It is such processes that distinguish us from lynch mobs, be they in dusty Mississippi towns, dustier Iraqi ones – or on Twitter
Bishop George Bell, who was described by Charles Moore as ‘nearest thing to a saint since Richard of Chichester’. Photograph: Topical Press Agency/Getty Images
Mon 8 Feb 2016 14.32 GMT
It looks as if the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, is edging towards an apology to Field Marshall Lord Bramall, 92, over unfounded allegations of child sex abuse and that some kind of further apology is coming to the family of the late Leon Brittan. It’s too late to do him much good, as it is to former prime minister Edward Heath, also caught up by some wildly improbable allegations.
Monday’s report by senior Dorset police officer James Vaughan into the Met’s handling of the Brittan allegations shows how complicated such historical claims can be.
Vaughan’s report says detectives were “fully justified” in pursuing a “fairly compelling account” of rape in 1967 but only made to police in 2012, though procedural mistakes were made.
Newspapers that made hay with separate lurid claims of sexual abuse and worse, made by someone known as “Nick” and others, later switched sides, as their reporting of Vaughan confirms.
His report did not say Brittan would have been cleared, only that an acquittal was more likely than a conviction.
It’s worth noting in passing that Vaughan concluded that a key police officer in the Brittan case misunderstood the law on consent and it would have been reasonable to arrest the former cabinet minister, which nearly happened but didn’t. As so often, loose ends need tidying up.
But is (arguably) the most distinguished of all those accused, George Bell, bishop of Chichester (1929-58) – a saint by some reckonings – being quietly traduced by the Church of England to cover its own back?
I’ve made some inquiries but don’t claim to know the definitive answer. Others are furious in his defence. One of them, ex-Telegraph editor and formidable Thatcher biographer Charles Moore thinks Bell has been stitched up by the police and his church. This case is again bubbling up this week thanks to a scoop in the Brighton Argus – of which more later.
Why should only rightwing pundits (Peter Hitchens is also on the case) and churchgoers be concerned? In January, the redoubtable cleric Giles Fraser weighed in in the Guardian. Fraser is agnostic about Bell’s guilt but says due process and the rights of a much-admired bishop to be defended have left the church asking to have too much taken on trust.
Due process and a fair hearing should matter to secular progressives as much as they do to both sides in the Julian Assange case and other legal controversies. But Bell should appeal to the left because he was a brave and early opponent of the Nazis (when the Daily Mail was still playing footsie), a friend and ally of the great and murdered Dietrich Bonhoeffer, of Gandhi and TS Eliot, a champion of refugees.
Perhaps most compelling of all, during the second world war Bell was a courageous critic of Allied bombing of German civilian targets. I’m not sure I’d have agreed with him but it took guts. It may also have cost him the archbishopric of Canterbury.
Was this the man who also did cruel and wicked things to a small girl in his care under the pretext of reading her a bedtime story a few years later? The question is hard to answer at 65 years’ distance. Human nature has a dark side, as Bell, who saw Hitlerism close up, knew better than most.
Like Dorset copper Vaughan’s reading of the account of “Jane”, Brittan’s alleged rape victim, I found her story chilling and – on the face of it – persuasive. So was Argus reporter Joel Adams on Radio 4.
Others I have spoken to dismiss it. In his Telegraph column on Monday Charles Moore protests that those who knew and loved Bell, some still alive, have not been given a chance to defend him, that no lawyer was appointed to sift the evidential record of the time.
Warner is using Carol as “a human shield” to protect his own procedural failings, he argues.
On Sunday, Hitchens also returned to the fray, citing an admission by Paul Butler, the bishop of Durham, the No 3 man in C of E’s hierarchy and charged with supervising these cases. Butler said in the Lords (column 1,516, pdf) that Bell was “an astounding man” and that, after careful consideration, the church was not saying he actually did what he is alleged to have done.
“There has been no declaration that we are convinced that this took place. It’s about the balance of probabilities,” Butler told peers.
That’s quite a stroke and not how the “Bell guilty, admits church” headlines told it last October. Here’s Warner’s latest statement. My own inquiries shed light in both directions. Friends who know church politics and gossip very well tell me the diocese of Chichester has had an unsavoury reputation for sexual misconduct for decades, as demonstrated by the Peter Ball case. He was finally jailed last year at 83 despite friends in high places.
The issue was compounded by a geographical split in which posher West Sussex – around Chichester and its handsome 12th-century cathedral – is a centre of high church Anglo-Catholicism, whereas East Sussex was until recently the territory of south-coast evangelical Anglicans, some of whom are anti-women, anti-gay. It is not quite Shia and Sunni, but C of E’s culture wars have been nasty, and still are.
Given the shaming of the Catholic church worldwide and Anglicanism closer to home, given the uproar over paedophilia and establishment cover-ups (some bits real, others the fruit of malign or damaged imagination), it’s easy to see why Lambeth Palace seems to have prudently sacrificed the reputation of a long dead bishop under the leadership of Justin Welby.
