innocent…There are no human rights either, because in the court of public opinion you are not a human person. You are an object to consume” ~ Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox has accused the media of depicting her as guilty over the murder of British student Meredith Kercher despite her proven innocence.
The American former exchange student has returned to Italy for the first time since an appeals court acquitted her in 2011 over the killing of her British roommate in Perugia in 2007.
Speaking in Italian at a panel discussion in Modena entitled titled Trial By Media, Ms Knox said she was portrayed “on the global scene as cunning, psychopath, drugged, whore, guilty”.
She broke down as she said the media had invented a “false and baseless story, which fuelled people’s fantasies”.
Ms Knox’s 2011 acquittal was part of a long legal process before she was definitively cleared of killing Ms Kercher in 2015 by Italy’s highest court.
“The Chichester Cathedral Friends has no official position on the George Bell issue. This was stated at the AGM in answer to this question” (Chichester Observer, June 13): –
As we await the imminent “official position” from Chichester Cathedral Friends, here are some “unofficial positions” as described by three people who attended its AGM in the afternoon of June 6th:
AGM Attendee 1 (Email June 7): “Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson’s question about George Bell House went down very well. Dean Stephen Waine squirmed and Ruth received an extended round of applause”
AGM Attendee 2 (Email June 7): “A lady questioned The Dean about George Bell House. He sidestepped by saying that the matter had not been discussed. Good for her she persevered with ‘Should it not be?’ He gave a sort of reluctant ‘would take soundings’ sort of response”
AGM Attendee 3 (Email June 7): “The Friends will now have to consider whether they should [collectively] take a view… the response to Ruth in the Cathedral indicated that there is joint support from the Friends for the wish of its Chairman Graham Toole-Mackson”
A further insight in the letter, which is music to my ears, is the recognition that clericalism, deference and abuse of power lie behind the ‘cover-up’ and the silencing of the ‘voices of the vulnerable’. Clergy and other leaders have power within the relationships they possess and there needs to be ‘deeper awareness’ of that power. This theme of ministerial power and its potential for harm is the topic that I have chosen to reflect on in the forthcoming volume of essays Letters to a Broken Church. There is so much more to be said on this topic.
I want to make two further observations about the letter. One is that the letter appears to have been written at a visceral level. In short, the emotions of sorrow and repentance are allowed to rise to the surface and be dominant themes in what is communicated. Somehow the letter, assisted by a quotation from Andrew Graystone’s essay of a week ago, manages to avoid completely the somewhat petulant tone of so many expressions of ‘regret’ and ‘apology’ that we associate with official statements. Are we correct in seeing in this letter the beginning of something new, a combination of deep sorrow and genuine feeling for the needs of survivors and those wronged by the Church? Such sentiments, if they are followed through, will begin to meet the needs of survivors. It may be the beginning of the ‘change of culture’ that has been looked for by so many. It is also the first sign that some senior clergy individually and corporately are beginning to ‘get it’.
~ Stephen Parsons
“Are we correct in seeing in this letter the beginning of something new, a combination of deep sorrow and genuine feeling for the needs of survivors and those wronged by the Church?”
That will depend on whether or not certain out-of-control ‘rogue elements’ – buried deep within Church House/Lambeth Palace, controlling agendas at a very high level and abusing their power to cover-up – can be ‘brought to heel’.
I’m not optimistic.
~ Richard W. Symonds
Stephen Parsons writes: “In essence, it [The Blackburn Letter] is commending study of the recent IICSA report on the Diocese of Chichester and the Peter Ball case”
Senior clergy in the Blackburn Diocese are commending study of the recent IICSA report on the Diocese of Chichester and the Peter Ball case.
For greater balance and wisdom, I would commend study of the recent IICSA report on the Diocese of Chichester for both the Bishop Ball AND the Bishop Bell cases.
There needs to be genuine repentance by the Church regarding those sexually abused AND those wronged by the Church?
Richard W. Symonds
Regrettably, the ‘Safeguarding’ agenda is still being controlled by the very people within the Church hierarchy who have caused the catastrophic Safeguarding failures in the first place.
Of course, Safeguarding is concerned with the Duty of Care for children and young people sexually abused; but Safeguarding must also concern itself, for example, with the Duty of Care for vulnerable adults falsely accused of sexual abuse. Children, young people and adults have all been wronged by the Church – so they all must come under the umbrella of Safeguarding.
The senior clergy within the Blackburn Diocese commends the study of Chichester Diocese and Bishop Ball (relating to sexual abuse) – and rightly so. But commend also the study of Chichester Diocese and Bishop Bell (relating to false accusations of abuse).
~ Richard W. Symonds
If the largest percentage of “Other” (in Fig 2) relates to breaches of Safeguarding/Duty of Care for vulnerable adults (eg clergy) who are falsely accused of abuse. then the Church of England faces a ‘cover-up’ scandal of a magnitude on a par with those sexually abused.
“Senior leaders in the Diocese of Blackburn call on the Church to protect children from sex abuse – and thus commend the study of the Diocese of Chichester and Bishop Ball. But senior leaders must also call on the Church to protect vulnerable adults (eg clergy) from false accusations of sex abuse – and thus should also commend the study of the Diocese of Chichester and Bishop Bell”
Letters are important in the life of the Church, and we should certainly be open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit has not given up on them as a means of communication….
Churches are having a difficult time at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and it will be the turn of other faith communities in due course. As I write, I have just heard that the Chair of IICSA has delivered a scathing indictment of the Roman Catholic Church for prioritising the reputation of the Church over the welfare and protection of the vulnerable….
Yet, as in biblical times, news arriving from afar can lift the spirits. Most of the Church of England’s agenda may be shaped and crafted in Lambeth Palace, Bishopthorpe and Church House, but this good news arrives from the Diocese of Blackburn. Last week the the Diocese published a letter which did indeed lift the spirits and it deserves to be widely circulated for its pastoral wisdom and support for the broken….
We can approach this as we might a Pauline letter. It begins with a call to repentance: it is not ‘he’, ‘she’ or ‘they’ who have sinned, but ALL. Few will have been direct offenders, but a great many more will have passed by on the other side, either indifferent, incurious or blind to the needs of the broken. So many of us are so busy with other priorities. Victims can easily be designated ‘somebody else’s problem’, which is certainly how the General Synod treated them as the stories began to emerge decades ago.
One of this letter’s great virtues is that, like all good pastors, the authors have listened and are sensitive to the needs of those who need lifting. As I read: “..when the contemporary church fails to respond properly to allegations from the past, this becomes a form of re-abuse, adding a fresh layer of hurt and harm to those whose lives are already damaged. Trite, formulaic apologies will not do”, it occurred to me that it could have been taken from any number of emails which I have received from victims….
To spend proper time with the report is a powerful emotional experience and the overwhelming impressions we were left with were those of sorrow, guilt and deep sadness. We must keep in our prayers all who have suffered at the hands of those claiming to represent the Church. And we must promise to listen properly to those who have for too long felt silenced or who have been mistreated when coming forward….
Pauline letters were similarly bold. St Paul can be trenchant and disrespectful, but only because he cared deeply that sin and its consequences must be put right. In a similar way the Blackburn authors are not frightened to quote one of their most severe critics Andrew Graystone, who is permitted to school the Church on theology. He rightly highlights that how we treat our victims is a measure of how we treat Christ – a real challenge to our past complacency….
One of our harshest critics welcomed it as “authentic”; another said it was “fantastic”, only regretting that it had not been sent some years ago from further up the episcopal hierarchy. Gilo tweeted: “The Blackburn letter is having wider impact… thank you for striking a very different path from the anodyne response of senior hierarchy and for recognising that structure is key.” Stephen Parsons on the ‘Surviving Church’ blog wrote compellingly, asking: “Are we seeing in this letter the beginning of something new, a combination of deep sorrow and genuine feeling for the needs of survivors and those wronged by the Church?”
When a pastoral letter elicits such widespread approbation from those who have been estranged from us for so long, is this not something to be seized upon, shared and celebrated?
So when General Synod gathers in York, and (yet again) has no substantial motion on the church’s poor responses to victims, what is to done? We can ask a few disparate questions and receive yet another updating presentation, but nothing more substantial. This has been the pattern for some time. We have not debated the Elliott Report, the Gibb Report, the Past Cases Review, the Carlile Report or the Briden Report; nor is the promised review of the Clergy Discipline Measure to be offered for debate this session. I was contemplating asking those who set the agenda: “Don’t you want to hear what the representatives elected by the people in the pews have to say on these important matters?” It is not such a bad question….
Could not the General Synod of the Church of England pass a motion thanking the Blackburn Diocese for writing their pastoral letter, and pledge to adopt their approach as an exemplar of our future work in this field? By doing so, we could coalesce around a short foundational document and thereby encourage all who have any leadership responsibility in the Church to engage seriously with the IICSA report and its implications.
In order to ‘catch that wave’ we would need General Synod members to read and understand the value of the letter, and we would need our two Archbishops to agree to Synod organisers finding a little time to debate such a motion. The letter was published after the deadline for business had passed. I cannot in principle see why a happy event cannot be an ’emergency’: if a potential breakthrough of attitudes towards reconciliation isn’t worth a bit of holy disruption, I cannot think what is.
Alternatively, we could ignore this beacon of progress, settle back into our holy huddles, and argue about gender and sexuality for the umpteenth time.
COMMENTS
And as with the police, schools etc, there is far too much focus on ‘what happened to someone’ than on ‘what somebody did’.
“To spend proper time with the report is a powerful emotional experience and the overwhelming impressions we were left with were those of sorrow, guilt and deep sadness.”
Jack has to say when he reads these reports – and he has read very many on child abuse in his career – his overwhelming emotion tends to be that of fierce anger. Sorrow, guilt and sadness are all well and good but they’re way too introspective and somewhat indulgent. The time for collective sackcloth and ashes is long past.
What is needed is a sense of righteous, burning anger at the horror of this abuse and the negligence that allows it to continue, both pre and post abuse. Forget all this politeness and self recrimination. It’s time to kick-ass, to use the whip, overturn a few tables and drive the abusers and those complicit with it out of the Temple.
There are many flaws in the Blackburn letter. Most arise from a superficial underestimating of the nature of sin and how close the boundary is between what is right and what is wrong.
1. ‘ensuring that our local churches are places where children and vulnerable adults are entirely safe’ There is no such possibility. No-one doubts that relationships have been improper, sometimes grievously so. But the only way to ensure people are ‘entirely safe’ in relationships is to have no relationships. To some extent ‘safeguarding’ is moving in that direction. Affection between individuals, between young and old, lead to fondness and intimacy. A component of those is proper. Too much is not. Banging on about the latter will discourage the former. True the boundary has been too far too improper in some relationships but those who think we can put everything right don’t understand relationships
2. ‘much deeper awareness, especially for clergy and church-leaders, of where power lies in relationships and how easy it is to abuse that power’ The world resents power because it resents God’s authority. The world wants to reject God’s authority. The world then, generally, undermines ‘those in authority’, masters, parents,husbands…and priests because it sees those powers being misused. But misused they will be because people are sinful. And yet abolishing those powers, curbing those powers, ‘being aware’ of those powers makes things worse. Power is a good thing most of the time. It orders society. Yes those in power do wrong. but the only way to stop power doing wrong is not to have power and then things are worse.
3. ‘ What cries out most clearly is the desperate suffering of those who have been victims of sexual abuse by clergy and church leaders and the lifelong impact it has had on them’ Overblown. As ones cancer surgeon will tell one ‘Bad things happen in this world. The only thing we can do is decide how we react to them.’ Those of us who have experience abuse, illness, the normal things that happen in life, have a choice about how we react. The message of the Blackburn letter is ‘life-changing damage’. The message of Christ is ‘In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.’ Here is a woman who suffered severe sexual abuse and overcame. The Blackburn letter undermines such hope.
He made some valid points, Clive. Okay, his last paragraph maybe goes too far but he’s right in that this letter reinforces a sense of victimisation rather than survival and recovery. The abused want justice and action, not self indulgent pity.
This is an improvement, I suppose, but it still doesn’t address the foundational issue. The Catholic Church has been infested with this problem at the institutional level since at least the 1950s, if not earlier, and the reaction of the bishops to avoid “giving scandal” to the Church is only part of the reason for the cover-ups. We need a long, dispassionate look at the right and wrong of something orthodoxy has been telling us is just fine and dandy for decades now.
In a remarkably frank and detailed speech, the Vatican official heading the department charged with reviewing clergy sexual abuse allegations told an assembly of Catholic journalists that his investigators and the press “share the same goal, which is the protection of minors, and we have the same wish to leave the world a little better than how we found it.”…
The Irish-born priest has worked and studied in Rome since 1998. Speaking with a soft Irish brogue and an even tone, he gave a humane and at times anguished assessment of his job reviewing the horrors of sexual abuse and its cover-up.
Kennedy views his work as both a privilege and a burden. He also realizes how important the work is. “The topic of the clergy abuse crisis is front and center in our culture,” he noted. “Certainly, no theological topic or any other kind of heresy comes close.”
“For me it is at the heart, at the very core, and some have even suggested that the Church’s heart has been broken in this crisis.”
He said it has also taken its toll on many bishops.
“I have seen bishops who were once smiling pastors turned into morose, burdened figures,” he said. He described bishops who wept when reporting cases and bishops who felt absolutely alone – if not for Kennedy and his office – in confronting the scandals.
“A newly elected, but to date not ordained, bishop told me that he found out that there are many cases of historical abuse cases to be tackled in the diocese. No one told him this before they asked him to accept the responsibility. Now it is too late to say no.”
No matter what pain or suffering he and others feel, however, “this is nothing compared to those who have borne this for years in silence,” he said of sexual abuse victims.
June 21 2019 – RWS on the Church’s ‘Other’ Abuse
“The Church has been so busy believing every allegation of sexual abuse to be true, they have not just forgotten the truth – they have abused the truth”
“If the largest percentage of “Other” (in Fig 2) relates to breaches of Safeguarding/Duty of Care for vulnerable adults (eg clergy) who are falsely accused of abuse. then the Church of England faces a ‘cover-up’ scandal of a magnitude on a par with those sexually abused”
David, my apologies for not making myself clear – there was no intention to mislead. I did not want to “imply that there was a separate IICSA report on the ‘Bishop Bell case'” – it formed part of the IICSA’s Joint Investigation Report on the two case studies of the Diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball.
I would accept “the Blackburn ‘Ad Clerum’ letter rightly deals with the vitally important wider issues, focusing on the need to put the interests of victims and survivors above those concerned with the reputation of the Church”, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE of “the unresolved ‘Bell’ issues” – and other critical issues which expose the “Other” unaddressed abuses of the Church .
For example, the abuse which Revd Graham Sawyer expressed in strong terms at the IICSA hearings:
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”
This kind of unprecedented abuse against its own by the Church, along with its incompetent mishandling of astonishingly numerous clergy who are falsely accused of abuse, forms the largest percentage of ‘Other’ abuse in the recent Data Report 2015-2017 (Figure 2). These seriously ignored Safeguarding/Duty of Care breaches for vulnerable adults/clergy suggest a ‘cover-up’ scandal of a magnitude on a par with those sexually abused.
Senior leaders in the Diocese of Blackburn rightly call on the Church to protect children from sex abuse – and thus commend the IICSA case studies of the Diocese of Chichester and Bishop Ball. But senior leaders must also call on the Church to protect vulnerable adults/clergy from the kind of abuse Revd Graham Sawyer is talking about, and those falsely accused of sexual abuse – and thus should also commend the study of the Diocese of Chichester and Bishop Bell.
The Church has been so busy believing every allegation of sexual abuse to be true, they have not just forgotten the truth – they have abused the truth.
~ Richard W. Symonds
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained.
“I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave.”
“It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed.”
The issue of who is and who is not an Anglican has become an topic of discussion recently with the case of John Smyth. Smyth, the notorious abuser and for a long time chair of the Iwerne trustees, spent the end of his life as a member of non-Anglican churches in South Africa. On the basis of this period of non-Anglican participation, the Archbishop of Canterbury has placed the ‘not-Anglican’ label on Smyth, apparently for the whole of his life. It is hard to make this claim when during his time living in Winchester, Smyth was a Reader at Christ Church Winchester. It seems fairly clear that, assuming this claim is correct, he would have had at some point to provide evidence of his Church of England baptism and confirmation before being admitted to Reader status. What happened after he left the UK in disgrace does not change his Church of England membership while he lived in this country, committing his crimes…
The non-Anglican label has also been applied to the organisations that Smyth was associated with in England. The Iwerne Trust (now known as Titus Trustees) which runs the Christian summer camps from which all of Smyth’s victims came, was at the heart of a large informal network of well-connected and often wealthy Anglican Christians, most of whom live in the south of England. The same network exists today with a close association with the REFORM network. REFORM exists as pressure group within the Church of England, promoting a number of conservative Christian causes. It is active on General Synod promoting the anti-LGTB cause and supporting clergy and parishes that follow its conservative line.
The argument of the Archbishop and his advisers is to claim that the Church of England has no responsibility for Smyth and his victims because the Iwerne trustees were independent of the Church of England and not under its control. This is a patently absurd argument. Is the same argument to be applied to all the other independent organisations that work in and around the Church, including REFORM? The Iwerne trustees and the Titus group that followed it are stuffed full of ordained clergy who all hold licenses or PTOs from their bishops. A license to officiate involves an oath of obedience to the bishop ‘in all things lawful’. Does not the obedience promised ensure that every activity undertaken by an ordained priest is potentially subject to the scrutiny of a bishop? Just because the Titus Trust is not a legal entity controlled by the central Church does not stop individual ordained trustees being subject to episcopal authority. It is time for the Archbishop of Canterbury and his advisers to stop hiding behind the ‘not-Anglican’ argument and ask the ordained trustees who hid Smyth’s crimes for over thirty years to give an account of themselves. The Archbishop and the members of the House of Bishops do have real power in this situation. They can order an inquiry and require any clergy trustees with information about Smyth’s crimes to disclose them. The sanction of removing permissions to officiate or licences is available to enforce non-compliance. Those of us who have looked at Smyth’s crimes have been sickened at the detail. The accusation that there are clergy who in different ways are hiding these crimes by not sharing information is one that needs to be answered.
The reluctance of the Church of England at the highest level to take an active role in seeking resolution to the criminal activities of John Smyth is a running sore that will not go away. The motivations of the well-connected church people who provided the large sums of money necessary to spirit Smyth out of Britain to Africa also need to be explained. If the Church will not do it itself, then a ‘Smyth Inquiry’ should be handed over to an independent group. Once again, we have to point out that deflection and avoidance never serve the Church well. At the time when the public of Britain are beginning to conclude that the vested interests of church bodies take precedence to openness and integrity, we need bold actions by senior church figures. In this area courage is required. Such courage can be seen to be the mark of true leadership.
Richard W. Symonds writes:
Stephen Parsons says in his ‘John Smyth’ article:
“Those of us who have looked at Smyth’s crimes have been sickened at the detail. The accusation that there are clergy who in different ways are hiding these crimes by not sharing information is one that needs to be answered. The reluctance of the Church of England at the highest level to take an active role in seeking resolution to the criminal activities of John Smyth is a running sore that will not go away. The motivations of the well-connected church people who provided the large sums of money necessary to spirit Smyth out of Britain to Africa also need to be explained. If the Church will not do it itself, then a ‘Smyth Inquiry’ should be handed over to an independent group. Once again, we have to point out that deflection and avoidance never serve the Church well. At the time when the public of Britain are beginning to conclude that the vested interests of church bodies take precedence to openness and integrity, we need bold actions by senior church figures”
Those of us who have looked at Peter Ball’s crimes – and others – here in the Chichester diocese are also sickened at the detail of abuse – abuse in all its perverse forms.
