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)
“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
The Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised the BBC over its response to Jimmy Savile
The BBC has defended itself against criticism from the Archbishop of Canterbury that it lacked ‘integrity’ in its response to the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal.
Archbishop Justin Welby said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the corporation had not shown the same integrity the Anglican and Catholic churches had.
Invited to reflect on the programmes 60th anniversary of being on air, he said: ‘I think we are a kinder society more concerned with our own failures, more willing to be honest where we go wrong in most of our institutions.’ But there were still ‘dark areas’.
He continued: ‘If I’m really honest, I’d say the BBC is one. I haven’t seen the same integrity over the BBC’s failures over Savile as I’ve seen in the Roman Catholic Church, in the Church of England, in other public institutions over abuse. We may be proved wrong about that but you know that’s one area.’
The Archbishop also referred to the dispute over the pay gap between men and women at the BBC, and said that in the church, male and female bishops received exactly the same stipends.
Archbishop Welby was speaking just weeks before Lord Carlile publishes his review into how the Church of England handled a claim by ‘Carol’ into allegations of abuse by the late Bishop George Bell of Chichester, who died in 1958.
In Australia, where the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches have been under investigation by a royal commission into institutional child sex abuse, and the Catholic Cardinal George Pell is facing multiple historic child sex abuse charges, only yesterday it emerged that one victim was forced to take the Anglican Church to court over failure to pay a $1.5 million settlement.
The BBC, Church of England and Roman Catholic Church will all be examined soon in the UK’s own version of the Australian commission, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay. This December, the UK inquiry will look at the English Benedectines and next March, at the Church of England’s Chichester diocese.
Meanwhile six church sex abuse survivors silence condemned the Archbishop’s attack on the BBC.
In a statement they said: ‘Speaking from our own bitter experience, we do not recognise Archbishop Welby’s description of the integrity with which the Church of England handles cases of abuse in a church context.
‘Far from the ‘rigorous response and self-examination’ he claims, our experience of the church, and specifically the archbishop, is of long years of silence, denial and evasion. The Church of England needs to confront its own darkness in relation to abuse before confronting the darkness of others.’
Matthew Ineson, who as a teen was raped by a C of E vicar, Trevor Devamanikkam, who killed himself just before he was due to appear in court to answer to the charges, told The Guardian: ‘I know from my own experience, and the experience of others, that safeguarding within the C of E is appalling.
‘The church has colluded with the cover-up of abuse and has obstructed justice for those whose lives have been ruined by the actions of its clergy. I have been fighting for five years for the church to recognise its responsibilities and I’m still being met with attempts to bully me into dropping my case.’
A BBC spokesman defended the corporation. He said: ‘This isn’t a characterisation we recognise. When the Savile allegations became known we established an independent investigation by a High Court judge. In the interests of transparency, this was published in full. We apologised and accepted all the recommendations.
‘And while today’s BBC is a different place, we set out very clear actions to ensure the highest possible standards of child safeguarding.’
Regarding the Archbishop’s comments on the gender pay gap, the BBC added: ‘Gender pay is a challenge for all organisations not just the BBC. The national gender pay gap is 18 percent. The BBC’s is under ten percent and we have committed to closing it in 2020. We know we have to go further and faster. We are not unique in this. The Church of England’s own published pay gap for non-office holders is 41 percent. We all collectively have more work to do, to sort an issue that is a problem across the vast majority of organisations.’
Lambeth Palace said: ‘We fully accept the failures of the Church of England in the area of safeguarding.
‘Since the Archbishop took up his role, he has been very clear that the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults should be the highest priority of all parts of the Church and was one of the first to call for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).
‘The Church’s National Safeguarding Team was created in 2015 and there are now robust House of Bishops safeguarding policies in place along with independent audits for all dioceses and dedicated training on hearing disclosures for all senior clergy.
‘The Archbishop fully supports the Church’s commitment to develop a stronger national approach to safeguarding to improve its response to protecting the vulnerable.
‘The Archbishop believes this level of rigorous response and self-examination needs to extend to all institutions, including the BBC.’
“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]
“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]
The Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised the BBC over its response to Jimmy Savile
!['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&h=411 "img_9510 (2)")
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