It’s also disappointing. Those close to Rowan Williams, the last archbishop, are categorical that they have no record that a complaint against Bell reached Lambeth on his watch circa 2010. The buck passes. Meanwhile, local buildings and institutions named in honour of Bell are being renamed, no Cecil Rhodes reprieve for him.
Yet for justice to be done and seen to be done, process matters. Bell may or may not be guilty. But quasi saints do not come along very often and the comments of those who have affected his reputation need to be examined.
Process matters, the right to a proper police investigation and legal defence matters for the guilty as much as the innocent. It is that responsibility which distinguishes us from lynch mobs, be they in dusty Mississippi towns, dustier Iraqi ones – or on Twitter.
Well let’s get it out of the way. All child abuse is wrong and horrible. All claims of child abuse should be investigated properly and the offenders, if found to be guilty in a court of law, should be flung into prison for a very, very long time.
So now we’ve done the formalities. There is much discontent with the Church of England’s behaviour over the way it has handled abuse allegations against one of its greatest sons, George Bell – a great ecumenist, liturgist, wartime leader and friend to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church.
It was announced last week that a legal civil claim has been settled by the Diocese of Chichester regarding sexual abuse claims against Bishop Bell. The allegation was first made in 1995 and was not reported to the police. The case was reopened in 2013 and now an unknown sum of money has been handed over.
But why on earth is the Church of England traducing the reputation of one of its greatest wartime spiritual leaders on the basis of recent allegations about the events of 65 years ago? We talk about cases of historic abuse in reference to Jimmy Savile crimes during the 60s, 70s and 80s, but this case is truly prehistoric.
Bishop Bell died in 1958 and the crimes of abuse he is alleged to have committed against a young child date from the late 40s and early 50s when the Bishop himself was in his late 60s and early 70s.
He is effectively being tried and convicted by the Church of England with little thought for proper justice and due process.
“We are all diminished by what we are being told,” said the modern Bishop of Chichester. He goes on to explain: “Our starting point is response to the survivor. We remain committed to listening to all allegations of abuse with an open mind. In this case, the scrutiny of the allegation has been thorough, objective and undertaken by people who command the respect of all parties.
“We face with shame a story of abuse of a child; we also know that the burden of not being heard has made the experience so much worse. We apologise for the failures of the past.”
And here much of the problem lies. The starting point must be justice, not just a concern for the ‘survivor’, because that is to jump to conclusions. The Bishop, and the independent assessors, have missed out a vital part of the process of justice that is that the accused is presumed innocent and has the right to defend themselves.
The indecent haste to describe Bishop George Bell as an abuser is a failure of nerve on the part of the Church of England. The diocese of Chichester may have failed to respond properly when the allegation of abuse was first reported in 1995, and although the accuser was offered pastoral support, this should not lead to any sort of admission of guilt on behalf of George Bell.
There is hysteria and a lynch-mob mentality surrounding some of the cases of historic abuse. We have seen this in the false allegations of murder, rape and ritual abuse made against politicians such as Ted Heath, Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor. The Church is now as much a part of this overreaction as any other part of society.
Of course there are historic cases of abuse, and there was a long period of time when child protection procedures were unknown and reports of abuse were dealt with poorly. There were cover-ups and failures to believe the victims of abuse. But we’ve had at least two decades of improving things, legislating and regulating to make sure that protections are better, and that children are properly listened to and dealt with.
These improvements should have lessened the sense of hysteria and panic surrounding these cases. Abusers such as Jimmy Savile could never have thrived in today’s climate of safeguarding. Yet the case of George Bell proves that we are living in a state of perpetual and rising fears over allegations of child abuse and we in the Church of England have no answers to these fears. In fact, we are complicit in the lynch mob.
Remember the ritual abuse controversy of the 1980s and 1990s in which social workers and police were convinced that Satanists were involved in the mass killing and abuse of children. And there was no evidence at all in the end.
Remember also the mob that surrounded the home of a paediatrician. The witch-hunt is back and no prominent person is safe from being named – alive or dead. And if named their reputation is trashed.
This is the very opposite of the Christian faith that decries fear and says ‘judge not, lest ye be judged’.
George Bell, with his reputation for bravery, and his leadership in bringing the victims of Nazism to safety, opposing carpet-bombing of German cities and supporting the martyrs of the Confessing Church, is the type of church leader who would have confronted this lynch mob with calm courage.
There may be a stain on his reputation for a short time but his memory will be cherished again in future especially when we look back at this time of witch-hunting with a proper sense of perspective.
“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
“Beware of throwing someone under the bus. Remember: the bus can shift into reverse” ~ Janette McGowen
Dean Martyn Percy refuses to co-operate regarding the memorials at Christ Church, and strongly criticizes the Church regarding Bishop Bell. Dean Martyn Percy gets ‘thrown under the bus’ by hidden powerful forces. Dean Martyn Percy suffers orchestrated attempts to oust him by smear campaign and character assassination. Dean Martyn Percy loses any chance of becoming a Bishop.
Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner co-operates [eg regarding the memorials at Chichester Cathedral – including George Bell House et al – and does not criticize the Church regarding Bishop Bell [quite the opposite, in fact]. Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner’s ‘co-operation’ is rewarded with promotion to Lord Bishop by Archbishop Welby.