The accusation that there are clergy – and others – who in different ways are hiding these crimes by not sharing information is one that still needs answering here in this diocese. There is still a reluctance of the Church at the highest level to take an active role in seeking resolution – and reconciliation – and this is a running sore that will not go away. The motivations of well-connected church people in this diocese still need to be explained. The Church will not – and cannot – do it itself. It hasn’t the competence. Such critical investigations need to be handed over to independent bodies. Deflection and avoidance in the Church has become the ‘new normal’, and vested interests of church bodies still take precedence to openness and integrity. Under the present hierarchical system of church structure and culture, bold actions by senior church figures will simply make a bad situation much worse.
Last month, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) published its report on the diocese of Chichester and the response to allegations against Ball (News, 9 May). It stated: “The responses to child sexual abuse were marked by secrecy, prevarication, avoidance of reporting alleged crimes to the authorities and a failure to take professional advice.”
This included the Church’s “unwavering support of Peter Ball” during the Gloucestershire Police investigation (allegations about Ball came to light when he was translated from Lewes to Gloucester), and its failure afterwards to “recognise or acknowledge the seriousness” of Ball’s misconduct.
Ball resigned his post in 1993 after a receiving a police caution for a gross-indecency offence, but continued to hold a permission to officiate.
The Church “seriously failed” in its treatment of victims and complainants, the report said, not least in the case of Neil Todd — the first victim to accuse Ball publicly, in 1992 — who took his own life in 2012. Victims were “disbelieved and dismissed”, and, on occasion, stigmatised by the Church, which perceived them as being from “problem backgrounds” and therefore less creditable.
My initial reaction was to say to myself, I have nothing further to say about Peter Ball. I commented on my blog every day last July during the IICSA hearings when for five days the focus was on his offending and the way the wider Church dealt with it. The Peter Ball event is, however, bigger than the man himself. It continues to represent a crisis for the whole Church which needs to be faced and dealt with if it is not to undermine the institution that Ball was supposed to serve. History may or may not confirm my opinion that Peter Ball single-handedly did more damage to the Church of England than any other individual before him….There will be many unhappy people today who are feeling the stab of a sense of being deeply betrayed by a man of outward holiness. This quality was the outside husk of an inner devious exploitation. That betrayal by Ball of those who looked up him is the most damaging part of his legacy. The Church must own up to this damage and do something about it if it is to go forward with integrity.
Do other TA contributors have ideas to carry your suggestion forward? That would be far more helpful than the frequent criticism of the church (however much that might be justified) on TA
“That would be far more helpful than the frequent criticism of the church (however much that might might be justified) on TA”
Criticisms of the church (and helpful suggestions for solving the problems the institution faces) must work alongside these other suggestions.
‘As the Church Times reported this week (“Peter Ball, disgraced former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester, dies, aged 87”, the IICSA published its report on the diocese of Chichester and the response to allegations against Ball. It stated: “The responses to child sexual abuse were marked by secrecy, prevarication, avoidance of reporting alleged crimes to the authorities and a failure to take professional advice.”
‘This included the Church’s “unwavering support of Peter Ball” during the Gloucestershire Police investigation (allegations about Ball came to light when he was translated from Lewes to Gloucester), and its failure afterwards to “recognise or acknowledge the seriousness” of Ball’s misconduct….
‘The Church “seriously failed” in its treatment of victims and complainants, the report said, not least in the case of Neil Todd — the first victim to accuse Ball publicly, in 1992 — who took his own life in 2012. Victims were “disbelieved and dismissed”, and, on occasion, stigmatised by the Church, which perceived them as being from “problem backgrounds” and therefore less creditable’.
Add to this the serious injustices and abuses continuing to be perpetuated, for example, in the Bishop Bell case – with allegations of abuse unproven and unfounded – then the Church must continue to face criticism alongside these other helpful suggestions.
“Frequent criticism of the church”, alongside other suggestions, is critical if the Church is to make good this unholy mess.
Stephen Parsons: “My initial reaction was to say to myself, I have nothing further to say about Peter Ball. I commented on my blog every day last July during the IICSA hearings when for five days the focus was on his offending and the way the wider Church dealt with it. The Peter Ball event is, however, bigger than the man himself. It continues to represent a crisis for the whole Church which needs to be faced and dealt with if it is not to undermine the institution that Ball was supposed to serve. History may or may not confirm my opinion that Peter Ball single-handedly did more damage to the Church of England than any other individual before him….There will be many unhappy people today who are feeling the stab of a sense of being deeply betrayed by a man of outward holiness. This quality was the outside husk of an inner devious exploitation. That betrayal by Ball of those who looked up him is the most damaging part of his legacy. The Church must own up to this damage and do something about it if it is to go forward with integrity”.
“Frequent criticism of the church”, alongside other suggestions, is critical if we are to take seriously the words of Revd Graham Sawyer:
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”
A second friend of the Archbishop, the Reverend David Fletcher [not Reverend Jonathan Fletcher – Ed], was the trustee of the Iwerne Trust who led the investigation into the incidents.
Rev Fletcher opted not to pass the claims to police. He said: “My top priority was that John Smyth should be stopped and second that the men he beat were cared for.”
A spokesman for the Archbishop said he “has not seen the Rev David Fletcher more than once or twice casually since the late 1980s”.
The BBC and several papers reported that allegations of abuse by Smyth have been “swirling about” for some time, but only recently have individuals come forward and described the most appalling experiences of abuse, being forced to strip naked and beaten by Smyth. Smyth asked boys personal questions such as had they masturbated and they would be beaten by him if they confessed. The beatings were justified on the grounds that Christian discipline required it. The Iwerne Trust commissioned a report in response to the rumours in 1982 but took no further action. John Smyth was confronted and dismissed and emigrated to Zimbabwe. He now lives in South Africa [Smyth is now dead – Ed]The BBC reported that some of the most influential church leaders of the last century went through these camps. They included the Revd John Stott who became Rector of All Souls Langham Place, the Revd Dick Lucas, Rector of St Helen’s Bishopsgate, and the Revd Nicky Gumbel, Rector of Holy Trinity Brompton and developer of the Alpha Course. Another person mentioned to me as attending the Iwerne camps is Jonathan Fletcher, Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon (who reputedly led Nicky Gumbel to faith). They are all leading conservative evangelicals, and each in their own way has argued from their evangelical teaching in opposing homosexuality in the church.Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a Dormitory Officer at Iwerne in the late 1970s, where his role was to be a mentor to the boys. A statement issued on behalf of the Archbishop said that John Smyth was one of the main leaders at the camp and although the Archbishop worked with him, he, Justin, was not part of the inner circle of friends and no one discussed allegations of abuse by John Smyth with him.
Church of England response to IICSA’s report 27/06/2019
The Church of England has published today its response to IICSA’s report on the Chichester diocese and Peter Ball case studies. This is ahead of next week’s wider IICSA hearing on the Anglican Church in England and Wales.
The timetable for the first week of the IICSA hearing on the Anglican Church in England and Wales is available here.
COMMENT
IICSA Report – B.10: George Bell455. In his Report, Lord Carlile also observed that the Core Group did not include a representative for Bishop Bell. We agree that the Group should always have the benefit of an advocate for the accused. As Canon Dr. Rupert Bursell QC remarked in his evidence about the difficulty of managing posthumous allegations, “There is a duty of fairness in relation to the person who is deceased and is accused…one almost needs a devil’s advocate to act on behalf of the deceased person” [Note: Dr Bursell will at the IICSA hearing next Thursday July 4th – Ed] .There was no advocate to act on behalf of Bishop Bell. Therefore, as Peter Hitchens rightly says, this was an ecclesiastical “kangaroo court” resulting in this deceased Bishop being “thrown under the bus”.
Since the Carlile Report, the Briden Report has judged the allegations against Bishop Bell to be not only “unproven but unfounded”.Thus, Archbishop Justin Welby – as well as the Archbishops’ Council, Bishop Martin Warner and significant others – continue to perpetuate injustice [and abuse] against Bishop Bell…especially Archbishop Welby who still, astonishingly, continues to wilfully refuse to retract his monstrous “significant cloud” remark against the deceased Bishop.
“If Bishop George Bell, Bishop of Chichester (1929-1958) is innocent, then the Church of England hierarchy is guilty of defaming one of its greatest churchmen in the battle against Nazi Germany…To what depths do we not sink when we abandon the principle of the presumption of innocence. It is the great treasure handed down to us from the English Middle Ages”
Gerald Morgan, FTCD (Leader: English Parliamentary Party, 2001)
“As the multiple reports of abuse have shown and the IICSA hearings have revealed, the Church of England has no idea how to respond, often prioritising the abuser and the reputation of the church. I feel angry and impotent. I would like to place a metaphorical bomb under the institution. Nothing less is going to shake people into awareness and into action”
Bishop Gavin Ashenden pertinently observes [Anglican Unscripted 513] that while Bishop George Bell has been placed “under a cloud” by Archbishop Justin, despite having been significantly investigated (twice) to no detrimental conclusion, not one of the Iwerne camaraderie who knew and covered up Smyth’s crimes and Fletcher’s abuse has suffered the slightest public criticism.
DB : So you’re also suggesting that there is an inappropriate culture of deference to clergy, especially senior clergy, which has resulted in “cover-up” and I’m quoting your letter again, and the voices of the vulnerable being silenced?
PN : That’s a significant concern. I think clergy are often unaware of the power they hold, but actually especially senior clergy, occupy extremely influential powerful positions. Abuse is all about the abuse of power and I think we need to be very aware of the power we hold. And I think we need to be much more serious about the checks and balances on power – an unhealthy clericalism, an unhealthy deference to clergy, especially in senior positions, undermines that.
DB : Very interesting. that you as a diocese have chosen to write this letter, it’s been signed and put together by all the senior clergy within the diocese…and a few weeks back, other Bishops, including the Bishop of Bristol, Vivienne Faull, also came out and was scathing in response to the Independent Inquiry report into the Diocese of Chichester and in her words, she said that that culture of tribalism and clericalism still exists today. So it’s quite something that senior figures such as yourself are beginning now to speak out against the culture within the Church, but do you think you will be listened to?
David Greenwood, on behalf of MACSAS and a group of victims and survivors, tells the Inquiry:
“Cultural change will only come through the enforcement of tough penalties…When it comes to safeguarding, this is a thoroughly disreputable organisation and cannot be trusted”
IICSA Inquiry – Anglican Church investigation 1 July 2019 – Pages 62 – 66 & Page 135
I turn now to allegations made when a perpetrator is deceased. This inquiry has already heard evidence about the case of Bishop George Bell and the report of Alex Carlile which was critical of some of the processes.
Stephen Lake, the Dean of Gloucester Cathedral, who is currently the Lead Dean, the dean being the chief pastor within a cathedral, who sits on the National Safeguarding Steering Group and is the key point of contact for cathedrals on safeguarding issues. A Safeguarding Working Group was set up by the church in 2017 and reported in respect of 2018. It reported amongst a number of issues involving the governance and structure of cathedrals, including safeguarding, and identified that the nature of cathedrals and the range of activities they undertook meant they were places which were open to all and so subject to especially complex issues in respect of safeguarding. They identified that safeguarding should not be left to chance or voluntary compliance and identified the following issues.
Firstly, there was no uniform approach to safeguarding across all cathedrals. Cathedrals weren’t able to access the specialist expertise available in dioceses and sometimes didn’t have the money or the people to try and get such expertise and there was often not a joint approach between the dioceses and the cathedral. The church has taken steps, using the safeguarding measure I mentioned earlier, which identified that all the clerical office holders have to and the conclusions reached by the church in that case.
Lord Carlile has provided us with a witness statement in which he responds to some of the issues raised in oral evidence during the course of the Chichester hearings by Mr Perkins and Mr Tilby, and in particular gives us evidence about the conclusions he reached about the use of confidentiality clauses in cases involving child sexual abuse; the need to seek advice from a senior criminal lawyer when investigating allegations; and the discretion required when issuing statements.
As I have said before, this inquiry is not determining the truth or otherwise of these allegations. What it can do, however, is to examine the processes which are put in place when allegations are made against those who are deceased and to identify how one strikes a balance between appropriate redress for the complainant as against the complexities of making assessments when one party is no longer able to speak for themselves. This issue is particularly acute in matters involving sexual offending as there are often no witnesses to such events, there is often no physical material available and, as the claims brought to the EIO show, and other research demonstrates, over 90 per cent of all claims are brought more than 20 years after the abuse has taken place. This may change in the future, but the deep sense of shame and guilt, of course misplaced, which a number of survivors feel often prevents them from speaking out until they are much older.
The Church of England has, we understand, since the last hearing, dealt with further allegations which were made against Bishop George Bell. This inquiry has received evidence both from Mr Tilby and also from Mr Perkins about the second core group process, as it is known, and how it’s been amended in the light of the issues raise by the Carlile Review.
The church has also dealt with a number of allegations made by individuals against the Bishop of Chester, as I have already mentioned, the then Bishop of Chester, Victor Whitsey. As I have identified, Chester Police, in a police investigation called Operation Coverage, identified that, had Bishop Whitsey been alive, they would have interviewed him in respect of 10 out of the 13 complaints, the other three complainants not having provided sufficient evidence. Allegations were made by eight women and five men of sexual assault or sexual impropriety during the period 1974 to 1982. In respect of the investigation of deceased alleged perpetrators more widely, the National Police Chiefs allegations. We have received very comprehensive evidence from the Church of England about its current and future work, and it has been identified that there has been a plethora of actions and activity undertaken. What the inquiry wishes to probe is whether that activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Page 135
At this point, I should remind you that by no means all of the claims which you have considered in this investigation have been insured. For example, the Bishop Bell, the Bishop Ball, the Bishop Whitsey claims about which you will hear, none of those have been covered by the EIO’s insurance.
July 1 2019 – The False Allegation Crisis and Petition – Paul Gambaccini – Sir Cliff Richard – Bishop George Bell
Best wishes in your continuing campaign to restore the public reputation of Bishop George Bell. We need his example today when we see a world torn apart by nations bombing one another in the name of civilisation.
I have a great tolerance as a general rule for stupid people. The world is full of them and not everyone has been endowed in life with intellectual brilliance.
But the stupidity of people in positions of national and institutional authority is another matter….
Perhaps instead of persecuting the innocent we ought to punish the malignity, narrow ambition and dishonesty of the guilty.
Gerald Morgan, FTCD (Leader: English Parliamentary Party, 2001)
July 3 2019 – General Synod – ‘Thinking Anglicans’
The booklet of Questions and Answers to be taken at the Church of England’s General Synod this weekend is now available for download. It includes both the general questions to be taken on Friday, and those regarding safeguarding to be taken on Sunday. Since the answers are published in advance neither they nor the questions will not be read out, but members will have the opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
In his written answer to my question (Q.93) in February 2019, asking whether the House of Bishops had considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgment he expressed on 15 December 2015 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that “a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name”, particularly in view of the Briden Report and statement by Lord Carlile that “The Church should now accept that… after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him”, the Bishop at Lambeth replied that “the legitimate quest for certainty in connection with the allegations made against the late Bishop George Bell has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant ‘Carol’ has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved.”
Given that Chancellor Timothy Briden was able to say, after a thorough and fair investigation, that similar allegations made by the complainant known as ‘Alison’ were “unfounded”, what is the difference between the two cases?”
Answer – Peter Hancock (Bishop for Safeguarding):
In any allegation of abuse, each case must be taken on its own merits and the evidence weighed in deciding whether on the balance of probabilities, such allegations are ‘made out’. In the case of Carol, applying this evidential threshold test in her civil claim led to a settlement being made. It did not lead to a finding of fact that George Bell was either innocent or guilty. In respect of the allegations made by Alison, after an independent investigation and consideration by the core group and subsequently Timothy Briden, her allegations were not considered to meet this same evidential threshold. The NSSG is and will be carefully considering evidence given to IICSA and the views already expressed by IICSA in the development of guidance for responding to posthumous allegations”.
Comment – Richard W. Symonds
While we ‘await Godot’ for the answer to David Lamming’s question, better progress is being made in Chichester, where a Cathedral Friends member has said:
“Steps are in progress for personal approaches to be made to both the Dean and the Bishop and these are to be separate meetings of a conciliatory nature, appealing to their good sense and Christian conscience in both cases”
‘Sorry, we got it wrong in the case of Bishop Bell’ would suffice.
July 4 2019 – RWS Note
Lord Alex Carlile QC – March 2019:
“The Church should now accept that… after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him”
If the Church hierarchy [including the Archbishops’ Council, Archbishop Justin Welby & Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner] continue to wilfully refuse to accept the judgement of this eminent QC, and blindly perpetuate this monstrous injustice against one of its own, they are likely to condemn the Church of England to a future religious sect of irrelevance.
If that happens, ALL those abused are unlikely to achieve the necessary redress, justice or healing.
So, General Synod got started today (Friday 5 July) with a half-day of business, starting after lunch. There were one or two skirmishes which indicate that people are very concerned about aspects of safeguarding, and wanted answers – which they generally could not get. But in general it was a fairly peaceful start.
For once, the debate on the agenda got quite agitated. As predicted, the speeches made were largely about safeguarding – or the lack of it, according to some – on the agenda.
There were plaintive requests that
we respond to the catalogue of failings being rehearsed at the current IICSA hearings (see yesterday’s post for some context on this)
we should debate the Blackburn letter (which I referred to in yesterday’s post, and which you can read here). A number of members had petitioned the two Archbishops (as Presidents of Synod) to use their powers to insert a debate into the agenda, despite the lack of notice. Their request was turned down.
We recognise that the outside world is under the impression that we are ‘dragging our feet until IICSA goes away’ (a reported quote from a legal adviser at IICSA this week). *
The overall tone was of dissatisfaction on behalf of victims and survivors of abuse, that when the Bishops speak out on safeguarding failures, they do not ‘speak from the heart’.
Unusually, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened in this debate to respond to this pressure from the floor. He revealed that both he and the Archbishop of York were to give further evidence to IICSA next week. He was heard in total silence as he said that on a previous occasion at IICSA he had broken down while speaking. Bishops do speak from the heart, he said.
Because this is something very close to many readers of this blog, I’ll record the three reasons why he said the kind of debate people wanted was not going to happen.
IICSA is enquiring into the Church of England this week and next week. It is an official Government-sponsored enquiry and has its own prerogative: we cannot trample on their toes. The implication was that discussing events at IICSA while it was still sitting was foolish. And, it seems to me, would put the two Archbishops and Bishop Peter Hancock in a very difficult position when they gave evidence next week.
The ‘Blackburn letter’ has been well-publicised, but it is not the only letter going out from diocesan leaders to parishes. We can’t debate just one of them. We need to hear from victims and survivors, and they need time to formulate their own views.
We need to wait for the final IICSA report. We have already had the interim one, focussing on the diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball: the final report will contain some hard questions for us
So when all that was said and done, the smouldering fire on current safeguarding issues was left to re-ignite on Sunday afternoon.
*1 What will there be to oversee the church after this 2 inquiry has gone? At the moment, what the church allows 3 in the form of the SCIE audit can be taken away as soon 4 as this inquiry finishes and the heat is off. 5 Unless you establish a permanent mechanism of 6 independent oversight and scrutiny, there is simply no 7 guarantee that even what there is at the moment will 8 exist in any form after your inquiry has finished. 9 This is a real fear for survivors, that the church 10 can simply run down the clock on this inquiry and that 11 the pressure for change then falls away after the 12 inquiry ceases to exist ~ Richard Scorer – IICSA First Day [July 1 2019]
* “We have received very comprehensive evidence from the Church of England about its current and future work, and it has been identified that there has been a plethora of actions and activity undertaken. What the inquiry wishes to probe is whether that activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” – Fiona Scolding -1st Day [July 1 2019]
July 6 2019 – RWS Comments on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ [unpublished]
Stephen Lynas records on the 1st Day at General Synod:
“There were plaintive requests that…We recognise that the outside world is under the impression that we [the Church of England] are ‘dragging our feet until IICSA goes away’ (a reported quote from a legal adviser at IICSA this week). * The overall tone was of dissatisfaction on behalf of victims and survivors of abuse, that when the Bishops speak out on safeguarding failures, they do not ‘speak from the heart’….Unusually, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened in this debate to respond to this pressure from the floor. He revealed that both he and the Archbishop of York were to give further evidence to IICSA next week. He was heard in total silence as he said that on a previous occasion at IICSA he had broken down while speaking. Bishops do speak from the heart, he said”
Is the Church of England – and by implication the General Synod – ‘dragging its feet’ on Safeguarding?