Lord Bishop George Bell refuses to co-operate with government regarding carpet bombing of Dresden et al, and strongly criticizes government. Lord Bishop George Bell loses any chance of becoming Archbishop to replace William Temple. Nearly 70 years later, Lord Bishop George Bell gets ‘thrown under the bus’ by hidden, powerful forces [eg witch-hunt, kangaroo court and lynch mob].
Further statement in response to media interest 12 January 2021
Christ Church’s Governing Body and Cathedral Chapter have decided to take forward internal disciplinary proceedings, following a complaint that was reported in October 2020. These proceedings are part of Christ Church’s HR procedures for dealing with employment issues, as set out in its Statutes.
We fully recognise that this has been an extremely distressing time for each of the parties involved, exacerbated by high levels of media interest and the strong feelings the case has generated. It is now crucial that this internal disciplinary matter is left to be resolved, formally and properly, through the correct procedures, which will include the appointment of an external, independent chair. These procedures exist to protect all of our staff, students and congregants, and Christ Church as a whole, in equal measure.
Archbishop Cranmer has already published a further article on this:
This contains much information about the letter from the Reverend Jonathan Aitken to the Chapter, mentioned here earlier, but also it reproduces the reply to him from the Reverend Canon Graham Ward. The whole article is worth reading.
COMMENTS
Rowland Wateridge 2 days ago
Worth quoting from the Statutes: Statute XXXIX – Part VII at 43(b):
“In nominating members of the Tribunal, the Chapter and the Governing Body shall exclude the Dean, and any person who has been involved in or associated with the making of the complaint or any part of it, or who has been involved in any preliminary hearing or investigation.” Reply
“the correct procedures, which will include the appointment of an external, independent chair…” …and how can trust in the process be engendered if the appointment of the ‘independent chair’ is made by the very people who have been waging what I perceive to be a historic vendetta against the Dean? I totally agree that independent and professional people should be used in handling allegations of abuse – people experienced in this specific area and recognised as having specialist excellence in this exact field. I totally agree that any complaint of abuse should be handled with utmost seriousness. We should always… Read more » Reply
Susannah: If you are unaware, the independent chair in the previous internal tribunal was a retired High Court Judge. You could hardly get more independent than that. Reply
Thank you Rowland. That is very true. However I simply don’t trust this Governing Body to do the right thing, given what I perceive to be their malicious persecution of Martyn Percy. Context matters, when it comes to navigating this Body’s actions. I do not trust them to operate with good intent. Clearly there are two important issues here: there is a woman’s plea for recognition of her complaint – and that should be handled scrupulously and independently – ideally, in my view, not by an appointee of the College, as I simply don’t trust their machinations. Secondly, there is… Read more » Reply
Susannah: There is also a concurrent CDM on the same subject which the Bishop of Oxford has delegated to the Bishop of Birmingham. The CDM was initiated first. Reply
Could somebody please remind me why the Bishop of Oxford is standing back from this process, in fact seems to be standing back from the entire situation. Is there a history to this that I am unaware of? Thanks Reply
I don’t pretend to know how it is possible for there to be a concurrent CDM against the Dean and the intended Christ Church internal tribunal on the same subject matter with the chance that there could be conflicting outcomes. I imagine the Bishop has recused himself on the same basis as Archbishop Sentamu did in the case of the CDM against the former Bishop of Chester: personal intimate acquaintance and to avoid any suggestion of lack of impartiality. Reply
It seems to me such people are recusing themselves because of spineless cowardice and lack of moral courage.Last edited 1 day ago by Richard W. Symonds Reply
The Bishop of Birmingham is a strange choice, since there are serious questions about his handling of safeguarding matters; particularly in the Tom Walker case.That case was mishandled throughout and he Bp. Urquhart ws criticised in the review. Then the victim was made to sign an NDA before being allowed to see the (redacted) review report into her own case.
It would have been better to have chosen a bishop with more credibility. Reply
May I point out, gently but very firmly, that which is obvious to anyone with moral eyes wide open [rather than moral eyes wide shut]: What is happening to Martyn Percy at the hands of the Christ Church governing body is almost exactly the same as what is happening to Bishop Bell at the hands of the Church of England hierarchy – the only difference being that one is living and the other one dead. The parallels are astonishingly similar. Both issues necessitate the same solution: A fully independent body. Perhaps the only way to resolve this, in both cases,… Read more »Last edited 1 day ago by Richard W. Symonds Reply
Thank you for saying what you do about a climate of provisional belief. If one advocates for a fair hearing for Martyn Percy by minimising or gaslighting the woman concerned, one is no better than the college dons so criticised. It is important for all victims that we see her complaint taken seriously and that she is treated with respect and compassion Reply
We have a fine line to tread here. All complainants must be taken seriously and treated with respect and compassion. All complaints must be investigated thoroughly by expert and independent professionals. In a pastoral or therapeutic context, we treat claims to have been abused as genuine. However, in public discourse, as in legal contexts, until the offence has been proved we speak of the ‘alleged’ abuser and the ‘alleged’ victim. Otherwise we violate the cardinal precept of law that the accused is innocent until proved guilty; and we risk destroying the reputation, career, health, and home of someone who may… Read more » Reply
Absolutely agree. We owe it to all victims of abuse to create a ‘climate of belief’ and there’s a real danger that, if complainants’ claims are belittled or disbelieved, that others will find it impossible to find the very great courage necessary to come forward. Again and again, there have been examples of victims ‘not being taken seriously’, especially when it involves the great and good. Conversely, it is an amazing and therapeutic experience, when a person finds the courage to come forward, and they are listened to with a strong and receptive willingness to believe. In the case in… Read more » Reply
Susannah, I worked in this field for three decades representing every kind of party. That experience gives one perspective. I go back to the Cleveland Report of 1987 where the experts correctly identified that your suggestion was wrong. In Cleveland over a hundred children were wrongly removed from families because of a mantra propagated by a bonkers paediatrician not dissimilar to what you are inadvertently advancing. It sounds reasonable but is actually very dangerous. The Courts – where there are very few complaints as to the integrity of the processes and outcomes – apply the alternative “ Always listen to… Read more » Reply
God ‘elp us all 2 days ago
So there .. It is now crucial that this internal disciplinary matter is left to be resolved, formally and properly, through the correct procedures, which will include the appointment of an external, independent chair. So- put up AND shut up? Let the stones cry out … what a shambles, what a shower. Reply
Richard W. Symonds 1 day ago
“The harrowing of Martyn Percy is no longer simply a chronic case of institutional bullying, systematic degradation and harassment, but a full-blown conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Godspeed the Judicial Review” ~ ‘Archbishop Cranmer’Last edited 1 day ago by Richard W. Symonds Reply
robert 1 day ago
Graham Ward claims to know nothing of the Surviving Church blog (see the Cranmer article), and yet that blog entry was withdrawn and then revised presumably because of legal attention – but from whom then? Is Ward denying that pressure didn’t come from Christ Church – or are the authorities at Christ Church not talking to Ward either? Reply
As the revised Surviving Church blog article explained, the intervention came in the form of a letter of complaint from Kate Wood. It’s hard to believe that happened without anybody on the Chapter knowing about it, even after the event. Reply
In the original version of the blog post, I suggested that there were things that did not add up in the narrative of the appointment of Kate Wood. She claimed to be in total prior ignorance about the case beforehand, knowing nothing of the shenanigans at Christ Church. She, a professional who had worked in safeguarding for the central Church some years before, protested that she had never heard of Dean Percy, Canon Ward and another of the complainants Canon Foot. I withdrew my incredulity and the expressions of disbelief in what I said in the second version of the blog. I also… Read more » Reply
Stephen, The Governing Body may have wished to appoint a member (or members) to the ‘first’ Tribunal in 2018/19, but they were prevented from doing so by the terms of clause 43(a) of the Statutes: 43.(a) The Tribunal appointed under clause 42 shall comprise: (i) an independent Chairman; and (ii) so many members of the Chapter as may be nominated by the Chapter; and (iii) an equivalent number of members of the Governing Body to be nominated by the Governing Body. The significant words in 43(a)(ii) are “as may be nominated by the Chapter”. So, there is no obligation on… Read more »Last edited 1 day ago by David Lamming Reply
I believe Stephen Parsons of ‘Surviving Church’ withdrew his original blog entry because of Kate Wood raising legal concerns (libel).
Whatever the truth of the matter, for Graham Ward to say he was ignorant of what ‘Surviving Church’ was saying, means he is incompetently misinformed about what is going on – and he has lost his ‘moral compass’. Reply
Rowland Wateridge 1 day ago
I don’t think the provisions about constitution of the tribunal have been correctly summarised in the ‘Church Times’ article. What the Statutes actually say is this: “The Tribunal appointed [under clause 42] shall comprise: (i) an independent Chairman; and (ii) so many members of the Chapter as may be nominated by the Chapter; and (iii) an equivalent number of members of the Governing Body to be nominated by the Governing Body.” An interesting point. The CT states that there were no nominations from the Chapter ‘last time’, but the Governing Body was represented. 0 = 0. The point is now… Read more » Reply
I have been informed that the Governing Body was not represented on the previous internal tribunal and it was agreed that Sir Andrew Smith should act alone, with the Dean consenting. Stephen Parsons has explained above that a different approach is being contemplated this time. Reply
Kate 1 day ago