The “legal adviser” was Richard Scorer. He said to the IICSA inquiry panel on the 1st Day [July 1]:
“What will there be to oversee the church after this inquiry has gone? At the moment, what the church allows in the form of the SCIE audit can be taken away as soon as this inquiry finishes and the heat is off. Unless you establish a permanent mechanism of independent oversight and scrutiny, there is simply no guarantee that even what there is at the moment will exist in any form after your inquiry has finished”
In her opening remarks on the IICSA’s 1st Day [July 1], Senior Counsel Fiona Scolding spoke in Macbethian tones:
“We have received very comprehensive evidence from the Church of England about its current and future work, and it has been identified that there has been a plethora of actions and activity undertaken. What the inquiry wishes to probe is whether that activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
Perhaps the General Synod will have an inkling by Tuesday whether its own “activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?
This booklet originated as a talk given to Cambridge Christian CND by the Bishop of Ely, the Rt. Revd. Peter Walker, at Blackfriars, Cambridge on 25 January 1985, in the Week of Prayer for World Peace, also the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
“What seems to me a very, in a sense, terrifying aspect of our society and other societies is the equanimity and the detachment with which sane, reasonable, sensible people can observe such events. I think that’s more terrifying than the occasional Hitler, or LeMay, or other that crops up.
Proof, not reputation, is crux of Bell affair From Marilyn and Peter Billingham Sir, — Canon Angela Tilby (Comment, 16 February) is indeed right to say in her column that those fighting for Justice in the George Bell case would be naïve to rest the case for his defence on his fine reputation. But […]
July 7 2019 – “An urgent, necessary change in the law to protect the innocent. Please help to bring it about” – Peter Hitchens
Please back Sir Cliff Richard in his excellent campaign to stop the naming of suspects before the authorities have enough evidence to charge them. This nasty practice is destroying the presumption of innocence and enables false accusers to ruin the lives of innocent people at will. His petition badly needs tens of thousands more signatures. You may sign it here:
A petition was launched yesterday by Sir Cliff Richard and the DJ Paul Gambaccini to provide anonymity to those accused of sexual offences unless they are charged. Their reasons are entirely understandable. They believe their own reputations have been irredeemably besmirched as a result of being falsely accused of historical sexual crimes.
Richard, Gambaccini and others fell victim to a climate of hysteria after the Savile revelations. The police and prosecutors, abashed by the failure over such a long period to detect Savile’s monstrous crimes, then massively overcompensated by suspending disbelief and basic professional standards when presented with wild allegations.
What happened to all those men who were falsely accused was appalling. The fault, however, lay with the police and, in the case of Richard, the BBC. However, despite various lawsuits, the senior folk in the police or prosecution service responsible for these debacles have not been held to account. Heads have not rolled. Instead we now have a demand for anonymity.
This is misguided. Attention should be directed at those responsible for this scandal. The transparency of the justice system, one of its key characteristics in a democratic society, should not be sacrificed to pay for their failings.
VAGUE and evasive talk of culture change” over safeguarding is “not enough”, the Bishop of Bath & Wells, the Rt Revd Peter Hancock, told the General Synod on Sunday.
In a presentation, the Bishop said that the Church’s approach to survivors had been “inadequate”, and that all had a part to play in improving safeguarding practice.
“Vague and evasive talk of culture change is not enough,” he said. “It is driven by structures, appointments, and decisions. . .
“My challenge to Synod is that, if you are concerned about safeguarding in the Church, now is the time up to stand up, be counted, and get involved.”
A survivor who formed part of the presentation group, Phil Johnson, was one of the first to come forward, in 1996, with allegations of sexual abuse by a former Bishop of Gloucester and Lewes, Peter Ball. Mr Johnson is a member of the National Safeguarding Panel.
Mr Johnson told the Synod that safeguarding should be simple. “It is about vigilance, protection, and compassion,” he said. “It is not about endless bureaucracy.”
He said that the Church should not think that its safeguarding was necessarily better simply because it was spending more money on it.
Mr Johnson went on to say that the work to create a survivors’ reference group was very difficult, largely because so many victims had an “immense lack of trust” in the Church and the National Safeguarding Team (NST).
He was glad that the Safe Spaces project was close to completion, although he noted that he had first proposed it nearly six years ago, and, although money had been allocated for it, not a single penny had yet been spent on survivors. “This typifies how the Church does things,” he said. “We all need to come together to make things simpler, more efficient, quicker, and more cost-effective.”
The session began with a period of silence, and the Bishop said a prayer that had been written by a survivor of abuse: “Teach us to thirst for justice and righteousness in our Church . . . We lament the safeguarding failures of our Church. . . Helps us to repair broken lives so that those our Church has harmed may no longer survive but thrive.”
Safeguarding questions had been split from the rest of the questions, which were heard on Friday, to allow proper space for them. Bishop Hancock thanked the Business Committee for this approach; a presentation on safeguarding was given by the bishop, Mr Johnson, and Meg Munn, the chair of the National Safeguarding Panel.
In response to a question from Carolyn Graham (Guildford) about safeguarding cases’ being “passed around from diocese to diocese”, Bishop Hancock said that work was under way on an information-sharing system. A national case-management system would mean wider access to information lodged centrally. This would bring rigour. Asked by Canon Gavin Kirk (Lincoln) about survivors whose experience had led them to distrust the diocese where they lived, Bishop Hancock said that the voices of survivors must be heard in the process of redrafting safeguarding guidance.
He told Canon Rosie Harper (Oxford), who asked about the “moral imperative to restore and heal”, going further than “bare minimum legal redress”, that one part of the answer was to have a “standards-based approach to safeguarding”, and another was a charter “to provide survivors with confidence there is going to be consistency across dioceses”.
Some responses to safeguarding issues had been “woefully inadequate”, he said. He also reported that there had been attempts to establish mediation between survivors and the NST and some work had recently been commissioned on “restorative justice”.
In his presentation, Bishop Hancock said that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) hearings had not been an easy experience for the Church. Some “justifiably difficult questions are being asked of us”, he said. But the inquiry had shone a “helpful light” on the C of E’s safeguarding procedures and failings.
He strongly urged every member of the Synod to read the two interim reports already released by IICSA: one on the case study of Chichester diocese and Peter Ball, and one on child sexual abuse in the context of religious institutions. The key findings in both reports, which were “harrowing and difficult to read”, were that clericalism and deference were causing “significant harm” (News, 9 May
A new case-management system for both national and diocesan safeguarding teams, which had been “sorely lacking”, was finally almost ready and would be rolled out next year, he reported.
He also said there would be three new lessons-learned reviews of the cases of John Smyth, the Revd Trevor Devamanikkam, and the late former Bishop of Chester, Victor Whitsey (News, 10 February 2017, 16 June 2017, 24 May).
A working group had been convened to examine whether the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) was fit for its purpose in relation to safeguarding, he said. The group would have its first meeting in October (News, 31 May).
Ms Munn paid tribute to the three survivor representatives on the panel, who, despite being so damaged by their experiences of abuse, were still able and willing to help the Church become a safer place.
“The Church is late to this work: it needs to catch up; it has a lot to do,” she said. “I see a lot of people with good intentions, but you all need to do more, and do more, more quickly.”
SAM ATKINS/CHURCH TIMES Phil Johnson
Mr Johnson praised the leadership of Ms Munn and said that he was hopeful that this increased level of scrutiny would bear fruit. In particular, he was convinced that the CDM procedure was inadequate and needed reform.
The proposed redress scheme was very important for survivors and would need to be well funded, Mr Johnson said. It must include all cases of abuse, including those that had already come to financial settlements; many of these were agreed out of fear that the survivor might be landed with the Church’s “astronomical” legal costs.
He also supported the introduction of mandatory reporting of abuse allegations, along the lines developed by the pressure group Mandate Now. Two-thirds of current safeguarding cases were still dealt with exclusively in-house, he noted. Without actual sanctions for people who failed to pass on disclosures, the culture would never change.
In the questions following the presentations, the Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, on a point of order, asked the view of the Synod on mandatory reporting, to which a majority raised their hands in favour. It was one of the recommendations of the IICSA report on Chichester diocese.
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, asked whether the Church still had a problem with clericalism, and whether it hindered good safeguarding practice.
Mr Johnson said that there had been a lot of deference, but that this was not a problem only for the Church. He gave the example of football clubs, where coaches had a great deal of authority. This was evident in the conviction of Barry Bennell, a former coach at Manchester City and Crewe Alexandra, and the conviction of Bob Higgins, the former Southampton coach, both for child sexual abuse.
The natural tendency to keep things in-house was a problem, Mr Johnson said. “Watching IICSA this last week, there’s clearly evidence that this remains,” he said. It was everyone’s responsibility to address this, and to make these subjects non-taboo. “Things should be recorded in a routine manner,” he argued.
He received a standing ovation for his words during the Synod debate.
There was criticism that there was not a full Synod debate on safeguarding. Last week, Martin Sewell, a representative from Rochester diocese, called the Synod “lazy and incurious” (News, 5 July).
Matthew Ineson, a survivor, who was handing out leaflets outside York Minster on Sunday morning, said: “The Archbishops blocked the debate [on safeguarding]: they are manipulating the Synod.
“There is a cover-up going on from the very highest parts of the Church; Archbishop Welby has persistently taken no further action. The way victims are treated is just diabolical.”
July 7 2019 – RWS on IICSA and General Synod
Stephen Lynas records on the 1st Day at General Synod:
“There were plaintive requests that…We recognise that the outside world is under the impression that we [the Church of England] are ‘dragging our feet until IICSA goes away’ (a reported quote from a legal adviser at IICSA this week). * The overall tone was of dissatisfaction on behalf of victims and survivors of abuse, that when the Bishops speak out on safeguarding failures, they do not ‘speak from the heart’….Unusually, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened in this debate to respond to this pressure from the floor. He revealed that both he and the Archbishop of York were to give further evidence to IICSA next week. He was heard in total silence as he said that on a previous occasion at IICSA he had broken down while speaking. Bishops do speak from the heart, he said”
Is the Church of England – and by implication the General Synod – ‘dragging its feet’ on Safeguarding?
The “legal adviser” was Richard Scorer. He said to the IICSA inquiry panel on the 1st Day [July 1]:
“What will there be to oversee the church after this inquiry has gone? At the moment, what the church allows in the form of the SCIE audit can be taken away as soon as this inquiry finishes and the heat is off. Unless you establish a permanent mechanism of independent oversight and scrutiny, there is simply no guarantee that even what there is at the moment will exist in any form after your inquiry has finished”
In her opening remarks on the IICSA’s 1st Day [July 1], Senior Counsel Fiona Scolding spoke in Macbethian tones:
“We have received very comprehensive evidence from the Church of England about its current and future work, and it has been identified that there has been a plethora of actions and activity undertaken. What the inquiry wishes to probe is whether that activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
Perhaps the General Synod will have an inkling by Tuesday whether its own “activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?
“In 1985, after the Louisiana scandal, Tom Doyle – Secretary Canonist for the Papal Nuncio – co-authored a report warning paedophile priests were a billion dollar liability. He tried to introduce the report at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Cardinal Law of Boston initially helped to co-fund the report, but then he backed out and they shelved it” ~ Richard Sipe [quoted in the ‘Spotlight’ film]
July 8 2019 – “In the light of General Synod’s ‘Q & A’ yesterday [Sunday July 7], does Archbishop Welby still believe there is a ‘significant cloud’ over Bishop Bell?” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Richard W. Symonds
“Seasoned campaigners in the matter of the late Bishop George Bell had some closely-argued issues to raise about ‘evidential threshold’ and the details of the claims made about him and how they were handled” ~ Stephen Lynas[‘bathwellschap’] reviews General Synod’s ‘Q & A’ yesterday [Sunday July 7]:
Q.93 Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Church Commissioners:
In answer to my supplementary question to the written answer to the question (Q.25) from the Revd Simon Talbott at the February 2019 group of sessions regarding the funding of the legal costs of the complainant known as ‘Alison’, in particular, asking whether was any offer was made to fund the representation of Bishop George Bell’s surviving 84-year-old niece, when seeking to ensure that the process followed by the Briden investigation was fair to all parties, the First Church Estates Commissioner stated that the Commissioners had “a very narrow role in cases of this kind, which is to consider whether or not to meet requests to fund the costs to be incurred by a bishop in his or her office, and so we responded to the particular question put to us, which was whether or not we would fund Alison’s representation. That was the decision that we were asked to take, and it is the decision we did take.”
Would the Church Commissioners please state the basis on which it was determined that the legal costs of Alison’s representation were costs “incurred by the bishop in his office,” giving the statutory authority for such payment and identifying in the Commissioners’ Annual Report for 2018 where the payment is recorded?
A. Loretta Minghella to reply as First Church Estates Commissioner:
Safeguarding is an episcopal responsibility. House of Bishops’ guidance emphasizes that a diocesan bishop must ensure that his or her diocese puts in place arrangements to support survivors of abuse. In the language of the NSSG’s response to the Carlile Review, once Alison had brought forward claims of abuse to him,
the Bishop of Chichester was the “decision-making body”. The Bishop of Chichester chose to delegate the decision to a commissary, the Right Worshipful Timothy Briden, but he retained ultimate responsibility for ensuring meaningful support for Alison, whom the Church asked to participate in the process. Such support was a cost of Bishop Martin’soffice, since it flowed from his obligations as bishop, which the Church Commissioners were entitled to meet under section 5 of the Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943. In line with their established practice, the Commissioners’ accounts do not record costs in relation to individual cases.
Q.95 Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
In his written answer to my question (Q.93) in February 2019, asking whether the House of Bishops had considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgment he expressed on 15 December 2015 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that “a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name”, particularly in view of the Briden Report and statement by Lord Carlile that “The Church should now accept that… after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him”, the Bishop at Lambeth replied that “the legitimate quest for certainty in connection with the allegations made against the late Bishop George Bell has been defeated by the nature of the case and the passage of time. Bishop Bell cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be safely claimed that the original complainant ‘Carol’ has been discredited. There is an uncertainty which cannot be resolved.”
Given that Chancellor Timothy Briden was able to say, after a thorough and fair investigation, that similar allegations made by the complainant known as ‘Alison’ were “unfounded”, what is the difference between the two cases?
A. The Bishop of Bath and Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:
A In any allegation of abuse, each case must be taken on its own merits and the evidence weighed in deciding whether on the balance of probabilities, such allegations are ‘made out’. In the case of Carol, applying this evidential threshold test in her civil claim led to a settlement being made. It did not lead to a finding of fact that George Bell was either innocent or guilty. In respect of the allegations made by Alison, after an independent investigation and consideration by the core group and subsequently Timothy Briden, her allegations were not considered to meet this same evidential threshold. The NSSG is and will be carefully considering evidence given to IICSA and the views already expressed by IICSA in the development of guidance for responding to posthumous allegations.
The Revd Dr Judith Maltby (Universities & TEIs) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q94 The Church Times (10 May 2019) reported that the hearings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse this July will ‘scrutinise, among other topics … the House of Bishops’ forthcoming teaching document on gender and sexuality’ and the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in his response to the May 2019 IICSA report on Chichester and Peter Ball, responded ‘It is absolutely right that the Church at all levels should learn lessons from the issues raised in this report’. Will the forthcoming ‘Living in Love and Faith’ show evidence of learning lessons from the IICSA hearings of March, July 2018, and July 2019, as well as the report of May 2019, about attitudes in the culture and practice of the Church of England towards women and LGBT people?
The Bishop of Coventry to reply as Chair of the Living in Love and Faith Coordinating Group on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:
A The purpose of the Living in Love and Faith resources is primarily educational: the plan is for the resources to be widely used by parishes, deaneries, dioceses, the House and College of Bishops and members of General Synod to enable teaching and learning. In this way LLF will demonstrate its learning from the IICSA process by promoting a culture of mutual respect, clarity, openness and transparency across the Church in relation to matters of human identity, sexuality, gender and marriage. It will also provide appropriate correctives to misinformation about human sexuality and identity. We hope that the Pastoral Principles will establish a helpful culture for using the LLF resources by enabling the Church to address the evils of prejudice, silence, fear, ignorance, hypocrisy and misuse of power, all of which have played their part in the tragic realities of sexual abuse that have been the subject of the IICSA hearings.
The court had previously heard how a £2 million investigation into his claims, named Operation Midland, ended without a single arrest, with the father of one eventually being investigated by Northumbria Police and arrested.
He denies 12 counts of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud, which relates to his compensation claim.
July 9 2019 – From The Archives [2003 – “No Crueler Tyrannies – Accusation, False Witness…” by Dorothy Rabinowitz – Wall Street Journal Books 2003]
MS SHARPLING: Thank you, Archbishop Sentamu. Could you 10 just clarify something for me: we heard evidence from 11 Mr Ineson today, and if the church accept that he was 12 abused as a young lad whilst under the care of 13 the church, is there now any impediment for an apology 14 to be given for that abuse? Leaving aside anything that 15 might have happened subsequently, is there any 16 impediment in the collective church mind that prevents 17 an apology to Mr Ineson for that original abuse?
18 A. I think the real problem comes because the evidence is 19 contested.
20 MS SHARPLING: I see. 21 A. And the review hasn’t happened. And I’m hoping that 22 that review will be swift and quick. It’s still, 23 I think, waiting on Mr Ineson agreeing the terms of 24 reference for this particular review. So hopefully, it 25 will be swift. I hope it will happen. I actually think that, I mean, it is a very difficult one, because you do not want to either be flippant about what kind of apology [‘confetti apologies’] you are giving. For it to be substantive, actually, you have got to get all the facts out, and the review should take place, I hope as soon as possible, because on one CDM my understanding is that the evidence was completely contested”
Fiona Scolding QC: “Do you think the Church needs to be more willing to admit past mistakes?”
Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury: “The history of the Church does not encourage accountability…Accountability is structural”
Fiona Scolding QC [in questioning Graham Tilby]: “The issue here surrounds the fact that, with the greatest respect to diocesan bishops, they have all the power and no accountability”
4:20 AM – 11 Jul 2019
July 11 2019 – RWS Note
“If we can’t admit to being wrong or making a mistake, we can’t genuinely say sorry or apologise because we don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. That moral denial of human fallibility will breed an arrogance which most people see but to which the arrogant person is blind”
~ Richard W. Symonds – on reading Archbishop John Sentamu’s answer when Fiona Scolding QC asks him [at the IICSA 10/07/2019] whether he believes he has made a personal mistake, in the course of responding to disclosures of clerical abuse, during his career: “Hand on heart, I don’t think so”, the Archbishop replies.
Revd Matthew Ineson – “I cannot see the face of Jesus in the Archbishop of Canterbury or York. I see hypocrites and I see pharisees. I see the people that Jesus stood up against…I’m sorry to be so direct, I’m a Yorkshire man. I don’t think those people are fit for office…Bishops sit on thrones. They live in fine palaces and houses, they wear the finest robes and garments. People literally kneel down and kiss the ring on their finger…That’s why they are protecting themselves…Why would I want an apology? It’s recognition of what happened and how I’ve been treated”
Matthew Ineson tells the #AnglicanHearing he was promised an apology multiple times but it never materialised.
A fringe meeting at last year’s General Synod allowed clerics including the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu to meet sexual abuse survivors.
Rev. Matthew Ineson says John Sentamu physically grabbed and challenged him – “He’s arrogant, he’s rude and he’s a bully”.
Fr. Dean Henley
Mr Ineson’s description of the Archbishop of York’s invasion of his personal space is alarming to read. A survivor of rape by a cleric, would find another cleric’s inappropriate touch potentially re-traumatising; the archbishop’s extensive safeguarding training ought to have alerted him to that possibility, and the need for the greatest sensitivity when encountering survivors. Sadly, in his evidence to IICSA Dr Sentamu’s hubris is clear for anyone to read in the transcripts.
Richard W. Symonds
The hubris of this Archbishop is beyond disturbing:
Fiona Scolding QC asked him yesterday at the IICSA whether he believed he had made a personal mistake, in the course of responding to disclosures of clerical abuse, during his career: “Hand on heart, I don’t think so”, the Archbishop replies.
Well, as Fr Henley rightly points out above, the Archbishop made a grievous “personal mistake” by his physical confrontation with an already physically abused Revd Matthew Ineson at Synod last year. No wonder the Church’s ‘confetti apologies’ are angrily dismissed as empty and beyond hypocrisy. A genuine apology is not possible for someone with such arrogance, ignorance and moral blindness.
If we can’t admit to being wrong or making a mistake, we can’t genuinely say sorry or apologise because we don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. That moral denial of human fallibility will breed an arrogance which most people see but to which the arrogant person is blind.
Revd Matthew Ineson describes Archbishop John Sentamu as an arrogant, rude bully.
It’s difficult not to agree with him.
Richard W. Symonds
Fiona Scolding QC, in talking with Graham Tilby today, “observes that the issue here surrounds the fact that, with the greatest respect to diocesan bishops, they have all the power and no accountability”
Paul Waddington
This is a familiar story. The Archbishop says he thought the Diocesan Bishop would be dealing with it. No doubt, the Diocesan Bishop would say it had been reported to the Archbishop. Nobody does anything!
Marian Birch
I am afraid I simply don’t understand why George Carey should be penalised by the C of E for his safeguarding errors and omissions (errors which I certainly deplore and which are probably linked in some way to Carey’s strange personal mixture of hubris and insecurity), but that it seems that it is OK for Stephen Croft and John Sentamu to ‘get away’ with failings in this area which seem to be at least as serious. Of course the fact that Carey is already retired probably has something to do with it – it is far more ‘convenient’ for the Church to clamp down on a retiree rather than those still in post. But surely at the least this issue should have been considered when Croft was moving from Sheffield to Oxford.
July 11 2019 – RWS on the Church ‘sex abuse’ scandals
If this law was in place in 2015, in no way would the Church of England have been able to ‘throw Bishop Bell under the bus’ and perpetuate a monstrous injustice.
This Petition has stalled, which is a sad, disturbing indictment of a society which has lost its way when it comes to discerning injustice.
~ Richard W. Symonds
July 11 2019 – From The Archives [July 7 2019 – “An urgent, necessary change in the law to protect the innocent. Please help to bring it about” – Peter Hitchens]
Please back Sir Cliff Richard in his excellent campaign to stop the naming of suspects before the authorities have enough evidence to charge them. This nasty practice is destroying the presumption of innocence and enables false accusers to ruin the lives of innocent people at will. His petition badly needs tens of thousands more signatures. You may sign it here:
A petition was launched yesterday by Sir Cliff Richard and the DJ Paul Gambaccini to provide anonymity to those accused of sexual offences unless they are charged. Their reasons are entirely understandable. They believe their own reputations have been irredeemably besmirched as a result of being falsely accused of historical sexual crimes.
Richard, Gambaccini and others fell victim to a climate of hysteria after the Savile revelations. The police and prosecutors, abashed by the failure over such a long period to detect Savile’s monstrous crimes, then massively overcompensated by suspending disbelief and basic professional standards when presented with wild allegations.
What happened to all those men who were falsely accused was appalling. The fault, however, lay with the police and, in the case of Richard, the BBC. However, despite various lawsuits, the senior folk in the police or prosecution service responsible for these debacles have not been held to account. Heads have not rolled. Instead we now have a demand for anonymity.
This is misguided. Attention should be directed at those responsible for this scandal. The transparency of the justice system, one of its key characteristics in a democratic society, should not be sacrificed to pay for their failings.
Today, the final Friday, was originally intended to be used only for closing statements from the lawyers representing the various parties. However, it was announced at the end of Thursday that an additional witness would be called first on Friday morning. This turned out to be David Bonehill, Claims Director of EIG and and John Titchener, Group Compliance Director of EIO.
“The truths about Matt’s ‘shabby and shambolic’ treatment by the church after his original assault thirty + years ago will probably never be completely known. What we have seen is at best incompetent treatment but at worst dangerously cruel” – Stephen Parsons
The words of Revd Graham Sawyer are not to be forgotten – said at the IICSA Inquiry last year – July 2018 ~ Richard W. Symonds
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”
“Moral, legal and common sense appears to have deserted the Church of England. The Presumption of Innocence has been described as ‘the golden thread that runs through British justice’. That thread was broken by the October Statement, and replaced with the Presumption of Guilt. The Media – including the BBC – assumed Bishop Bell’s guilt on the basis of the Church’s Statement, and their subsequent headlines reflected that assumption. No attempt was made by the Church, immediately after the headlines, to correct the media interpretation of the Statement. This would strongly suggest a Presumption of Guilt on the Church’s part towards Bishop Bell” – Richard W. Symonds
“In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective, and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties….” – Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
1. Apology from Archbishop Justin Welby [representing Church House/Lambeth Palace PR/Comms] regarding the “Statement on Bishop Bell” published in October 2015 – and the Archbishop’s later “Significant Cloud’ remark.
2. Apology from Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner for his ‘Nonsense Statement’ following the Oct 2015 Statement.
3. Apology from both Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner to George and Hettie Bell’s surviving family – especially his niece Barbara Whitley.
As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Her Majesty The Queen cannot be amused by her ecclesiastical subjects – most notably her Archbishops who appear to have a pathological inability to offer any genuine apology for mistakes made:
At last week’s Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [IICSA], Archbishop of York John Sentamu was asked:
“Is there now any impediment in the collective Church mind that prevents an apology to Mr Ineson for that original abuse as a young lad whilst under the care of the Church?”
The Archbishop of York replied:
“I think the real problem comes because the evidence is contested”.
It is to be noted the contested allegations of abuse by ‘Carol’, against the deceased wartime Bishop of Chichester George Bell, did not prevent an immediate apology to her in 2015, by both the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner.
Equally, despite the fact the allegations against Bishop Bell have been proved groundless, Archbishop Welby still maintains, astonishingly, there is a “significant cloud” over this wartime Bishop of Chichester. And the present Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner still fails to make an appropriate apology for saying at the time:
“In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties”.
The IICSA Inquiry [and the Carlile and Briden Reports] have now proved Bishop Warner’s words to be complete nonsense, and the Archbishops’ words monstrous, so an immediate apology is now demanded. And if that means a formal complaint to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England – so be it.
~ Richard W. Symonds
Present Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
July 17 2019 – RWS Note 2
The hubris of Archbishop John Sentamu is beyond disturbing:
Fiona Scolding QC asked him last Wednesday at the IICSA whether he believed he had made a personal mistake, in the course of responding to disclosures of clerical abuse, during his career: “Hand on heart, I don’t think so”, the Archbishop replies.
Well, as Fr Henley has rightly pointed out, the Archbishop made a grievous “personal mistake” by his physical confrontation with an already physically abused Revd Matthew Ineson at Synod last year. No wonder the Church’s ‘confetti apologies’ are angrily dismissed as empty and beyond hypocrisy. A genuine apology is not possible for someone with such arrogance, ignorance and moral blindness.
If we can’t admit to being wrong or making a mistake, we can’t genuinely say sorry or apologise because we don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. That moral denial of human fallibility will breed an arrogance which most people see but to which the arrogant person is blind.
Revd Matthew Ineson describes Archbishop John Sentamu as an arrogant, rude bully.
It’s difficult not to agree with him.
~ Richard W. Symonds
July 18 2019 – RWS Note 3
“The facts will be found. The truth will be told. Justice will be done”
Am I alone in thinking how very sad and disturbing it is the Church of England have issued no Press Statement whatsoever in the immediate aftermath of the IICSA Inquiry – not even an immediate, formal apology to Revd Matthew Ineson?
You are not. Am I alone in thinking that parish clergy would welcome some expression of support in difficult times from their bishops? It’s a lonely existence at the best of times, but to be assaulted day after day by revelations of cruelty, hypocrisy and incompetence is like a series of blows upon enlarging bruises. Blackburn has done something. Any other diocese?
Richard W. Symonds
In a very real sense, it is a bruising of the soul.
Marise Hargreaves
You are not alone – this is beyond sad and disturbing. Sadly it is not surprising given the past behaviour. I hope I’m wrong but I feel a ‘lessons have been learnt’ speech coming but nothing really changes. Sadly no one can be removed and properly held accountable. They just carry on until the dust settles and people become silent or are silenced. Anyone with any shred of conscience would have resigned long ago. It speaks volumes that the so called leaders of the church carry on regardless and wonder why numbers are declining and make comments about deference. In… Read more »
Richard W. Symonds
Fiona Scolding QC said at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [IICSA] on July 11 2019:
“With the greatest respect to diocesan bishops, they have all the power and no accountability”
The powerful Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner has yet to be held accountable for his ‘Bishop Bell’ statement on October 22 2015:
“In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties”.
That statement has since proved to be complete nonsense.
Apology? Resignation?
There’s more chance of seeing flying pigs getting landing rights here at Gatwick.
Kate
I don’t know whether resignation is a matter of conscience in these circumstances.
I believe both archbishops, and a number of bishops, should resign not because wrongdoing has been proven (it probably never will be) but because the Church would be better served by the installation of new people against whom there’s no suspicion or taint.
Kate
I agree with the sentiment but I think public letters from both archbishops would be more appropriate than a press release.
Fr. Dean Henley
I must confess I can’t get too excited about the colour of clerical shirts myself, and I’m not sure the redcurrant colour that some bishops wear leads to deference. My own diocesan bishop has had his stationery redesigned to include ‘The Lord Bishop of St Albans’ and on the rare occasion he writes to me the envelope also announces that it is from His Lordship. We’ve not been asked to address him as ‘My Lord’ as yet – perhaps that will be the next development. Titles are seductive of course and it is not just the clerical profession that enjoys… Read more »
Hear hear! When I took a chair of Anatomy in Dublin in 1988 I told all and sundry including students that “Professor” was a job title, not a personal title, and that they should call me by my Christian name – or indeed anything that wasn’t frankly actionable. Some students did, some did not – their choice. Now, if people must give me a handle, I like “Irreverend”. It hasn’t caught on. I call my bishops by their Christian names. The diocesan calls me “Father”, but I am older than he is. If I were in St Albans diocese, I’d… Read more »
Kate
It is good to talk about deference.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” – Matthew 6,2
Is there really a material difference between a purple shirt – or dog collar – and a trumpet?
July 18 2019 – From The Archives [July 7 2019 – RWS on IICSA and General Synod]
Stephen Lynas records on the 1st Day at General Synod:
“There were plaintive requests that…We recognise that the outside world is under the impression that we [the Church of England] are ‘dragging our feet until IICSA goes away’ (a reported quote from a legal adviser at IICSA this week). * The overall tone was of dissatisfaction on behalf of victims and survivors of abuse, that when the Bishops speak out on safeguarding failures, they do not ‘speak from the heart’….Unusually, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened in this debate to respond to this pressure from the floor. He revealed that both he and the Archbishop of York were to give further evidence to IICSA next week. He was heard in total silence as he said that on a previous occasion at IICSA he had broken down while speaking. Bishops do speak from the heart, he said”
Is the Church of England – and by implication the General Synod – ‘dragging its feet’ on Safeguarding?
The “legal adviser” was Richard Scorer. He said to the IICSA inquiry panel on the 1st Day [July 1]:
“What will there be to oversee the church after this inquiry has gone? At the moment, what the church allows in the form of the SCIE audit can be taken away as soon as this inquiry finishes and the heat is off. Unless you establish a permanent mechanism of independent oversight and scrutiny, there is simply no guarantee that even what there is at the moment will exist in any form after your inquiry has finished”
In her opening remarks on the IICSA’s 1st Day [July 1], Senior Counsel Fiona Scolding spoke in Macbethian tones:
“We have received very comprehensive evidence from the Church of England about its current and future work, and it has been identified that there has been a plethora of actions and activity undertaken. What the inquiry wishes to probe is whether that activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”
Perhaps the General Synod will have an inkling by Tuesday whether its own “activity has borne fruit or changed underlying attitudes, or whether it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”?
‘After a rape, reputation should not be the first priority’ – Church Times Letter – July 19 2019
Sir, — On 4 July 2019, in the course of taking evidence relating to the Church of England, IICSA considered issues raised by the case of Tim Storey, a youth worker in a central London Anglican church, and subsequently a ministerial student at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. He was convicted, in 2016, of two offences of rape and sexual assault. Our daughters are two of his victims.
When, in 2009, our daughter first told the diocese of London what had happened to her, she did so with the overwhelming priority that Storey should be stopped from ever abusing anyone else. She relied on the diocese to do the right thing.
What in fact happened was that there was “a wholesale failure by those responsible to recognise whose interests they [the diocese of London] should be safeguarding…
The whole process by all involved, from the Bishop downwards, was a buck-passing, incompetent, self-protecting, and reputation-preserving one…The diocese and named individuals were severely criticised by the trial judge in 2016 (News, 22 April 2016), and the statement of the diocese at the end of the trial was described as a “shameful misrepresentation of the truth”…..Ignorance and a lack of professionalism reign.
We are immensely proud of our daughters for speaking up and having the courage to go through the ordeal of giving evidence in two criminal trials, which led to a 15-year sentence for Storey.
But they are angry about the continued procrastination of the Church of England, and that no one has really felt any consequences for the catastrophic mistakes made.
In the 21st century, no organisation whose repeated organisational failure facilitated further serious sexual offending should expect to go unsanctioned.
Why has no one resigned?
Why only now, ten years on from my daughter’s first report, is a working group being set up to consider the fitness for purpose of the CDM in relation to safeguarding, and without commitment to a speedy time-line.
Why is the default mindset that “nothing happens hurriedly in the Church of England” tolerated?
Why is no one senior enough getting angry enough to “turn over some tables” and urgently push through the wholesale change that is required?
“Boston Globe identified a pattern of systematic sexual abuse, cover-up and denial in the Archdiocese of Boston in which known paedophile clergy were moved around parishes and/or sent to ‘treatment centres’ – but not prosecuted or de-frocked. The abuse was ‘covered up’ and denied. Any just legal recourse for victims was difficult – and made difficult” – Richard W. Symonds
“There are parallels between what happened in the Church of England’s Diocese of Chichester in 2015 and what had already happened in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in Boston in 2002 – and beyond. The ‘Spotlight’ film brings this out clearly” ~ Richard W. Symonds
Marty Baron – Former Editor of the Boston Globe [“Uncovering The Truth: A Spotlight Team Roundtable” – Bonus – Spotlight DVD]:
“There was an interesting line in that column that said ‘The truth may never be known’ [“The quest for certainty has been defeated by the passage of time” – Martin Warner Bishop of Chichester]. And it seems to me that for us that should always be unacceptable…we should always try to find the truth and do everything possible to find the truth”
“It is still the case that there is a woman [‘Carol’] who came forward with a serious allegation relating to an historic case of abuse and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet” – Archbishop Justin Welby
Fiona Scolding QC: “Do you think the Church needs to be more willing to admit past mistakes?”
Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury: “The history of the Church does not encourage accountability…Accountability is structural”
Fiona Scolding QC [in questioning Graham Tilby]: “The issue here surrounds the fact that, with the greatest respect to diocesan bishops, they have all the power and no accountability”
4:20 AM – 11 Jul 2019
July 21 2019 – From The Archives [July 11 2019 – RWS Note]
“If we can’t admit to being wrong or making a mistake, we can’t genuinely say sorry or apologise because we don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. That moral denial of human fallibility will breed an arrogance which most people see but to which the arrogant person is blind”
~ Richard W. Symonds – on reading Archbishop John Sentamu’s answer when Fiona Scolding QC asks him [at the IICSA 10/07/2019] whether he believes he has made a personal mistake, in the course of responding to disclosures of clerical abuse, during his career: “Hand on heart, I don’t think so”, the Archbishop replies.
It’s been encouraging to hear many witnesses at the ICSA Anglican Hearing call for safeguarding decision-making to be removed from church hierarchy, especially bishops. The main reason given for this was the lack of professional training and experience to make such decisions….
A second reason witnesses gave for removing decisions from Bishops was the conflict of interest in their role. I was glad to see this recognised, as it is something I have been banging on about for some time. Bishops are heavily invested in the institution, so the instinct to defend it is strong and of course it is their role to do their best for their diocese. They cannot just be focused on the best interests of the survivor. They also have pastoral responsibility and oversight of their clergy, which places survivors at best third on their list of priorities. That pastoral oversight – which is needed by the clergy and congregation involved in any allegation of abuse, as well as the person being abused – cannot be exercised freely and wholeheartedly if you are also the person being judge and employer.
There is a safeguarding decision that needs to be separated from internal responsibilities and taken by safeguarding experts. There is an HR decision that equally needs to be taken by someone with relevant HR expertise. Is this an issue of competence or character? Is this person still fit to practice? Then there are pastoral needs, of the victim, the congregation, the colleagues and family of the abuser, both during and after the investigation. This is where the pastoral and leadership skills of the bishop should be free to shine, strategically in terms of ensuring there is support for survivors and parishioners, practically in terms of supporting those in ministry and their families.
Even here there is a conflict of interest, one that I believe is shared by Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers. When you have been abused by someone in an institution such as the church, you are understandably wary of any authority figure in that institution. You are aware that, as already mentioned, the authority figures have an agenda based on their institutional responsibilities. The DSA is not just there for you as the victim. They give advice to the Bishop about how the church should respond. They are, usually, on the pay roll of the Diocese. They are part of the investigation and make best interest decisions
I have worked with looked after young people for many years and it is similar to the relationship they have with their social workers. However sympathetic social workers may be, their role includes decision-making based on the law, the LA budget and what they consider is in your best interests. This may not be what you want to happen. So you don’t always see them as your trusted friend and ally through the care maze.
In the early days of Survivors Voices, our survivor-led support, education and advocacy organisation, I led a couple of workshops for Safeguarding Advisers from church and voluntary organisations to highlight this very issue. They unearthed the tension between supporting survivors and being concerned about the rest of the institution. These conversations were part of the path to the authorised listener role.
Sadly, that has not been enough. Survivors need advocates who can advise them of their rights and guide them through the complicated and painful process of reporting, often simultaneously within church and state procedures. We need help to access trauma-informed therapy and recovery support, not just for a few hours or weeks but often years. We need bishops, clergy and lay workers who are safeguarding savvy, survivor-sensitive and trauma-informed. who listen, listen, listen and work with survivors and families to create safer spaces and good practice together. We need a culture and theology that has the vulnerable child in the centre, not just in a kitsch nativity scene but in the coreopsis our being and practice. We need worship and theology that is sensitive to triggers and the impact of spiritual abuse, that doesn’t re-abuse with shame, forced forgiveness, silence, inappropriate talk of reconciliation, stigmatising mental distress, indifference, resistance to taking responsibility and to change.
If you have been abused by your biological father and by your male priest, it is hard to see the communion offered to you in the hands of another male father figure, as the restorative succour of Christ, not another penetration by your abuser, a bribe to stay silent, a tainted gift. We need new survivor-informed and survivor-led worship and liturgies, safe spaces that explore a gentler theology, bring compassion, justice and shalom to the heart of our relationship with God.