This feels like the point at which it is in the interests of both college and the Dean (but not necessarily the Complainant) to reach a financial settlement sufficient for the Dean to depart without either party incurring the cost / burden of the tribunal. Reply
It’s a witch-hunt. If Martyn Percy can return to good health – which is easier said than done in the circumstances – why should he depart under pressure from what can only be called an elite ‘lynch mob’?Last edited 19 hours ago by Richard W. Symonds Reply
That’s my view too. While I’m being unapologetically Godwinian, if people had failed to resist Hitler on grounds of cost, and nice Mr Chamberlain had come to an arrangement with Hitler… well… then (in my opinion) bullies get their way. A nice polite settlement where Martyn Percy leaves is *exactly* the kind of outcome this (frankly far from elite) group of people seem to me to have been working to achieve. Of course, only Martyn Percy himself can know the harrowing impact this (what I perceive as) harrassment has had on his personal well-being, and the well-being of those he… Read more » Reply
Susannah: Please see my reply to Kate! There is a currentC of E CDM which is independent of the action being taken by Christ Church. A moment’s reflection on that should make it apparent how inappropriate your final paragraph is. Reply
Kate: I don’t think that suggestion can relate in any way to the present situation: the actuality of (1) a CDM on the part of the Church plus (2) an intended internal Christ Church disciplinary tribunal, both relating to the incident (correctly we have to say alleged incident) involving the woman in the Cathedral vestry. Neither could be ‘resolved’ by a financial deal. Reply
Richard W. Symonds 7 hours ago
Dean Martyn Percy refuses to co-operate regarding the memorials at Christ Church, and strongly criticizes the Church regarding Bishop Bell. Dean Martyn Percy gets ‘thrown under the bus’ by hidden powerful forces . Dean Martyn Percy suffers orchestrated attempts to oust him by smear campaign and character assassination. Dean Martyn Percy loses any chance of becoming a Bishop. Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner co-operates [eg regarding the memorials at Chichester Cathedral – including George Bell House et al – and does not criticize the Church regarding Bishop Bell [quite the opposite, in fact]. Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner’s ‘co-operation’ is rewarded with… Read more »Last edited 7 hours ago by Richard W. Symonds Reply
Richard W. Symonds 3 minutes agoAwaiting for approval Reply to Richard W. Symonds
It has been drawn to my attention that my statement below is inaccurate: “Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner co-operates [eg regarding the memorials at Chichester Cathedral – including George Bell House et al – and does not criticize the Church regarding Bishop Bell [quite the opposite, in fact]. Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner’s ‘co-operation’ is rewarded with promotion to Lord Bishop by Archbishop Welby” Apparently, subject to the provisions of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, the twenty-one Church of England bishops in the House of Lords – in addition to the five ex officio [Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester] – are there… Read more »Last edited 2 minutes ago by Richard W. Symonds
A general comment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3spFtfVhNz8XryJMU7D6INBCkCpIC9_zWrwQRUeXJrjJ4TstnaA-QE1DU&v=KYGs7N1F7-E&feature=youtu.be Here is an Irish TD’s (= MP) extraordinarily powerful speech in the Dail (Irish parliament) coruscating the current Taoiseach (PM, sat there) and the church and civil authorities of the past. It is all the more powerful for her measured tone. The light of her rage shines through to illuminate the path to redemption. Will the authorities take it? This is a manifestation of the demonic conjunction of the power of the institutional church in what was then a quasi-theocracy, and the spineless collusion of the authorities. It’s the same but different here with the powerful… Read more »
THE Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, the Very Revd Professor Martyn Percy, is to face another internal tribunal.
Dean Percy is both Dean of the cathedral and Master of the college. The Governing Body of the college decided on Monday to initiate a tribunal to decide whether the Dean should be removed from office after a complaint was made about an incident in the cathedral in October (News, 20 November 2020).
The alleged incident has been described as harassment, and the college has spoken of its serious nature. For the tribunal to be set up, both the cathedral chapter and the Governing Body had to judge the complaint to be “supported by sufficient evidence which could, if proved, constitute good cause for the removal of the Dean from office”. This they have both done, after an investigation by an independent investigator, Kate Wood. The college will now seek an independent senior lawyer to chair the tribunal.
The college authorities have spent a figure widely reported to be more than £2 million over the past three years attempting to remove Dean Percy, after a dispute over governance and salaries. An earlier tribunal, conducted by a senior judge, Sir Andrew Smith, exonerated him of every one of the 27 charges of improper conduct made against him (News, 23 August 2019). An appendix to Sir Andrew’s report, said to contain criticism of the Dean’s accusers, has not been made public.
Dean Percy is still awaiting an employment tribunal, expected in the autumn, to claim back the legal expenses, said to be more than £400,000, used to defend himself against the earlier charges; most of the expenses he owes. He has to fund his own defence once again for this second tribunal.
Under the college statues, the cathedral Chapter can nominate one or more of its members to the tribunal. The Governing Body can then nominate a matching number. For the first tribunal, the Chapter nominated no one; so Sir Andrew judged the evidence alone. On Wednesday, the college treasurer, James Lawrie, confirmed that both the Chapter and the Governing Body would be represented on the tribunal. The conduct of the tribunal is not set out in the statutes, but Mr Lawrie said that its decision, which is simply whether to recommend the removal of the Dean from office, will be by a simple majority, meaning that the independent chair can be outvoted.
What the statutes do say is that, when nominating people to the tribunal, both the Chapter and the college must exclude “any person who has been involved in or associated with the making of the complaint or any part of it, or who has been involved in any preliminary hearing or investigation”. Although the authorities insist that the new complaint is unrelated to earlier disputes, it will be hard to find anyone neutral in either the Chapter or the college.