If the church really cared about survivors, these are the kinds of support it would be providing. If the church really cared about survivors, we would be talking about justice and survivor theology and preventing spiritual abuse, about healing retreats and trauma-informed ministry and therapy services and restitution and reconciliation (as a broken church, NOT survivor-abuser), not policies and procedures and lawyers and insurers. If the church really cared about survivors there would be outpourings of sorrow and apology and compassion, from sharing the agony of abuse like Christ hanging with us on the cross, the place of love and anger and accompanying…
As more survivors speak out, the path of change is clear. So why do we survivors still cry out, how long? The enquiry talked a lot about deference, but I think it needed to focus on resistance. Why do the leadership resist and why do the rest of us not rise up in revolt? Abuse is not about a few hundred thousand survivors, who they secretly wish would shut up and go away, a distraction from the church’s mission. Abuse is about our fundamental relationship with each other, about war and poverty and gender-based violence, climate change and pollution, our abuse of the earth and all living creatures. Until we all stop resisting our collective responsibility for ending global abuse, no safeguarding project or policy change will be enough. This is the real mission of the church.
Survivors Voices is a project of Reshapers Community Interest Company (CIC), a social enterprise that promotes creativity, learning and activism to transform people’s lives. We have a high standard of ethical practice (see Our Values), including safeguarding, DBS checks and a complaints process. Our work is accountable to our community of practice, board of directors and the CIC Regulator.
July 21 2019 – “Rebuilding Bridges” Anniversary Conference – Oct 3 2019 – George Bell House – 4 Canon Lane – Chichester [Cancelled]
Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer – Slater & Gordon “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and Canon law, not in safeguarding or child protection law. As a result, he says, many of those making a decision about safeguarding in the Church of England have no credible claim to expertise in this increasingly complex situation. Interestingly, Mr Sewell makes that point both in relation to the treatment of complainants of abuse, but also in regard to the mishandling, in his view, of the George Bell case. He sees the failings on both of those aspects as two sides of the same coin, a fundamental problem, in his view, being a lack of competence and specialist knowledge, particularly legal knowledge and experience gained in a practical safeguarding context”
“Bell shared the Anglo-Catholics’ conviction that the church was not, and must never be, the creature of the state. When he spent Christmas 1914 at Canterbury with the Archbishop, Davidson, he noted in his diary on 29 December that this was the day on which Becket was murdered, and went to the Cathedral to visit the place of his martyrdom. Indeed Becket was to become increasingly influential in the twentieth century Church of England, reminding it that there are times when the church has to stand against the state”
~ Alan Wilkinson [Source: “Britain and the Threat to Stability in Europe, 1918-45” – Ch 5 ‘Bishop Bell and Germany’ – Page 77]
“It was often said during the war [WW1], outside as well as inside the churches, that if only the churches had been unified across Europe, the war might never have broken out. In the post-war period the pursuit of the ecumenical vision evoked some of the same hope and idealism as the League of Nations, of which it was in many ways the ecclesiastical equivalent” [p. 79]
July 22 2019 – From The Archives [May 27 2019 – Boris Johnson and The Brexit Party: “There are also, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop Bell argued, moral questions to be addressed here” – Paddy Ashdown [1941-2018]
“There are also, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Bishop Bell argued, moral questions to be addressed here…Dietrich Bonhoeffer…said…’Responsible action must decide not just between right and wrong, but between right and right and wrong and wrong’.
“So it is, exactly, here. There are no blacks and whites, just choices between blacker blacks and whiter whites. There are no triumphal personal qualities, and no triumphant outcomes. Just flawed individuals, who, at a time of what Bonhoeffer referred to as ‘moral twilight’, felt compelled to do the right thing as they saw it…
“In reading this book you may be struck, as I was in writing it, by the similarities between what happened in the build-up to World War II and the age in which we now live. Then as now, nationalism and protectionism were on the rise, and democracies were seen to have failed; people hungered for the government of strong men; those who suffered most from the pain of economic collapse felt alienated and turned towards simplistic solutions and strident voices; public institutions, conventional politics and the old establishments were everywhere mistrusted and disbelieved; compromise was out of fashion; the centre collapsed in favour of the extremes; the normal order of things didn’t function; change – even revolution – was more appealing than the status quo; and ‘fake news’ built around the convincing untruth carried more weight in the public discourse than rational arguments and provable facts.
This Brexit shambles exposes how far the Conservatives Party has degenerated. For all her faults, Mrs May remains the only adult in the room. At the top, the rest are just a bunch of self obsessed pygmies, charlatans and incompetents who should not be allowed to run a whelk stall
A good PM she is most emphatically not. But listening – and more specifically – watching Theresa May’s speech today, there are three qualities not even her worst enemies would deny her. Duty, Determination and Desperation.
May statement at 2.30. Undermined by her Party at home, humiliated by her friends in Europe, the PM has no credibility left. She should resign. And as a woman of duty, I think she will.
July 23 2019 – “Fantasist whose lies should never have been believed” – Daily Telegraph – Front Page
“Nov 8 2016 – A report by retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques, finds that Scotland Yard made ‘numerous errors’ in Operation Midland and that a major factor was ‘the culture that ‘victims must be believed’……Mr Settle, by now a persona non grata, said the detectives had lost sight of what they were doing: ‘The policy of believing victims meant they were only interested in finding evidence that supported his claims…anything that did not fit that narrative was discounted, which is no way to run an investigation’…By January 2016, after almost a year under investigation, Lord Bramall was informed by the police that he would face no further action. He was told there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to proceed, rather than explicitly being cleared of any wrongdoing”.
Seventy-five years ago on Saturday, the July plot failed. Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg placed a bomb in a briefcase next to Hitler in the conference room of the Wolf’s Lair, but someone moved the briefcase a little. When the bomb detonated, the heavy conference table shielded Hitler from the blast. Stauffenberg and many other conspirators were caught. He was executed early the next morning. This Friday, in Christ Church, Oxford, a special service will commemorate the plot and all those who resisted Nazism in Germany. It will centre on the altar dedicated to George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, and the main external supporter of German Christian resistance to Hitler. In Sweden in May 1942, Bell met a young German pastor called Hans Schoünfeld and the famous theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who would later be executed in Flossenbürg concentration camp. The former disclosed to him the extent of the resisters’ plot to overthrow Hitler, giving him many of the key names. Charged with this information, Bell went to see Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary. Could the Allies help, with assurances that they would negotiate a settlement with a new German state that renounced aggression and embraced Christian principles? Writing to Eden afterwards, Bell asked: ‘If there are men in Germany also ready to wage war against the monstrous tyranny of the Nazis from within, is it right to discourage or ignore them?’ Eden was suspicious that the moves by the churchmen might be untrustworthy ‘peace-feelers’, which Hitler’s spies were bound to know about. Besides, the Allies were edging towards the doctrine of unconditional surrender. Bell’s efforts came to nothing. The July plotters acted without exterior help. They failed, and died horribly….
Faithful readers will know that this column has defended Bishop Bell from a charge of child abuse which the Church of England chose to accept as true 70 years after the alleged acts. A full inquiry by Lord Carlile proved that the processes used to investigate this claim had been worthless. The Church was forced to accept this. It refused, however, to pursue the logic of Carlile’s finding and declare Bell innocent until proved guilty. The Archbishop of Canterbury stated that a ‘significant cloud’ still hangs over Bell; but the cloud is not evidenced. By chance, I was in Chichester for a family gathering last weekend. We stayed at 4 Canon Lane, a guesthouse which was, until the accusation, called George Bell House. His name was then painted out. I was sorely tempted to paint it back again, but realised this would upset the blameless staff, so contented myself with expressing my thoughts in the visitors’ book. I also reminded myself of the geography of the Bishop’s Palace. ‘Carol’, Bell’s accuser, alleged that Bell would collect her from his kitchen and take her upstairs to his study, where he abused her. In fact, the kitchen she mentioned belonged to the theological college next door, and Bell had no access. His study was elsewhere.
On the crenellations which surround the cathedral’s impressive Victorian spire, we spotted three peregrines looking dramatic against the evening sun. The return of birds of prey is an attractive feature of modern times. The downside is that more raptors means fewer songbirds.
We were in Oxford because Christ Church has maintained, with an unflinching honour and determination, its connection with George Bell, who once studied there. In a small but lovely corner of the building, beneath some Burne-Jones windows, stands what is called the Bell Altar, a great block of black oak out of which has been hewn a solid cross.
Next to it, carved into the stone floor, are the dates of Bell’s life, a mention that he was a ‘Bishop, scholar and tutor of Christ Church’ and the disturbing words (from a broadcast Bell made in Germany after the war) ‘No nation, no church, no individual is guiltless. Without repentance and without forgiveness there can be no regeneration’. Both stone and altar have stood untroubled through all the years during which allegations of child abuse have been made against George Bell, allegations which I think can now be said to have been thoroughly dispelled, to put it at its mildest. The Cathedral in Oxford, so very unlike Bell’s own Cathedral in Chichester, where he is buried, kept faith with their old friend and scholar and held to the presumption of innocence. Chichester, by contrast, removed references to Bell from the official guide book, placed ‘safeguarding’ notices by Bell’s memorial, removed flowers left there, and stripped his name from a building in the Cathedral close. It has not marked his own October feast day for several years.
~ Peter Hitchens
COMMENTS
It is so desperately sad to see the situation surrounding Bishop George Bell’s memory.
This week sees the conclusion of another case – which is OF COURSE wholly unconnected. The convicted creepy-crawly who made horrible false allegations against numerous political and military figures will be sentenced for fraudulently receiving compensation and wasting the time and resources of (admittedly gullible and incompetent) police investigators.
It is important, in my opinion that people who invent such allegations (for whatever reason) are held to account. What they are doing is utterly vile towards the falsely accused. But it is ultimately most poisonous of all towards genuine victims of abuse – who will inevitably be doubted all the more when coming forward.
It has taken 2 yrs before anything has actually happened. After 2 yrs no lessons have been learned about putting survivors at the centre and calling those who have failed to account. This is an exercise in self protection and how to do something without actually doing anything meaningful, which has always been the intention. It is the same people who have a history of failure repeating the exercise. The difference is the evidence is now out there for anyone to read. I note organised survivor groups in the US are actively challenging their Bishops, and other interested but hidden groups within the church, as a matter of routine and are getting the survivor message out there so it is not business as usual within the institution. May be that needs to happen here – on going challenge and resistance so the ‘lessons have been learned’ mantra becomes real rather than a myth. Identifying the power groups behind the public face would be a start. They have worked to protect their own for too long. There will be no real change until there is a shift of power within the church and everything is finally brought into the light.
“Meanwhile the real power-holders hide behind the robes of others. Discerning who they are and how they work, is more of a challenge”
William Nye is clearly one of the visible “power-holders”, but it would be naive to think he is the ‘Puppeteer’.
Who is William Nye’s boss – to whom does he report and get his instructions from?
The answer to that is not pretty.
Marise Hargreaves
I agree. It’s not pretty and the tactics being used to intimidate people into silence points to powerful people who are well hidden at present. This goes to the heart of the institution and probably beyond. Follow the money is usually good advice. Someone has an huge interest in keeping control in all of this. Who else is being protected and at what expense?
Richard W. Symonds
“Cherchez la monnaie” has often proved the most useful guide to discovering the Puppeteer(s) pulling the strings behind the scenes. To that we may now add “Cherchez les enfants”.
Marise Hargreaves
Thank you for the link – finding the power behind the thrones is a difficult task when we do know there are closed groups meeting for their own ends. After listening to the lawyer on the Radio 4 Sunday programme re the Matt Ineson so called lessons have been learned review, it seems even more urgent to call for a root and branch sorting out of this. It seems to be more shameful by the hours, if that was possible.
Fr. Dean Henley
Matt Ineson chooses the right word to describe his treatment by the CofE – ‘wicked’. Wicked because he is a child of God who deserves so much better from the bishops not least because he was in every sense a child when he was raped by a priest; but wicked because his analysis of this proposed ‘lessons learned’ exercise and its methodology is manifestly correct – it is a stitch up. The outcome would be more confetti apologies and no action against the milquetoast bishops who passed by on the other side, each claiming that some other bishop was responsible. Archbishop Welby has referred to the Day of Judgement with regard to the Church’s safeguarding failings; Matt shouldn’t have to wait until then, he deserves an earlier reckoning for the sins perpetrated against a child of God.
Richard W. Symonds
“It is a stitch up” [Fr Dean Henley] – and a “protection racket” [Revd Graham Sawyer]:
“The sex abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the entirely cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained. I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or 10 years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others and I use these words cruel and sadistic because I think that is how they behave. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket and [the attitude is that] anyone who seeks to in any way threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed”
The question of who is in charge is important and pressing. Last week the Church Times carried a report of a seminar urging a fresh emphasis on middle-sized churches. That might seem unremarkable, although it doesn’t appear to tie in to any other mission strategy I’ve heard recently. What was remarkable about this statement was that it came from William Nye. Mr Nye is the secretary general of the Archbishop’s Council and also of the General Synod. In other words he is the church’s Sir Humphrey – its senior civil servant. The question is, why is a civil servant speaking openly about mission strategy? He is not ordained. He is not elected. He is not theologically trained. In his Wikipedia entry he is described as a ‘courtier’. In a previous role he was personal secretary to members of the royal family. So what is his status in making such recommendations about the mission of the church?
When it comes to safeguarding we know that William Nye has a record of imposing his wishes upon the experts in church house. He is line manager to the director of safeguarding, but as far as I know he has no specific expertise in that area. Likewise he has a role in overseeing the work of the church’s communications offices, but he has no specific expertise in communications or media management. It is becoming apparent that William Nye is dominating the work and practices of the archbishops council, and indeed of the archbishops and bishops themselves, even though his ostensible role is to serve them. Who will take William Nye in hand? It would take a brave Archbishop. Do we have one?
“The only person more powerful than William Nye is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England Her Majesty The Queen” ~ Richard W. Symonds
“Listen from 22 mins in. Report on IICSA, and fresh call for the resignations of @JustinWelby @John Sentamu @Steven_Croft and Bishop Peter Burrows. I totally support this call. All these Bishops should resign for their safeguarding failures and lack of legal and moral leadership” ~ Matthew Ineson
Aug 10 2019 – From The Archives [Dec 21 2017 – “Bishop Bell’s niece: Welby should resign” – Daily Telegraph]
Aug 16 2019 – 74th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing – August 6 and August 9 1945 – From The Archives [Jan 25 1985 – “Power Unlimited And Exclusive” – ‘Nuclear Arms and the Vision of George Bell’ – A Booklet originating from a Talk for Christian CND, given by the Rt. Revd. Peter Walker [Bishop of Ely] at Blackfriars, Cambridge – in the Week of Prayer for World Peace and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity – Hat-Tip: Professor David Jasper]
EXTRACTS
Bishop Bell – “The Church is not a sort of universal boudoir where people meet and take their ease…There is an intensity in the conflict with evil…”
Bishop Walker – “Bell had set out very clearly the principles he saw governing the Church’s function in war-time [and peace-time – Ed] in a paper in the ‘Fortnightly Review’ in November 1939”:
Bishop Bell – “So when all the resources of the State are concentrated, for example, on winning a war, the Church is not part of those resources…It possesses an authority independent of the State. It is bound, because of that authority, to proclaim the realities which outlast change…It is not the State’s spiritual auxiliary with exactly the same ends as the State. To give the impression that it is, is both to do a profound disservice to the nation and to betray its own principles”
Sir, — Sir Roger Singleton (Letters, 9 August) describes the case of the Revd Matt Ineson as “very complex”. I disagree; it is undoubtedly a serious matter, not least to the parties concerned, but anyone with experience of child-protection trials will know that this dispute presents few difficulties out of the ordinary compared with other cases that principally turn on disputed testimony.
The fact of the abuse is not in issue. The Crown Prosecution Service has already decided that the evidence met the stringent criteria for bringing a criminal case 30 years after the event. Civil liability has been admitted and damages have been paid. The Church says that it has already apologised, albeit in disputed circumstances.
There is but a single complainant whose account is well recorded with police and IICSA; so are the various Bishops’ responses. There is no expert evidence to evaluate, and there are thus no disputes arising from it. The case papers have already been collated for IICSA, and I understand that the bundle of documents to be considered is unlikely to exceed 300 pages, which is modest. Specialist Legal Aid Safeguarding Practitioners regularly haul 3000 pages into court. This case is concise and material-lite.
Mr Ineson undoubtedly disclosed his abuse to the police, his lawyers, and various bishops. All that needs to be resolved is to whom, when, in what terms, what was done with the information, and whether the bishops’ actions met the requisite standards of their office. They are entitled to a presumption of innocence, and proof must be on the balance of probabilities. It really is not that hard.
The prompt resolution of disputes depends on well-developed good practice. Essential requirements are: an agreed comprehensive chronology; an agreed summary of facts not in dispute; an agreed summary of facts in dispute; an agreed summary of issues to be determined; case summaries from either side, identifying any relevant law and guidelines; and a decent index. The skill is all in the preparation of these documents. Once they are in place, most of the judgment writes itself.
I have long argued that the Church needs to employ one or two specialist lawyers to sort these things out. We seem to pay a lot of money to expensive lawyers who advise that these matters are complex. We should invest a little in those who do the majority of this kind of work and for whom it is utterly routine.
Securing a clean and competent review is relatively easy, but the survivors I talk to doubt the Church’s commitment to running a simple and fair fact-finding process. Talk of a learned-lessons review sounds reasonable, but actually represents a deliberately narrow defining of the process, one that excludes the more embarrassing aspects of the case.
If past reviews are anything to go by, any such process will not even result in a free debate of any report at the General Synod and will be quietly consigned into the same oubliette into which past reviews have disappeared without trace or noticeable change.
Speaking to the BBC Sunday programme, Kate Blackwell QC, an expert in such inquiries, described the review as “compromised before it’s even started”. Sir Roger and his team need to go back to the drawing board urgently. The Church still doesn’t get it.
MARTIN SEWELL General Synod member for Rochester diocese
Martin Sewell: “I have long argued that the Church needs to employ one or two specialist lawyers to sort these things out. We seem to pay a lot of money to expensive lawyers who advise that these matters are complex. We should invest a little in those who do the majority of this kind of work and for whom it is utterly routine.”
Rowland Wateridge: “This has been the fervent prayer of some of us over the last few years: notably the initial Bishop Bell ‘investigation’, and, more recently (admittedly in a different context), may one dare mention at least a question mark about the CDM and suspension of two bishops”
Aug 16 2019 – RWS Note
“Bad-mouthing a long-dead Bishop illegitimately, then hiding behind powerful Church lawyers for protection, is not my idea of an Archbishop – it’s my idea of a coward”
“I have little hope of any form of justice in the Church-controlled Makin
Review. It is disturbing to note the clear findings of the Church-controlled Carlile and Briden Reviews, which essentially exonerated Bishop Bell, have been – up to now – essentially ignored by the Church hierarchy. Yet still we cling to the hope that certain Church leaders [including an Archbishop] will have the moral courage to do what is right by righting their wrong. It is moral cowardice to hide behind Church lawyers and insurance companies”
~ Richard W. Symonds
Aug 18 2019 – “Clergy sexual abuse: why can’t the Church cleanse its own temple?” – ‘AC’
“In these matters the narrow ridge which must be traversed between unjust accusation/ investigation which destroys lives and causes suicides, and unjust neglect of valid accusation, which also destroys lives and causes suicides is not one they [Bishops] are trained for, and treacherous water, especially when you factor in that some groups are all too willing to manufacture accusations against the church.; thus Martin Sewell’s letter in “The Church Times” suggesting they appoint lawyers in the field needs acting upon”
Gilo: “A culture of ‘say nothing unless asked’ is a culture still reluctant to move on from subtle complicity and subterfuge. This mindset has already led to the current existential crisis of the bishops and senior ‘management’ of the Church. The time for keeping of secrets Luca Brasi-style to protect the reputation of a Lambeth Palace eliterie should long be over. The Church should no longer entertain disposition to this kind of omerta. A church with secrecy riven in its bones is not a church with a healthy and redemptive future. It is hardly worth the candle”
Gilo’s critique raises very, very serious questions regarding power – and its abuse.
Have TA readers read this recent Tablet article which, it seems to me, has massive implications for the power systems within the Church of England and beyond?
“The cover-up has ended and now we are going right to the top,” Mitchell Garabedian, Grein’s lawyer, told reporters on Wednesday in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. “We are attempting to show that the Vatican knew that McCarrick was abusing James Grein.”
[‘Mitch’ Garabedian was the lawyer representing abuse victims in the 2001 Boston scandal – featured in the 2016 ‘Spotlight’ film].
This US ruling opens up the possibility that “the top” of the Church of England knew – and had evidence – Bishop Bell was innocent, but still ‘threw him under the bus’ in 2015.
The last chapter of Andrew Chandler’s book on Bell suggests, to me, there is proof that “the top” knew the strong likelihood of Bell’s innocence (eg the ‘Caution List’ and Adrian Carey’s testimony), but failed to make such files known to the original Core Group (eg a 368-volume Bell archive at Lambeth Palace) – nor, apparently, to the later independent investigations (eg Carlile, Briden & IICSA).
THE diocese of Chichester should not be too hasty in its attempts to consign sexual abuse to history, a new report suggests.
The diocese was marked out by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) for special interest, based on the number of high-profile cases of abuse. An earlier report by Dame Moira Gibb also examined aspects of abuse in Sussex.
The authors warn the diocese “not to be tempted to approach the future by adopting the mantra ‘That was then; this is now’.
“Inevitably there is now an understandable need to move on from what many believe has been a terrible stain on the diocese, but this can, in our view, only be safely and respectfully done by regularly training everyone’s collective eyes and ears on what happened in the past.”…
While there might not be concrete evidence of a “paedophile ring” in the diocese, it states, “it would perhaps be unwise to assume that what happened was simply a series of separate events involving sexual offenders who had no idea of the existence of the activities of other offenders in the same organisation.”….
A survivor of abuse in the diocese, Phil Johnson, said on Wednesday said that the report “gives voice” to survivors of abuse in the diocese:
“The fragmented and tribal structure and lack of supervision and accountability clearly contributed to a culture where abuse was allowed to thrive and go unchallenged and then to be minimised or dismissed once it was known about…The diocese still tries to recoil from the notion that abuse was organised in Sussex, but this report clearly shows that there was cooperation between some of the abusers and between those who failed to deal with it properly. . . There has always been an inclination to deal with embarrassing scandal internally and minimise repetitional damage, and this report goes some way to exploring the reasons why and how that was allowed to happen…It is not an easy read but it is well worth it and I believe that it will contribute to the understanding of how abuse happens, how it is not addressed adequately, and why it is only the tenacity of the victims that eventually brings it into the light.”
The abuse scandals in the Church of England haven’t featured in this blog up to now. This is not because I don’t care, but rather because I care so much. I’m so incandescent with rage that I hardly know what to write.
Anybody who wants a flavour of what’s been going on could start by dipping into two websites: Thinking Anglicans and Archbishop Cranmer. If you can’t be bothered, then take it from me that the institutional Church of England is secretive, evasive, cruel and corrupt. The people who work at the coal face, paid and unpaid, are by and large utterly decent and thoroughly commendable, but they don’t know the half of what goes on in the sleazy corridors of power.
It’s difficult to preach about this because, to be frank, the bulk of the punters simply don’t want to know. They come for a weekly fix of what they’ve always done on Sunday before pootling off to the pub or the local beauty spot. The last thing they want is for their complacency to be sullied by deeply unpalatable facts about the organisation that they profess to be part of. The latest morsel to come our way is the extent to which the tentacles of the establishment infiltrate this fetid, decaying corruption. Read this: Nobody’s Friends
Of all the issues that the Church should be concerned with, this—abuse in all its forms—is the topic that eats away at me the most. I’ve no idea why this should be so, for I don’t recall ever having been on the receiving end, except as I relate below.
At school I was taunted for being fat, bookish, wearing specs, and being more interested in church music than in grabbing other boys’ scrotums in the scrum. But I didn’t regard this as abuse then, and don’t now. I wasn’t at boarding school so had no experience of what is alleged to have gone on in some of them. As a church musician I soon became aware of the need to maintain distance between young choristers and me, and on the two occasions when I felt I’d overstepped the mark I visited the parents to apologize.
So, as I say, I’m not sure why the revelations of abuse should so affect me other than being profoundly disappointed in an organization that professes to be Godly. Every fibre of my being goes out to those who have suffered.
I am ashamed to be a public representative of the Church of England. I was ordained at the age of 56 (now 69) and I wonder if I’ve wasted the last thirteen years of my life—a fool to have been seduced by the institution. Am I alone amongst clergy in feeling this? And there has been not a single word of encouragement from any bishop.
In other walks of life, the boss might sympathize with the plight of embattled foot-soldiers, assuring them (us) of support when needed. I can imagine a Brigadier encouraging the troops after a battle that didn’t go to plan, in order to restore morale.
But not a peep from Church of England hierarchs.
I must confess to a feeling of schadenfreude about the John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher stories. At several points in my life I’ve been assailed by evangelical so-called Christians who have condemned my views, and assured me that I’m destined for hellfire unless I believe precisely what they believe. This happened in childhood (rural Methodism), at university where some of the most oleaginous and judgmental creeps imaginable (Cambridge Christian Union types) poured scorn on us “College Chapel” Christians, and since then at meetings of Churches Together, especially in Chesterfield and Burton.
All this could be regarded as abusive, so there’s a certain guilty pleasure in seeing that the scions of these corruptions of Christianity now stand with their reputations in tatters. To read that they beat the crap out of an adolescent boy to the extent that blood was gushing down his legs, puts that form of “Christianity” in its proper place. Just imagine: eight hundred lashes—they had to break for lunch—as punishment for a wank, or some such. Ye Gods. Satanists would be more humane.
About five years ago my elder son told me that if I willed any of my estate to the church he would utter incantations and stick pins into a clay doll made in my image. There is no danger of that. After a lifetime of sacrificial giving to the church, not one penny more will go to this cruel, hypocritical and putrid institution.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has conditionally agreed to chair a Citizens Forum in Coventry and, without prejudice for any particular outcome, we support this move to have all voices in the current Brexit debate heard.
However, we also have particular concerns about the potential cost of a No Deal Brexit to those least resilient to economic shocks.
As bishops with pastoral responsibilities in communities across urban and rural England, we respond to the call by Jesus to tell the truth and defend the poor. We also recognise that our obligations go beyond England and impact on relations with the wider UK and our neighbours in the EU.
Exiting the EU without an agreement is likely to have a massive impact on all our people and the Government is rightly preparing for this outcome. The Government believes that leaving the EU on 31 October is essential to restoring trust and confidence. It is unlikely, however, that leaving without an agreement, regardless of consequences, will lead to reconciliation or peace in a fractured country. “Getting Brexit done” will not happen on exit day, and we have to be transparent about the years of work ahead of us in bringing the country together for a better future. We also need to be frank about the potential costs.
Our main social and political priority must be to leave well, paying particular attention to the impact of political decisions on those most vulnerable.
We hold different views about Brexit and how our country should proceed from here. However, although we agree that respecting a public vote is essential, democracy and committed debate do not end after the counting of votes. Our concern for the common good leads us to express concern about a number of matters. Our conviction is that good governance can only ever be based on the confidence of the governed, and that includes minorities whose voice is not as loud as others.
Seeing the evidence of division in every part of England, we are deeply concerned about:
Political polarisation and language that appears to sanction hate crime: the reframing of the language of political discourse is urgent, especially given the abuse and threats levelled at MPs doing their job.
The ease with which lies can be told and misrepresentation encouraged: leaders must be honest about the costs of political choices, especially for those most vulnerable.
The levels of fear, uncertainty and marginalisation in society, much of which lies behind the vote for Brexit, but will not be addressed by Brexit: poor people, EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in Europe must be listened to and respected.
The Irish border is not a mere political totem and peace in Ireland is not a ball to be kicked by the English: respect for the concerns on both sides of the border is essential.
The sovereignty of Parliament is not just an empty term, it is based on institutions to be honoured and respected: our democracy is endangered by cavalier disregard for these.
Attention must be paid not only to the Union, but also to the meaning of Englishness.
Churches serve communities of every shape, size and complexion. We continue to serve, regardless of political persuasion. We invite politicians to pay attention with us to the concerns we register above and encourage a recovery of civil debate and reconciliation.
The Rt Revd Nick Baines, Bishop of Leeds The Rt Revd Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough The Rt Revd Robert Atwell, Bishop of Exeter The Rt Revd Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool The Rt Revd Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham The Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark The Rt Revd Dr Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry The Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, Bishop of Chelmsford The Rt Revd Tim Dakin, Bishop of Winchester The Rt Revd Vivienne Faull, Bishop of Bristol The Rt Revd Christopher Foster, Bishop of Portsmouth The Rt Revd Richard Frith, Bishop of Hereford The Rt Revd Christine Hardman, Bishop of Newcastle The Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury The Rt Revd Dr John Inge, Bishop of Worcester The Rt Revd Dr Michael Ipgrave, Bishop of Lichfield The Rt Revd James Langstaff, Bishop of Rochester The Rt Revd Philip Mounstephen, Bishop of Truro The Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally DBE, Bishop of London The Rt Revd Dr Alan Gregory Clayton Smith, Bishop of St Albans The Rt Revd Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester The Rt Revd Graham Usher, Bishop of Norwich The Rt Revd Dr David Walker, Bishop Of Manchester The Rt Revd Andrew Watson, Bishop of Guildford The Rt Revd Dr Pete Wilcox, Bishop of Sheffield
Sept 3 2019 – Revd Peter Mullen on Archbishop Justin Welby – Salisbury Review [Aug 29 2019]
“Welby is – let me retain my usual politeness – a shambles. He has already shown himself to be the enemy of justice and truth by his insistence that there remains “a significant cloud” over the head of Bishop george Bell – and that despite the fact that Lord Carlile’s official enquiry cleared Bell of any sexual impropriety”
The pop star has previously told how the trauma of BBC coverage of the police search of his home, following a claim of historical sexual assault, left him emotionally drained.
Sir Cliff was not arrested and did not face charges.
He later said: “They smeared my name around the world.”
He added: “I’ve had four terrible years and it was horrific… I would never wish that on my worst enemy. It was tumultuous, horrific, emotionally draining, traumatic.”
Earlier this year, Sir Cliff launched a petition so that those accused of sexual offences remain anonymous until charged.
‘Bishop Bell’ Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral’s Private Library]
The Portrait is, at present, in storage within the Cathedral Library
The Plaque below the Portrait reads:
“Bishop Bell has a worldwide reputation for his tireless work for international reconciliation, the arts, education, and church unity. The House that bears his name provides a place where work in these areas can continue and prosper. The generosity of an Anglican Order, the Community of the Servants of the Cross (CSC) has enabled the purchase of the House. Canon Peter Kefford (Treasurer of Chichester Cathedral 2003-2009) was the prime initiator in establishing George Bell House as a centre for Education, Vocation and Reconciliation”
“The first ecumenical conference held in Chichester in 1984 to celebrate Bishop George Bell proved so valuable that the regular ‘Coburg conferences’ were born. Held every other year, delegates from the Diocese of Chichester, the Evangelical Kirchenkreis Bayreuth, the Lutheran church in Berlin-Brandenburg, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bamberg meet for discussions, lectures and workshops on a variety of topics and current issues. It is an opportunity to share and solve problems together and exchange news of parish links. A very strong bond of support, fellowship and understanding has developed. There are resources relating to Coburg available in the related resources side panel of this page”
I really cannot see the Conference being of any great importance UNLESS the “significant cloud” hanging over Bishop Bell is lifted by Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner before the event ~ Richard W. Symonds
Coburg Conference – George Bell House – Chichester – February 2014 – Dean Nicholas Frayling (far left) – Canon Tim Schofield (far right) – Dr Dorothea Greiner (third from right)
Sept 23 2019 – From The Archives [Jan 25 1985 – “Power Unlimited And Exclusive” – ‘Nuclear Arms and the Vision of George Bell’ – A Booklet originating from a Talk for Christian CND, given by the Rt. Revd. Peter Walker [Bishop of Ely] at Blackfriars, Cambridge – in the Week of Prayer for World Peace and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity [Hat-Tip: Professor David Jasper]
We are delighted to welcome today our ecumenical partners from Bamberg, Bayreuth and Berlin, who are attending the biennial ‘Coburg Conference’, here in Chichester.
The theme of the conference is ‘How do the churches respond to the new populist movements – Bishop George Bell and Dietrich Bonhoeffer as exemplars.’
As part of the conference Canon Wolfgang Klausnitzer, one of our Canons of Honour, is preaching at today’s Sung Eucharist (Precentor)
“Sir Richard Henriques has courageously exposed the harm done when the word ‘victim’ is applied to all complainants. The word begs the question in a way that is fatal to justice”
“His time in England had earned him the friendship of the Anglican Bishop of Chichester [page 72]…Bonhoeffer calmly turned to a British prisoner who had been worshipping with him and asked him to pass a simple message on to his old friend Bishop Bell of Chichester: ‘For me this is the beginning of life'” [page 75].
“Two members of the House of Lords should make a point of reading these inspiring letters: the Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Bishop of Chichester…” ~ Lord Lexden
Thank you for this and for the messages you sent to Bishop Dorothea in the run-up to the Coburg Conference. The conference proved to be a valuable opportunity for the German delegations to become better acquainted with Bishop Bell’s theology and its lasting significance in the current political climate.
I hope the issue with the new guidebook can be clarified or rectified.
Bishop Dorothea is supportive of your cause. She will continue to be attentive to the treatment of George Bell in the Church of England and in Chichester in particular – as she will continue to refer to 4 Canon Lane as “George Bell House”. She is, however, unable to dig into the details of each new development as you have been offering them in your emails. So can I please ask you to take Bishop Dorothea’s address from your mailing list.
“I really think you are the living Christian conscience of this country, and I only feel it a little painful that the other acting Archbishops and Bishops have not taken the opportunity of openly supporting you in a matter which concerns them too. In any case, at a time when the political leaders are obviously not able to see the implications of their policy, it is a comfort to know that there are in this country personalities who have the courage to stand up against public opinion, and to warn the nation in a truly prophetic way of the dangerous road they are taking”
~ Gerhard Leibholz to George Bell, 14 February 1944
Oct 30 2019 – RWS Note
“We seem to have Archbishops whose prejudices lead them to sacrifice justice on the altar of pride…If we cannot secure justice for George Bell, what hope do we have for securing justice for each other?”
Vigil outside Chichester Cathedral – Sunday April 3 2016 [from right to left: Tim Hudson, Charlotte Evans, Unknown, Richard Symonds, Peter Billingham, Marilyn Billingham, Meriel Wilmot-Wright, Unknown, Unknown]
Chichester Cathedral from George Bell House, 4 Canon Lane
At IICSA Justin Welby said “We’ve got to learn to put actions behind the words because ‘sorry’ is pretty cheap.” He also said that he had apologised to me in person at Lambeth Palace in November 2016. He did not. Neither my solicitor or myself remember an apology and the minutes for the meeting, taken by a member of the NST, record no apology. This meeting was 7 months before Devamanikkam was even charged (and nobody knew if he would be). Was Justin Welby so convinced of Devamanikkams guilt that he apologised to me 7 months in advance of charges? This is not likely. Further an internal memo (obtained through a subject access request) from the same member of the NST dated April 2018 clearly states that no apology had been issued. So was Justin Welby mistaken, badly briefed or deliberately telling an untruth to the inquiry? The ‘letter’ Justin Welby produced (a few minutes before the start of the hearing despite there being months to prepare statements and hand in documentary evidence) , which I have never received, was a fudge anyway and the barrister asked Justin Welby if that was an apology or the beginning of one. I was sat behind him the whole time but he never turned round once. I have still had no formal apology despite being raped by a vicar in a vicarage. I would not want that regurgitated excuse now anyway. If apologies are so cheap..then do it along with restorative action that is appropriate. The truth is that any apology now would be worthless because it would have had to be dragged out of Mr Welby or Mr Sentamu. It is a cold, cold heart that behaves like this. Raped by a vicar in a vicarage as a youngster and the archbishop, nor any of the other bishops who have acted shabbily and shambolicly can even say sorry. I was right in my observations at iicsa….not fit for office.
I was called yesterday afternoon by the NST and the Statement read to me. I disagreed with it and pointed out the untruths in it. I was told my points would be raised with Melissa Caslake. This was not done and the statement was published virtually straight away.
I have NEVER said I will give aural or documentary evidence to the church’s proposed ‘reviewer’, in fact I have categorically said I will not (as the ‘review’ is currently proposed). The reviewer will not get sight of all documents cos she wont get mine until a genuine independent review is agreed. The statement is misleading and contains untruths. My position remains the same as it always has. This review is a review into how the church handled my disclosures both before and during the police investigation plus events after Devamanikkam’s death. It is wrong, therefore, that the church appoint the person who is going to investigate their actions, write a terms of reference into the investigation (no terms of reference have yet been drawn up anyway) and control the whole investigation into themselves. We have repeatedly asked the church to work with us to have a totally independent review, which they have refused. The church have appointed their proposed ‘reviewer’ on their own terms and I was told only yesterday by Melissa Caslake that no one from the church has contacted Mr Devamanikkam’s family or representatives to ask if they would like to be involved. The church are steamrollering ahead, trying to control an investigation into themselves. This is open to corruption. I would work 100% with a genuinely independent review. This is not it and while the church still try to ride roughshod over victims of abuse like myself (as they have with the publication of this statement) I will not be cooperating and have never agreed to. Why is the church afraid of a truly independent review? If, for example, a policeman was facing an investigation into his conduct he would not be the one interviewing and appointing the investigator nor would he be writing the terms of reference. So why should the church in this case? And what does the proposed ‘reviewer’ actually think she is going to be doing as no terms of reference have yet been drawn up? Who would agree to such a job without knowing what they will be doing? This is a sham. It is open to corruption. It is bullying again.
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q31 General Synod has not yet been given the opportunity to debate the independent review by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, published nearly two years ago on 15 December 2017, into the way the Church of England dealt with a complaint of sexual abuse made by a woman known as ‘Carol’ against the late Bishop George Bell (“the Carlile Review”). Having regard to (i) the circumstances in which the Review was commissioned, (ii) the conclusions of Lord Carlile, (iii) the public responses to the Review by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chichester, and (iv) the wide media interest in the case; will the House of Bishops now request the Business Committee to schedule a ‘take note’ debate on the Carlile Review at the group of sessions in February 2020 so as to ensure that it can be considered by members of Synod in this quinquennium?
The Bishop of Bath & Wells to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:
A The House of Bishops will request the Business Committee to ensure the General Synod has the opportunity at each group of sessions to consider safeguarding matters. This may not best be achieved by debates on individual cases or reports“
“HOW CAN WE ‘TAKE NOTE’ AND LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES UNLESS WE DEBATE ‘INDIVIDUAL CASES OR REPORTS’ ON THOSE MISTAKES?” ~ RICHARD W. SYMONDS
Dec 18 2019 – “Welby’s No. 2” [the new Archbishop of York] and Bishop Bell
“Could he [Cottrell] persuade you-know-who [Welby] to reconsider the ‘cloud’ [the monstrous ‘significant cloud’ remark by Welby against Bell which Warner supports]?”