As well as the internal tribunal, the complaint triggered a church investigation under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM). The cathedral safeguarding officer brought the complaint, backed up by Ms Wood’s report. Because the complaint mentioned sexual harassment, the National Safeguarding Team (NST) has set up a core group.
Again, this is the second time Dean Percy has been investigated by the NST. He was exonerated last September after an earlier complaint made by the college authorities (News, 11 September 2020).
The Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, judged that the CDM process should go ahead. He then recused himself, as have the diocesan registrars, delegating the matter to the Bishop of Birmingham, who is using an ecclesiastical lawyer from the Province of York.
If the bishop in charge considers that the complaint has substance, he can initiate a formal investigation, which would involve another collection of evidence and statements, to be heard in a formal tribunal.
This is some way down the line, however. At present, Dean Percy is still to respond to the complaint in writing. The Dean voluntarily stepped back from his duties in November, and was shortly afterwards signed off work. He remains unwell, and is therefore unable to instruct a lawyer.
SURVIVING CHURCH
Gladiatrix
Martin
If you are so concerned about Winckworth Sherwood why haven’t you as a former solicitor with Safeguarding experience 1) asked the relevant partner to justify their conduct, 2) asked the senior/managing partner for an explanation, or 3) made a formal complaint to the SRA of professional misconduct and breach of the Code of Conduct?
Police are still being advised to automatically believe alleged abuse victims in new guidelines despite warnings from a senior judge in his review of the ‘Nick the fantasist’ case.
The College of Policing guidance, which was published today, controversially tells detectives investigating claims of child abuse that ‘the intention is that victims are believed’.
Sir Richard Henriques, in his review of how police handled claims of VIP sex abuse from the fantasist Carl Beech, called for the instruction to be withdrawn because suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
Beech’s slurs were described as ‘credible and true’ by a senior officer, and went on to trash the reputations of esteemed public figures including D-Day hero Lord Bramall, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, ex-Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath and former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.
The new guidance comes despite warnings from retired judge Sir Richard Henriques, in his review of how police handled claims of VIP sex abuse from the fantasist Carl Beech (pictured in a police interview from 2016)
Sir Richard criticised the decision to keep the guidance, telling The Times: ‘They’ve learnt nothing at all from Nick.
‘The whole basis of their explanation for believing Nick is that they were driven to believe by the protocol that was in existence.’
The guidance was produced by the College of Policing and senior officers in Operation Hydrant, which leads the investigation of historic abuse allegations.
It was today defended by Hydrant chief Simon Bailey, who insisted officers did not apply ‘blind belief’.
He said that victims were constantly told by their abusers they would never be believed, and they would never come to the police if they did not feel they would be listened to.
The new guidance also urges officers not to go ‘trawling’ for abuse victims but to use prior investigation to approach specific groups of possible victims or witnesses.
It also advises the, when releasing information about a suspect who has died, officers must ‘make it clear that there police are making no judgments about guilt’.
Wiltshire Police was criticised for holding a press conference outside the late former Prime Minister’s Edward Heath’s home in 2015 to announce they were investigating claims he was a paedophile, before urging other alleged victims to come forward.
The force later said that, if the politician had been alive, he would have been interviewed about seven disclosures under criminal caution.
Carl Beech – the fantasist and paedophile known by the pseudonym ‘Nick’ – was sentenced to eighteen years in prison in July 2019 to his false claims, including against Sir Edward.
Sir Richard criticised the decision to keep the guidance, saying: ‘They’ve learnt nothing at all from Nick’
Sir Richard’s report on Scotland Yard’s investigation, Operation Midland, advised that ‘the instruction to believe a victim’s account should cease’.
He said people who make allegations to police should be called complainants, not victims, so not to imply guilt. The report, commissioned by the Met, was handed to senior commanders in 2016 but was finally published in full in October 2019.
It exposed the appalling failures of senior officers who believed Nick’s false allegations as they mounted a bungled £2.5 million investigation which ruined the lives of war hero Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and Mr Proctor.
Police decided to automatically believe claims of sexual abuse in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, when it emerged that credible rape reports had been dismissed.
But the approach led to the Met notoriously describing as ‘credible and true’ the false allegations made by Beech, which were also backed in Parliament by the Labour MP Tom Watson.
The 51-year-old falsely alleged that between the ages of seven and 16 he had been collected by car from his various schools in the country and driven to London, where he and other young boys were raped, burned, stabbed and tortured.
He claimed the offences were committed in the Carlton Club or in the apartment block in Pimlico called Dolphin Square. Afterwards, Nick would be returned by car to his home, where he lived alone with his mother.
He had originally made allegations to Wiltshire Police, who had interviewed him but concluded he lacked credibility.
His mother was also questioned and told them she had no knowledge of any unauthorised absence from school and had never seen any bloodstained underwear or similar sign of sexual abuse.
Yet Met officers listening to his claims were not given his earlier interviews so missed the large number of inconsistencies.