“I happen to think that this appointment to York is one of the best we could have, and I hope that he will go on saying openly things which we need to hear. Perhaps with Stephen C at his side, Welby might find the courage to disown his references to the Bell “cloud”. However, I remain of the opinion that the major offence is the continuing refusal of Martin Warner to hold up his hands and admit that he and his cohort got things shamefully wrong. As I have no doubt said before, he appears unaware that his behaviour has left his reputation in tatters. Indeed, his stock appears to have plunged with quite a few people in the diocese, and not just over the Bell case”
~ ‘B’
The case of George Bell, the renowned Bishop of Chichester (1929-1958) and inspirational leader in the struggle against Nazi Germany in World War II, cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely. Apart from anything else it places the reputation of the Church of England itself in a bad light.
Bishop Bell, like the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, was and is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
It is a sacred principle at the heart of English law. Many injustices in recent times have flowed from the failure to honour it (e.g. Field Marshal Lord Bramall)..
~ Gerald Morgan, FTCD (Leader: English Parliamentary Party, 2001)
Archbishop Justin Welby said at the beginning of this year (Jan 2019): “It is still the case that there is a woman who came forward [‘Alison’] with a serious allegation … and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet.”
A few of us have dutifully followed-up what the Archbishop rightly says: it is a very serious allegation which must be investigated.
We are investigating it – not ignoring it or sweeping it under the carpet – so much so that we can now provide a very powerful case as to who actually abused ‘Carol’.
Feb 15 2020 – Letter Submission by The Revd Dr Barry A. Orford to The Daily Telegraph
The Revd Dr Barry A. Orford
The Editor
The Daily Telegraph
London
SW1W 0DT
February 13th, 2020
Sir,
The article by Sinclair McKay (February 13th) on the 1945 bombing of Dresden was timely and welcome. What a pity, though, that he did not mention the most prominent wartime challenge to the British policy of Obliteration Bombing, which came from Bishop George Bell of Chichester.
In 1944, when Hamburg had been devastated the previous year and Dresden was still to suffer, Bishop Bell, a fervent anti-Nazi, questioned in the House of Lords the morality of such bombing of targets which were not primarily military. Few of his fellow bishops supported him, and he earned himself both widespread abuse but also agreement. The bravery of his stand is undeniable.
Recently, there have been shameful (and now discredited) attempts in Bell’s diocese to tarnish his reputation. Since an apology for this behaviour is still not forthcoming, it is more than ever necessary that we are reminded of George Bell’s courage and integrity, both in wartime and beyond it.
This case study will seek answers to the following questions: (1) why did Bishop Peter Ball escape detection as an abuser, despite, as it has now emerged, the fact that he made sexual advances to a significant number of young men who came within his ambit of influence? (2) how did the church permit him to run a scheme 25 where young people came to stay with him for extended periods of time in his home without any supervision or oversight and without any real sense of what was happening or who was there over a more than ten-year period whilst he was a suffragan bishop? (3) why was he given a caution, rather than prosecuted, for the offending that the police investigated in 1992/1993 in respect of Neil Todd and others? Why were other complaints brought at that time not prosecuted or subject to any form of disposal at that time? (4) why was Peter Ball represented by a lawyer during the criminal proceedings in 1992 who was also the diocesan registrar, that is, an official lawyer for the diocese in religious matters? This individual discussed the case and Peter Ball’s defence with various senior members of the church during the course of the investigation. Why was this potential conflict of interest not identified or acted upon? (5) was it wrong for the church to become involved in seeking to defend Peter Ball by employing a private detective on his behalf? (6) were the church, police or prosecution put under undue and improper pressure by individuals who held positions of power and influence within society to try and quash the criminal allegations made against Peter Ball and return him to ministry? (7) should a caution ever have been administered? (8) why was he not subject to any disciplinary action by the church until 2015? Were the disciplinary powers of the church at the time in question, 1992 through to 2015, fit for purpose to manage the sorts of allegations that this case study raises? Why, given the frustrations expressed by senior individuals within Lambeth Palace about Peter Ball’s lack of insight into his own offending behaviour was no risk assessment process undertaken of him until 2009? (9) why was he allowed to return to public ministry and even granted permission to visit schools and undertake confirmations in the light of what was known about his offending behaviour within the church at the time? (10) why didn’t the church refer letters received from various individuals which made allegations similar to those that Neil Todd had made to the police in December 1992 and why in fact did it take until 2010 for the majority of those letters to be passed to the police? (11) was the internal investigation conducted by the Church of England in 1992/1993 adequate? (12) why did the prosecution decide to accept the guilty pleas entered into by Peter Ball in 2015 and why were other offences not pursued to trial? (13) would the church approach a similar matter concerning a senior member of its ranks in a like manner today and, if not, what steps have been nut in place to create a consistent approach to dealing with such allegations? (14) what steps does the church, police, Crown Prosecution Service and society need to undertake to overcome the problems that this case study may demonstrate? We have sought and obtained evidence from Peter Ball himself. He has provided two witness statements to the inquiry. We have received medical evidence that he is too unwell to give us evidence either in person or by way of videolink. Both his witness statements will be placed upon the website. He has provided an apology in the second of those witness statements and has identified that he has neither been open nor shown penitence in the past. He also identifies that previously he has not had the courage to be forthright about his sexuality that maybe he should have had…….
Page 90
MR GIFFIN: Chair, members of the panel, the Archbishops’ Council is grateful for this opportunity to make some brief opening remarks. The inquiry of course heard longer submissions from us at the start and finish of the Chichester case study, and we also filed detailed written submissions at the close of the Chichester hearings, and all of those are publicly available and I needn’t repeat any of the detail of them now. Rather, I shall confine myself to three matters. The first and foremost is to say, clearly, that the church is sorry and ashamed. At the Chichester hearings, the Archbishops’ Council offered an unqualified apology to those vulnerable people, children and others, whose lives have been damaged by abuse, and who were not cared for and protected by the church as they should have been. We repeat that apology now, specifically to those who suffered abuse at the hands of Peter Ball, and the families and others who have been affected by that abuse. In 2015, after Ball, as you have heard, pleadedguilty to offences and was sentenced for them, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, wrote to individuals known to have been abused by Ball to offer his apologies and the church made a public statement, including these words, which bear repeating. Shall I pause? MS SCOLDING: I’m terribly sorry. I don’t know what is going on. I will ask Mr Fulbrook to go and see if whatever is happening can be desisted from immediately. MR GIFFIN: Shall I continue, chair? I will, if I may, repeat my previous words….
Page 99
Mr Bourne
Now, this does not excuse the error of not passing on the letters, but the inquiry will see that the police back then had abundant evidence of a wider picture of Peter Ball’s abusive activity and the inquiry can be reassured that the addition of one further allegation would not have altered that picture in any significant 25 way. My second comment on Dame Moira’s report is that, on three key points, it will benefit from some clarification. Unfortunately, those key points have attracted as much attention as anything else in the report. They are the references to collusion, cover-up and deliberate concealment. In fairness to Dame Moira, her report is actually expressed in very measured terms; so measured, in fact, that any conclusions drawn about collusion, cover-up or deliberate concealment are not easy to pin down. The problem, however, is that the report’s use of those words has already had serious consequences, and that’s not surprising because there is a crucial difference between mistakes, however blameworthy, and conspiratorial acts carried out for a guilty purpose. We have no doubt that this inquiry will wish to distinguish carefully between those two things. There are, therefore, questions for Dame Moira Gibb about those specific areas. All I will add now in opening is that Lord Carey’s hope is that this week’s hearing will make some important matters clearer for everyone. The clearest possible understanding is, of course, for the benefit of all of the public and especially for victims and survivors. Chair, thank you…….
Reverend Graham Sawyer
Page 171/172
A. Let me make this very clear. The sexual abuse that was perpetrated upon me by Bishop Peter Ball pales into insignificance when compared to the enduringly cruel and sadistic treatment that has been meted out to me by officials, both lay and ordained, in the Church of England, and I know from the testimony of other people who have got in touch with me over the last five or ten years that what I have experienced is not dissimilar to the experience of so many others, and I use those words “cruel and sadistic”, because I think that’s how they behave.
Q. How much of that do you attribute to the lingering effect, shall we say, of Peter Ball, because the events you describe sort of postdated Peter Ball’s caution and resignation?
A. Well, there’s an expression used in Australia to refer to the bench of bishops, they don’t refer to the bench of bishops, but they refer to the “purple circle”, and the purple circle exists pretty much in every national church within Anglicanism. It no doubt exists in other episcopally-led churches. They support one another in a sort of club-like way. If anyone attacks one of them, they will, as a group, as a sort of collective conscience and in action, seek to destroy the person who is making complaints about one individual. Now, don’t take my testimony alone from this. There is former — in fact, the recently retired bishop of Newcastle in NSW, Australia, who was a victim of sexual abuse there, and he described his treatment — he said it is like an ecclesiastical protection racket. That is the culture within Anglicanism and no doubt within other episcopally-led church. It is an ecclesiastical protection racket, and anyone who seeks in any way to threaten the reputation of the church as an institution has to be destroyed. That is the primary thing, and that is the culture within Anglicanism.
MOLTMANN is a Protestant theologian, deeply rooted in the tradition of the Reformed Church, which he chose over the Lutheran tradition of his native Hamburg — not least because of the clearer stance of Reformed theologians such as Barth, in the Barmen Declaration, which voiced the Confessing Church’s opposition to Nazism.
Fifty-seven years after George Bell’s death, his own diocese, supported by the national Church authorities, announced that Bell had sexually abused a child between 1949 and 1953. They gave no details, and paid compensation. (The complainant later revealed herself to have been a five-year-old girl when the alleged abuse began.) The Church said it had decided against Bell ‘on the balance of probabilities’. No other such accusations — or even rumours — have ever been heard against Bell. His name was removed from buildings and institutions named after him.
A recent detailed review of the case showed that no effort had been made by the Church to consider the evidence for Bell: his voluminous papers and diaries had not been consulted, nor had living people who worked with him at that time (including one domestic chaplain, Adrian Carey, now aged 94, who spent virtually every waking moment with Bell for more than two of the years in which the abuse supposedly happened). His cause was given no legal advocate. Instead, in a process still kept secret, the ‘victim’ was believed. The normal burden of proof was reversed and so it was considered wicked to doubt her veracity.
As Chandler puts it, ‘We are asked to invest an entire authority in one testimony and to dismiss all the materials by which we have come to know the historical George Bell as mere figments of reputation.’ Of course, if Bell was guilty, his high reputation should not protect him. But we have not been given the chance to establish fairly whether he was. Jesus, of course, also suffered from unjust process. When the Church forgets this, it is not — as it claims — rejecting the dreadful child-abuse cover-ups of the past. It is dishonouring the example of its founder.
“Looks to me like this official public apology from Titus Trust is a classic case of ‘burying bad news’ while the thinking populace is being distracted by the Virus crisis – except the victims. I can’t say I’m surprised – damage limitation. The Church of England hierarchy [+ Archbishop Welby] may well be considering the same kind of apology regarding Bishop George Bell”
“Hung out to dry,” those are the words of Lord Carlile in his judgment on how the Church of England authorities treated Bishop George Bell
The Church operated a kangaroo court. Here are the facts…
Bishop George Bell (1883-1958), Bishop of Chichester, has been judged and condemned without any case brought for his defence. An elderly woman came forward in 1995 and claimed that Bishop Bell had sexually abused her fifty years earlier. The authorities took no action. The woman complained again in 2013, by which time Bishop Bell had been dead for fifty-five years. The police concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify their questioning Bishop Bell, had he been still alive. Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester, discussed the matter with Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury and in 2015 the Church of England offered a formal apology to Bishop Bell’s accuser, paid her an undisclosed sum in compensation – now revealed to have been £31,000 – and allowed her to remain anonymous. Memorials to Bishop Bell were removed and institutions – such as the Bishop Bell School, Eastbourne – changed their names.
Unsurprisingly, there was outrage. On 13th November 2015, Judge Alan Pardoe QC described the way the allegations against Bishop Bell had been handled as “slipshod and muddled.” Judge Pardoe’s criticisms were followed by further censure from a group of historians and theologians led by Jeremy Morris, Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
The Bishop of Chichester replied with insouciance and a volley of jargon to these criticisms: “The Church is seeking to move on from a culture in which manipulation of power meant that victims were too afraid to make allegations, or allegations were easily dismissed. We must provide safeguards of truth and justice for all, victim and accused alike.”
But there were no “safeguards of truth and justice” for Bishop Bell who was condemned without a hearing.
The outrage did not subside and a committee of senior church people, distinguished lawyers and members of both the Lords and the Commons calling itself The George Bell Group was formed. On 20thMarch 2016, this group published a review in which they challenged the Church’s evidence against Bishop Bell and attacked it for failing to find or interview a key witness or examine Bell’s own extensive personal archive.
On 30th June 2016, the case formed a large part of a debate in the House of Lords on historical child sex abuse.
On 28th June 2016, the Church of England announced that it would hold an independent review of the procedure used. On 22nd November 2016 it announced that Lord Carlile QC would chair this review
Meanwhile, the George Bell Group declared that they had discovered in the Church’s initial case against Bishop Bell “…enough to establish its severe limitations which render it quite inadequate as a basis for assessing the probability of Bishop Bell’s guilt. The scope of the independent experts’ inquiries was limited to a degree that made a proper analysis of the complainant’s allegations virtually impossible. What is more, little or no respect seems to have been paid to the unheard interests of Bishop Bell or his surviving family – a serious breach of natural justice.”
“In view of the evidence that we have gathered and examined, we have concluded that the allegation made against Bishop Bell cannot be upheld in terms of actual evidence or historical probability.”
Lord Carlile’s report was handed to the Church authorities two months ago and they kicked it into the long grass until last Friday.
So much for Bishop Martin Warner’s vaunted “…safeguards of truth and justice for all, victim and accused alike.” All along, the only interests being safeguarded here were those of the Church’s highest authorities in Chichester and Canterbury. We know very well why these authorities leapt so precipitately to condemn Bishop Bell out of hand: it was because they had previously had to admit to the existence of so many perpetrators of sexual abuse among the senior clergy they wanted desperately to appear to be doing something.
Thus the reputation of Bishop George Bell was tarnished because the Church’s highest authorities are seeking to cover their own backs.
Let us be in no doubt as to the seriousness of the Church’s conduct so eloquently set out in Lord Carlile’s report. To that phrase “hung out to dry,” he adds that the Church’s procedures were “deficient, inappropriate and impermissible”; “obvious lines of enquiry were not followed” and there was “a rush to judgement.”
In the light of this scandalously incompetent behaviour, the least that might be expected from the Archbishop of Canterbury is a profuse apology to Bishop Bell’s descendants, family, friends and numerous supporters for the distress his decisions have caused them. Is such an apology forthcoming? It is not. Instead Justin Welby persists in his mood of arrogant vindictiveness, saying, “……..A significant cloud is left over George Bell’s name. No human being is entirely good or bad. Bishop Bell was in many ways a hero. He is also accused of great wickedness. Good acts do not diminish evil ones…”
This is outrageous. True, Bishop Bell was “accused of great wickedness” – but he was not found guilty of any wrongdoing. And there is no “significant cloud” over his name. There is, however, certainly a very dark cloud over Welby’s name after his lamentable performance in this matter.
Well, there is still time: a whole week in which Justin Welby has opportunity to make his Confession before he celebrates Christmas Holy Communion.
“The legal cases of Cardinal George Pell and Bishop George Bell are very different, but there are parallels which cannot be ignored – such as the critical importance of Presumption of Innocence in the endless quest for justice and fairness”
In 1907, when the English Court of Criminal Appeal was first set up, there were warnings that it would undermine the authority of the jury, since it could overturn a guilty verdict (though not an acquittal). And it is easy to see why some defenders of juries were worried. A principle can be undermined from more than one direction. But as it happened, the danger to juries came from a different source—from the increasing egalitarianism of society itself, and the resulting politicization of so many trials. Judges became less elitist and more political, as did prosecutors. The sexual revolution created a whole new class of crimes, and created a whole new set of procedures to try them. It granted anonymity to accusers, a change that met with surprisingly weak opposition.
I did not really understand the force of this until I found myself unexpectedly defending the long-dead Bishop George Bell against ancient charges of child sex abuse. Bishop Bell could not be tried because he was deceased. But the Church of England’s treatment of his case very much reflected the new arrangements. He was more or less presumed guilty. His unnamed accuser was designated a victim and a “survivor,” not an alleged victim, before any inquiry began. The procedure that adjudged him guilty, in private, did not follow the presumption of innocence and made no serious effort to discover if there was a defense (there was). I found to my shock that an inaccurate claim—that he would have been arrested if alive—persuaded many apparently fair-minded, educated, and intelligent people of his guilt, though an arrest is evidence of nothing at all. Thanks to some truly dedicated and determined work by many selfless people, and some very good legal work as well, the thing was more or less set right. But a grudging Church of England has yet to make full restitution.
So when I saw the case in Australia against Cardinal George Pell, it was not just the similar name that aroused my interest. I knew from a recent visit to Sydney that Australia had undergone an anti-religious revolution. I knew very well how powerful allegations of child abuse had been in weakening the Church. My instincts were to believe that George Pell, who behaved like an innocent man, had been wrongly accused. But what if this was just bias? I sought to keep an open mind. I would presume the cardinal was innocent, but would not let my Christian sympathy close my mind to serious evidence against him. I had taken the same view in the Bell case. I resolved at the beginning never to be afraid of the truth. If the evidence against George Bell was convincing beyond reasonable doubt, then I would have to change my view of a man whose brave and selfless actions I had much admired. I would have to accept that the world was a bleaker, worse place than even I had feared. I knew well enough that there were pedophile priests. The same had to apply to Cardinal Pell.
And then a strange silence fell over the trial. I know that there were valid legal reasons for this silence, but it still seems to me that some way should have been found for a case of such moment to be heard openly and reported openly, while it was going on. When Pell was convicted, I felt I had to accept the verdict because I was in no position to dispute it, and had not heard what the jury had heard. But the whole sky darkened at the news. If such a man was guilty of such a filthy thing, and a jury had agreed upon this after a fair trial, then the forces of goodness were in rapid and frightening retreat.
And then, amid the dismal suppression of freedom and the economic lunacy now gripping the world, came a sudden shaft of light. The High Court of Australia overturned the verdict and freed Cardinal Pell. And then I read what they had said. It was startling and disturbing, not because there was any ambiguity in it, but because of something else. A court statement declared,
The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.
The judges ruled:
On the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents.
This seems to me to be a very polite way of suggesting that the jury did not entertain that reasonable doubt. I may be very grateful that the High Court took this view, because it seems to me that justice was done when George Pell was freed. But will there always be such High Courts, and will most people be able to reach them? In this egalitarian world, in which a series of inglorious revolutions has wholly changed the nature of justice, I am not sure that the old English jury is much of a defense anymore. And I cannot begin to say how sad this makes me.