Beech’s slurs were notoriously called ‘credible and true’ during a press conference outside New Scotland Yard
Sir Richard said they then continued investigating his claims ‘in a disordered and chaotic manner and littered with mistakes’.
In his new book, From Crime To Crime, which was serialised in the Daily Mail, the former judge wrote: ‘They failed to ask Nick for his computers or mobile phone.
‘They ignored the fact that his medical records disclosed no injury consistent with his allegations in his personal online blog that his feet were stabbed and burned, poppies pinned to his bare chest and numerous bones broken.
‘They had no regard to the inherent improbability of men of the highest standing and impeccable character having behaved in the manner alleged.’
Moving on the notorious ‘credible and true’ press conference, he continued: ‘Instead the police made a public appeal for information, with a senior officer, Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald, standing outside New Scotland Yard and telling a press conference that they believed Nick’s allegations to be both ‘credible and true’.
‘The words should never have been uttered, and the officer himself later admitted they were inappropriate, saying he selected the wrong words in the heat of an interview.
‘But there was no correction for many months, by which time, as we will see below, two completely bogus potential witnesses had come forward with more lies purporting to support ‘Nick’.’
Edward Heath, Cyril Smith and an ex-archbishop of Canterbury are just a few of those exposed as part of the great abuse cover-up. PETER FROST worries the full the truth will never come to light
HARDLY a day can go by without another revelation about another Establishment figure being a child abuser or worse.
The latest story reveals that MI5 knew the country’s chief prosecutor had covered up a sex abuse inquiry into Cyril Smith but did nothing because it was not its job to expose paedophiles.
The files released by the intelligence agency show it was aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had lied to a newspaper over its decision not to prosecute Smith. But MI5 decided not to make the information public because its duty was to “defend the realm” rather than to expose a prominent politician accused of being a paedophile.
Another similar case has seen ex-Tory prime minister Edward Heath named by Wiltshire police who tell us — far too late of course — that Heath would have been questioned over sex abuse claims, if he was alive, when they came to light.
Of course a glimpse at the internet will demonstrate that Heath has been under suspicion for abusing young men and worse for years — accusations that have always been swept aside by the Establishment.
Yet another inquiry into abuse by Church of England Bishop Peter Ball has revealed just what a corrupt and hypocritical bunch the religious arm of the British Establishment really is.
This time the high-ranking Establishment figure who conspired to cover up sexual abuse and other wrongdoing was non-other than the ex-archbishop of Canterbury George Carey.
An independent report found that senior Church figures colluded over a 20-year period Ball, who sexually abused boys and men.
This is just one arm of a veritable octopus of Establishment cover-ups that touches clergy, government, police, intelligence services — right up to the very peak of British society, including several ex-prime ministers and even one heir to the throne.
When Ball was first accused of gross indecency against a 17-year-old boy in 1992, a string of senior Establishment figures — including Carey, other top clergy, Cabinet ministers, a High Court judge, public school headmasters and magistrates — came forward in his support, lobbying the police and Crown Prosecution Service.
Ball’s lawyers also told the police they had a letter of support from a high-ranking member of the royal family. It wasn’t hard to guess which royal they wanted to think they were talking about. When he was arrested Ball was Bishop of Gloucester, which covers Prince Charles’s Highgrove Estate. Ball described Prince Charles as a loyal friend.
Even after his disgrace Ball was offered, and accepted, a home in a cottage on the Prince’s Duchy of Cornwall estate. He continued to enjoy close relations with Charles, even reading the homily at Charles’ father-in-law’s funeral in 2006.
All that high-level lobbying meant Ball escaped prosecution for the offence. He received only a police caution.
The bishop continued visiting public schools until 2007. A fresh investigation was opened in 2012, which led finally to his conviction for multiple and serious sexual abuse.
One of Ball’s victims, Neil Todd, attempted suicide three times before killing himself in 2012. In the recent church report Ball was portrayed as the victim, whereas the church offered little compassion for the vulnerable and young Todd, being “most interested in protecting itself.”
This is an echo of a much earlier report from Baroness Butler-Sloss, who in an earlier review of abuse by Church of England clergy admitted she was more interested in protecting the reputation of the church than anything else.
Theresa May, both as home secretary and today as Prime Minister, has staunchly refused to include abuse
accusations about the Kincora children’s home in Northern Ireland.
Why is Kincora so important? Because there is abundant evidence that MI5, MI6 and other British intelligence agencies know that many high-ranking British Establishment figures were personally involved in the abuse. These included Lord Mountbatten — great uncle and mentor of Prince Charles.
It was Mountbatten who introduced the notorious Jimmy Savile into the royal family and paedophile Savile too became a regular Buckingham Palace guest and a mentor, adviser and fixer to Prince Charles.
Savile was never prosecuted but he certainly raped, molested and abused over a thousand children, many of them helpless patients in hospitals to which Tory minister Edwina Currie had given him uncontrolled access.
May’s refusal to include the Kincora boys’ home in the general inquiry is certainly because it would expose the connection between paedophiles, MI6, MI5 and the royals.