May 7 2020 – From The Archives [May 3 2001 – “Dean denies cover-up” (page 2) – Chichester Observer (mentioned by Carmi Report 2004 – along with the Saturn Centre Crawley Hospital)[Recommendations only in 2004 – Terence Banks et al not mentioned until 2014]
May 7 2020 – From The Archives [2015 – “Chichester in the 1960’s” by Alan H.J. Green [History Press 2015]– highlighting the work of Chichester Town Clerk Eric Banks [1901-1989] – father of Terence Banks – and Chichester Mayor Harry Bell [no relation to Bishop George Bell]
May 25 2020 – “The Archbishop of Canterbury (Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge) does not appear to have grasped the basic principle, and golden thread, of justice – the principle of the presumption of innocence and due process – which is at the heart of English law”
“This isn’t the first time Welby has jumped on a bandwagon without engaging his brain. He condemned the long-dead and much-revered Bishop George Bell of Chichester for child abuse, without bothering to find out if the accusation was credible, a condemnation now criticized by a succession of official reports”
“I have argued for a long while that the bishops of the Church of England exercise oversight over an institution, at times severely compromised. Our Church seems to operate on two levels, and it needs leadership for both these aspects. The first is the theological or ideal aspect. This attempts to embody and articulate the spirit and the ethos of its founder. Thus, the Church would be expected to enrich us all by being a place of reconciliation, healing, forgiveness and joy. The other aspect of the Church is the physical reality of its institutional embodiment. This involves buildings, money and power. It is extremely hard for this second dimension of the Church’s existence to remain anywhere approaching moral perfection. Whenever power and money come into any situation, there will almost inevitably be conflict of some kind. In the Church’s institutional life, as we constantly remind our readers, power games are often played, selfishness is common, and people are often exploited and treated badly. You expect such behaviour in institutions in general, but somehow you always hope that the Church will operate according to a different set of rules and values. Sadly this does not seem to be the case”
Stephen Parsons
May 28 2020 – “THE CHURCH ‘BELL’ CORE GROUP WAS A KANGAROO COURT OF MORAL AND LEGAL INCOMPETENTS WHO CASUALLY DISPENSED WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE FOR BISHOP BELL AND WANTONLY THREW HIM UNDER A BUS IN A DESPICABLE ACT OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AND INJUSTICE”
But the word “safeguarding” sends the Church of England’s leadership into a spin, as his detractors presumably knew. The wily Censors went directly to the National Safeguarding Team rather than the local diocese in Oxford. They also retained the church’s own lawyers, Winkworth Sherwood – and hired its favourite PR firm, Luther Pendragon, to brief selected hacks.
Yet Percy is not accused of breaching any C of E safeguarding protocols. Nor does he even work for the Church of England: he is employed directly by Christ Church, Oxford. Only a few months ago the National Safeguarding Team declined to take action against Revd Jonathan Fletcher, a proven serial abuser, on the grounds that he didn’t technically work for the C of E, even though he had been a parish priest for 35 years (Eye 1513).
With Percy, however, there were scores to settle. The dean is not much loved in Church House Westminster, having helped to expose its mishandling of the false allegations against Bishop George Bell (an alumnus of Christ Church). Instead of telling the college to sort itself out, the C of E has decided to form one of its notorious Core Groups. The Core Group convened to deal with the Percy problem appears to breach the House of Bishops’ own rules. These say that if a complaint is made against someone who is engaged in a statutory process (such as an employment tribunal), that must be completed before the church has its go. Percy’s employment case will not be heard until the autumn of 2021.
The church has swept aside these obstacles and set up a secretive investigation. The dean himself is not represented on the Core Group, and not allowed to know who is on it or when it meets. But two of the complainants from the college, including Senior Censor Geraldine Johnson, are members. It is hard to see what the group can achieve. It can’t question the students whose safeguarding issues the dean allegedly mishandled, since they did not make any complaints and their identity is not known. It can’t ask the dean, since the students spoke to him in confidence. And it can’t see Sir Andrew Smith’s report exonerating the dean, because the Censors have censored it.
May 29 2020 – Richard Scorer: “The understandable concern expressed here is that Church House has it in for Martyn Percy because of his campaigning over Bell”
Richard W. Symonds: “What is less understandable, but equally of deepest concern, is why Church House still has it in for Bishop George Bell. They had no such problem with Bishop Peter Ball at the time”
“Justin Welby seems to have made it his trademark to apologize for everything and anything which the ‘wokeratari’ will applaud,” Anglican cleric Melvin Tinker told Church Militant.
“But the archapologizer of Canterbury is very selective about what he will apologize for. Most ordinary people couldn’t care less for what he has to say anyway,” said Tinker, a well-known critic of cultural Marxism and author of That Hideous Strength: How the West Was Lost.
“There is no personal apology for the character assassination of Bp. George Bell or the dreadful sexual abuse of Fr. Matthew Ineson — both left lying wounded on the road while the archbishop happily passes by on the other side leaving it to other ‘Good Samaritans’ to take up their causes,” the vicar of St. John Newland Church in Hull remarked.
Welby had tarnished the name of Bp. Bell, who stood against Hitler by insisting that Bell was guilty of pedophilia, even after the Lord Carlile Review exonerated him. Ineson was repeatedly raped by an Anglican vicar when he was 16 years old.
Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops: Q27
“The Church has embraced the concept of “unconscious bias”: will the Secretary General and the NSSP urgently review the composition of the Martyn Percy Core Group and confirm to General Synod members within a month, that having considered the importance of fair and proper process, they can assure us that that Core Group process was free from unconscious bias, and that the Core Group decisions were untainted by it?”
The Bishop of Huddersfield to reply on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:
“A House of Bishops practice guidance “Responding to, assessing, and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against church officers” (2017) provides that the membership of core groups should not comprise those who may have a conflict of interest or loyalty. We are not able to respond to specific ongoing cases but as a general rule we would accept that as far as is reasonably possible in the circumstances of each case, a core group’s work should be free from bias and we always keep the membership of core groups under review where there is a challenge on the grounds of potential bias”
“The case seems to be full of potential conflicts of interest which make it almost impossible for the Core Group to work with an adequate level of independence. There are just too many personal ties that exist between the Dean’s accusers and the publicity companies and legal firms who have now become involved in the case…….
“Dedicated to my late mother…And to all victims of the False Allegations Industry – but also to the genuinely abused who suffer most from the crimes of false accusers”
The Very Revd Professor Martyn Percy – Photo:: Church Times
July 24 2020 – “Having people on a core group with a conflict of interest is simply not sustainable and is, on the face of it, unlawful. And to fail to allow the person to represent themselves, or be represented, in the full knowledge of the accusation, is not sustainable, and is, on the face of it, unlawful” ~ Lord Alex Carlile QC
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
“The professional approach is to neither believe nor disbelieve the complainant and their allegation. There is no right or entitlement for a complainant to be believed, but there is a right and entitlement for a complainant to be treated with respect, to take their allegation seriously, to listen with compassion, and to record the facts clearly. It would appear the Church regarded ‘Carol’ as a victim to be believed at all costs. There seems to have been a panicked rush to judgement in which an astonishing lack of judgement was made manifest. Bishop Bell was an easy target, disposable and dispensable…’thrown under the bus’ for reasons unknown” ~ Richard W. Symonds
The Rev’d Dr Jules Gomes is an outspoken defender of Bishop Bell, who was posthumously accused of child abuse but exonerated by the Lord Carlile Review, which found that the Church of England’s processes were deficient and failed to give proper consideration to the rights of the accused.
However, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, went on to claim that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’ and refused to apologise even after seven distinguished British historians wrote an open letter affirming there was no evidence that Bishop Bell had ever committed such an act.
One of Dr Gomes’ qualifications for defending George Bell is his own experience of the corruption of the Church of England’s operation of trial by tribunal.
In 2015, a Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) was brought against Dr Gomes, a hugely successful preacher and pastor on the Isle of Man, after he filed a Petition of Doleance in Tynwald, the island’s national parliament. The petition called for greater protection from bullying and harassment for clergy, who are not regarded as ‘employees’ by law in the British Isles.
The Archdeacon of Man, Andie Brown, accused Dr Gomes of misconduct by bringing up a wide range of allegations against him. One of these accusations was made by Bishop Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark, who claimed that Dr Gomes was ‘excessively opposed to Freemasonry’ during his tenure as Chaplain to the Old Royal Naval College…
The Church of England says it is in the process of launching a fresh investigation into allegations of sexual abuse concerning the former Bishop of Chichester, George Bell.
A statement from the Church confirmed ‘fresh evidence’ has been brought to light concerning Bishop Bell, and that they would work collaboratively with Sussex Police.
Bishop Bell was accused of abusing a woman over a four year period, starting when she was five-years-old in the 1940s and 50s.
He was the Bishop of Chichester for almost 30 years until his death in 1958.
In 2015, the Church made a formal public apology to the alleged victim, known as ‘Carol’, and paid her £16,800 following the settlement of a legal civil claim.
The handling of the allegations triggered furious reaction from Bell’s supporters, who said his reputation had been ruined.
In December last year, an independent inquiry led by Lord Carlile criticised the church for a ‘rush to judgment’ over the case, saying that although the C of E acted in good faith it failed to give proper consideration to the rights of the accused.
The Church of England subsequently apologised to the family of Bishop Bell.
A spokesperson for the Church of England said: “This new information was received following the publication of the Carlile Review, and is now being considered through the Core Group and in accordance with Lord Carlile’s recommendations.
“The Core Group is now in the process of commissioning an independent investigation in respect of these latest developments.
“As this is a confidential matter we will not be able to say any more about this until inquiries have concluded.”
Vigil outside Chichester Cathedral – Sunday April 3 2016 [from right to left: Tim Hudson, Charlotte Evans, Unknown, Richard Symonds, Peter Billingham, Marilyn Billingham, Meriel Wilmot-Wright, Unknown, Unknown]
The bishops’ move came after [Pope] Francis said the Chilean church hierarchy was collectively responsible for “grave defects” in handling sexual abuse cases and the resulting loss of credibility suffered by the church.
He accused them of destroying evidence of sexual crimes, putting pressure on investigators to downplay abuse accusations and showing “grave negligence” in protecting children from paedophile priests.
Sept 1 2020 – From The Archives [June 9 2018 – Opus Bono
“Ruining the name of clergy is unfortunately rather easy and is even easier once the person is deceased. Once the press picks it up and if it is outside the statute of limitations, at least in the USA, anyone can say anything. The best way to counteract the attacks is to make sure your voice is heard and try to make it louder than the negative. BUT the raw truth is once it starts and if it gets legs, then damage is done and cannot be undone” – PF
“Who controls the voices and the volume?” – Richard W. Symonds
“Monsignor William McCarthy paints a picture embracing a situation that is almost impossible to comprehend. Had I not stood by him throughout the years of pure hell he experienced, I would not have believed the outright calumny by a detective, and how the subsequent action of his bishop and diocesan staff could have occurred. Child abuse is a terrible thing, but equally horrible is when innocent priests are unjustly condemned and destroyed by the hierarchy of their church.”
~ Arthur N. Hoagland, M.D. [‘The Conspiracy’ back-cover]
“This book is a must read for any…who loves their Church but is concerned about its often self-destructive response to the tragedy of clerical pedophilia. It is a story about tragedy and triumph. The tragedy of the Church that Monsignor McCarthy loves deeply, and into which he has selflessly devoted his entire life, but is sometimes governed by people who have lost all sense of justice. It is a Church that betrayed him. In its attempt to protect the victims of child abuse, it established a new category of victims: its faithful priests. The triumph of Monsignor McCarthy is his faith and love of Jesus, which saw him through his terrible ordeal in spite of the evil that was perpetuated against him.”H
~ Deacon Joseph Keenan [‘The Conspiracy’ back-cover]
“Justice demands that the guilty pay, but it also demands that the innocent not suffer. On June 15-18 [2011], the bishops will meet in Seattle, and one of the items they are expected to address is the issue of accused priests and fairness in dealing with them.”
Epilogue – Chapter 79 – “The Conspiracy – An Innocent Priest” – Monsignor William McCarthy
I wrote to the former Vicar General of the diocese, requesting an interview. I wanted to go face-to-face with the person who was directly responsible for my destruction … I was told he had strongly advised my former bishop to proceed with my censure.
On March 3, 2009, we both sat down in his office facing each other. I began by opening my Bible to John 7 : 51, and read: “Nicodemus spoke out, ‘Does our law condemn a person without first hearing him and knowing the facts?'”
I then asked him point blank: “Why did you condemn me without hearing me and knowing the facts?”
He replied, “Bill, we were following the system.”
“What system?” I pressed.
“Orders from Dallas,” he said, “when they hastily put together that charter.”
I looked him squarely in the eyes and stated, “That’s what they said at the Nuremberg Trials – ‘We were only following orders.'”
When he didn’t respond, I continued: “They were all convicted of crimes against humanity. In 2003, the diocese also committed a crime against humanity – me in particular. They did not lift a finger to help me. The diocese, particularly you as Vicar General, was reckless and impetuous in censuring me, and calling for my execution as a priest. You behaved badly! Instead of prudently investigating the accusation you rushed to judgement and as a result, you caused me extraordinary damage. You were reckless!”
Again he didn’t respond…
I asked him why I was not brought before the Board that was established for that very reason – why was I not given a chance to present my side of the story?
“One: You never spoke to the detective. Two: You never spoke to my accusers. Three: You never spoke to me, the accused. However, you proceeded in concert with the bishop and the promoter of justice to censure me. You put blind faith in the detective’s report…and accepted it as infallible…
“Bill,” the former Vicar General interrrupted, “we were acting in good faith.”
At that point I almost lost it…”How hypocritical!! You then published in the diocesan newspaper, over the entire front page, the whole sordid story which ruined my health, my reputation, my life. I suffered the humilation of being a censured priest for five long years until finally, through the conclusion of an ecclesiastical trial, I was unanimously declared innocent.”…
I asked the former Vicar General how he could justify his behavior.
Once again, he had no answer, except to meekly offer, “Sorry, Bill, we made a mistake.”
“I forgive you,” I said evenly, “but I will never forget. My life is irreversibly tarnished. I suffer from chronic flashbacks and panic attacks.
“So that my suffering will not be in vain, I want you to go public with an apology to the Press – and further, that you write to the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C., Archbishop Sambi, and demand that he make a concerted effort to revise that weapon of mass destruction of our priests – that instrument known as the Dallas Charter.
The former Vicar General promised me he would do his best. I must give him credit for his calm demeanor and humility. I got the impression he was not just paying me lip service; and that he would indeed at least make the effort to correct the wrong that he had done. He not only acted like he knew he was guilty; he accepted the blame, which made me think deep down, he was doing what Jesus would want him to do.
Sept 1 2020 – From The Archives [June 11 2018 – “Hope Springs Eternal In The Priestly Breast” – ‘A Research Study on Procedural Justice for Priests’ by James Valladares [iUniverse 2012]
“The Caiaphas Principle” – ‘Bishops, who are supposed to be fathers, brothers, and friends to their priests, have instead become mere managers with institutional damage control as their top priority’ (Foreword p. xiv – Rev Michael P. Orsi)
Sept 1 2020 – From The Archives [June 11 2018 – From The Archives – July 9 2010 – “False Accusations” by John Landry http://www.catholicity.com – Quoted in “Hope Springs Internal in the Priestly Breast – A Research Study on Procedural Justice for Priests” by Fr. James Valladares – Page 200 – “Where is Justice for Falsely Accused Priests?”]
A person can be authentically telling the truth as they perceive it, whilst being factually wrong. The case is not two dimensional – conflating distant traumatic memories of abuse with the identity of the alleged perpetrator are separate issues.There can be some resolution by affirming Carol compassionately but acknowledging the margin for error in a young child’s mind, retold more than half a century later. The NST don’t need to bring Carol back into the situation at all. They just need to admit there is no evidence and the identity of her abuser is unknown. Lord Carlile has clearly said in his statement 1.2.19 that “George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him.” Lord Carlile is not confused over the two standards of proof; criminal or civil. He is saying that even the lower standard of civil proof is unmet. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” –
!['Bishop Bell' Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral's Private Library]](https://richardwsymonds.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/img_9510-2.jpg?w=309&resize=309%2C411#038;h=411 "img_9510 (2)")
This is Peter Hitchens’ Mail on Sunday column
JOHN SALMON/COMMONS
![1240420_6450b36f[1]](https://richardwsymonds.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/1240420_6450b36f1.jpg)
HOWARD COSTER
A refugee charity is hoping to set up a centre in Chichester to help ‘desperate’ families who have nowhere to go. People from Syria or Afghanistan who have lost their homes and family members to conflict are now being supported by Sanctuary in Chichester.To mark the anniversary of Bishop Bell’s death, last Wednesday the charity announced its aim of creating a centre to continue in the spirit of the late Bishop’s charitable work, which involved helping those fleeing Germany in the Second World War.Roger Pask, from Sanctuary in Chichester, said: “These people are desperate and in need of some help and we want the centre, when we set it up, to focus primarily on their needs. “We hope that we can accommodate between six and eight people, or perhaps four individuals and a family of four Syrians.”The organisation has said it will ‘take no position on the controversy surrounding the handling of the allegations against Bell’ of historic sexual abuse brought posthumously but it wanted to emulate his example of offering shelter to the poor and persecuted.At present, people supported by the charity are housed in church or county council premises or privately by individuals giving them a home but the group wants to raise funds to lease or even buy a centre to give more effective outreach.Roger said: “The vision is really to continue the tradition of Chichester as a compassionate, caring community that welcomes strangers. “It’s what Bell did during the war and it goes back to St Richard himself in the 11th century.”
‘Bishop Bell by Eric Kennington – Chichester City Council
Plaque – 1958
Chichester City Council – Chichester Heritage Trails – Leaflet 8 – ‘Notable people’
This Portrait is displayed at Chichester City Council in North Street. The Plaque reads: DR GEORGE KENNEDY ALLEN BELL ~ Bishop of Chichester 1929-1958 ~ Honorary Freeman of the City. This portrait by ERIC KENNINGTON was presented to the City by the Bishop on the occasion of his retirement on 31st January 1958
Bishop George Bell
Richard W. Symonds
The Rt. Revd. Peter Walker, Bishop of Ely
The Revd. Canon Professor David Jasper
Pope Pius XII
Bishop George Bell of Chichester
Pope Pius XII
Former Archbishop George Carey
Present Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner
This Brexit shambles exposes how far the Conservatives Party has degenerated. For all her faults, Mrs May remains the only adult in the room. At the top, the rest are just a bunch of self obsessed pygmies, charlatans and incompetents who should not be allowed to run a whelk stallA good PM she is most emphatically not. But listening – and more specifically – watching Theresa May’s speech today, there are three qualities not even her worst enemies would deny her. Duty, Determination and Desperation.
Unusually, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened in this debate to respond to this pressure from the floor. He revealed that both he and the Archbishop of York were to give further evidence to IICSA next week. He was heard in total silence as he said that on a previous occasion at IICSA he had broken down while speaking. Bishops do speak from the heart, he said.
SAM ATKINS/CHURCH TIMES Phil Johnson
It’s been encouraging to hear many witnesses at the ICSA Anglican Hearing call for safeguarding decision-making to be removed from church hierarchy, especially bishops. The main reason given for this was the lack of professional training and experience to make such decisions….
!['Bishop Bell' Portrait Photograph by Howard Coster 1953 [stored by the Canon Librarian in Chichester Cathedral's Private Library]](https://richardwsymonds.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/img_9510-2.jpg?w=204&resize=204%2C204#038;h=204&crop=1 "img_9510 (2)")
![George Bell House - 4 Canon Lane - Chichester Cathedral - before the name change [Picture: Alamy]](https://richardwsymonds.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/d5w5mf-1.jpg?w=204&resize=204%2C204#038;h=204&crop=1 "George Bell House - 4 Canon Lane - Chichester Cathedral")
Anne Dawson 
The Bell Society 
Actually, if there is any peotic justice in this world, then Welby and his collaborators of this farce should ideally end up accused of something they didn’t do and be the ones on the receiving end of a karangoo court while they are still living. Maybe then they will recant and see the error of their ways vis-a-vis Bishop George Bell.
Posted by: Francis Hodson | 28 July 2018 at 06:40 PM
As much as I would like to help by monetary donation, I simply cannot afford to do so at this current time. I’m glad to see a revived blog post on this subject and one that is to some minor extent positive, as I recall the last update here was regarding the CofE’s renewed assault on Bishop Bell’s reputation soon after Lord Carlile’s report on the initial mishandling of the case, and the subsequent reprehensible denial of the right to choose representation by his only remaining living relative. It really makes me despair that the supposed moral guardians of our times are instead the very ones peddling mendacious deceit. Clearly they have no understanding or no care of the religion they purport to live by and represent. Utterly contemptible behaviour – more in league with Beezlebub than Christ – and I can only wish the current Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and his duplicitous cohorts the very worst for the future.
Posted by: Francis Hodson | 28 July 2018 at 06:32 PM