Prince Charles often described Jimmy Savile as one of his best friends. He wanted Savile to be Prince Harry’s godfather — wiser counsel stopped that but the two men shared holidays and much else.
Royal patronage and the Establishment cover-up that came with it certainly shielded Savile. He was never prosecuted and when he died the BBC broadcasted sycophantic tributes. Only later was the ghastly truth revealed.
These Establishment cover-ups go back a long way. Many years ago respectful press barons keen to get honours would keep royal and political scandals from the public view.
By the 1960s and ’70s it was more difficult keeping these things under wraps. Some say the new wave of mass cover-ups started with a dossier compiled in the 1980s by the late Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens and which he passed to the then-home secretary Leon Brittan.
Dickens, who died in 1995, told his family that he had details in the dossier that would blow the lid off the lives of powerful and famous child abusers.
In 1981, Dickens named the former British High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman, as a paedophile in the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege meant he could not be sued for slander.
In October 1978, Hayman left a package of paedophilia-related material on a London bus. The police traced the package to him and then found his diaries describing sexual acts with children. Hayman was never charged.
In 1983, Dickens claimed there was a paedophile network involving big, big names — people in positions of power, influence and responsibility and threatened to name them too in the Commons.
In 1984 Dickens met with and gave his child abuse dossier to the home secretary, Brittan. Much later it would be revealed that Brittan too was himself an abuser.
Dickens received many threats for naming important and powerful paedophiles — threatening calls were followed by burglaries at his London home.
In 2013 Labour MP Tom Watson asked the Home Office for Dickens’s dossier. They told him it had been referred to the police at the time but had not been retained.
The matter was raised again in July 2014 by then Labour MP Simon Danczuk. Former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald said the circumstances in which the dossier had gone missing were alarming and recommended an inquiry.
Lord Brittan confirmed that he received what he described as a substantial bundle of papers from Dickens in 1983, when he was home secretary, and that he handed them all over to the relevant officials for further investigation.
A Home Office review said that information it received between 1979 and 1999 had been passed on to the relevant authorities.
Lord Brittan suggested his information had been passed to the police, but Scotland Yard told the Guardian it has no record of any investigation into the allegations.
According to the Telegraph, Mark Sedwill, then permanent secretary to the Home Office, admitted that it had lost, destroyed or simply not been able to find at least 114 potentially relevant files.
This has led to accusations of a high-level cover-up from some unexpected quarters. Senior Tory MP and former children’s minister Tim Loughton is one who has accused the Home Office of trying to hide the facts.
Lord Tebbitt has told BBC’s Andrew Marr he believes there had been a cover-up because at the time people instinctively tried to protect the system. “I think at the time most people would have thought that the Establishment, the system, was to be protected, and if a few things had gone wrong here and there it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.”
May, who was home secretary for seven years, must take much of the responsibility for the most recent stages of the great cover-up.
She was finally persuaded in July 2014 to hold a review into many historic child abuse allegations. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse finally tried to start work on July 9 2015.
May first appointed Baroness Butler-Sloss to chair the review despite the fact that she was the sister of Sir Michael Havers, who had as Tory attorney general suppressed the reporting of abuse claims in the 1980s. Butler-Sloss stood down as chair of the inquiry just a few days into the job.
The next chair was Fiona Woolf, who quickly resigned when it was discovered she was great friends with Lord Brittan and his wife.
It took some time to find the next chair. She was Justice Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand high court judge. When she resigned after less than 18 months she was replaced by Professor Alexis Jay. The inquiry was given new terms of reference but few believe it will ever produce any meaningful report.
In July 2015, previously lost Whitehall files were discovered. In one, dated November 1986, the then head of MI5, Sir Antony Duff, accepted a denial by an MP that he was a child-abuser, but noted that “the risk of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger.”
The missing dossier has been linked with stalled investigations into the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal. Hayman was just one of hundreds of high-ranking visitors to this brothel near Barnes Bridge.
Prime minister Edward Heath, Liberal MP Cyril Smith, the Queen’s art historian Anthony Blunt, several other Conservative politicians, Buckingham Palace staff and a Labour MP were others on the long list of those accused of visiting.
In January 2015, an academic researcher found a file of allegations against unnatural sexual proclivities by high-ranking people. The document had gone to the prime minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s. It was a classified report on Hayman’s original case but it was the handwritten notes by Thatcher that were most interesting — she was insisting that Hayman was not to be named.
She had written a “line to take” note saying: “Say authorities have carried out an investigation. Nothing to suggest that security prejudiced.”
The internet is full of everything from careful evidence-based case-studies to wild conspiracy theories. So how do we find the real truth?
Sadly we don’t because millions of pounds and thousands of work hours have produced enough smoke and mirrors to make sure that rare and dangerous commodity, the truth, will remain well hidden for many years to come. And that is just how those in the highest positions of power like it.
Gladiatrix 
Expert who told police Carl Beech’s evidence was ‘ludicrous’…
Fury as Met police chief Lord Hogan-Howe who oversaw bungled…
The Bell Society 