Tag Archives: Presumption of Guilt

IMG_2555 (2)

Dear Editor

 

Poland’s new mayor in Gdansk states [“Decline and fall – A famed priest’s statue is toppled amid a widening clerical abuse crisis”, March 22]:

“While I value the presumption of innocence principle, there can only be one decision given the current level of emotions” 
 
This is a dangerous statement. Why?
 
Because the presumption of innocence – not the presumption of guilt – must be held sacred as a rule of international law and jurisprudence.
 
And because “there can only be one decision given the current level of emotions” is just another way of saying there can only be one rule – ‘the rule of the lynch mob’. 
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Richard W. Symonds
The Bell Society
 
2 Lychgate Cottages
Ifield Street, Ifield Village
Crawley, West Sussex
RH11 0NN

March16 2019 – ‘Bishop Bell’ Letter from former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey to present Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner

 

“…I do so hope that you will find a way to finish off that statement that ‘George Bell cannot be proven guilty’ with the corresponding conclusion, ‘therefore he must be considered entirely innocent'”

Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey to the Bishop of Chichester Martin Warner – at the end of a Letter dated March 13 2019.

March 8 2019 – “To misquote Voltaire: I might suspect you are guilty but I will defend to the death your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” ~ Richard W. Symonds

photo

Richard W. Symonds

“To misquote Voltaire: I might suspect you are guilty but I will defend to the death your right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty”

~ Richard W. Symonds

Feb 23 2015 – Who was primarily responsible for being the architect of the monstrous Oct 22 2015 Church Statement on Bishop Bell?

2000px-Logo_of_the_Church_of_England.svg

Oct 22 2015 – Church of England Statement on the Rt. Revd George Bell (1883-1958)

“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

Oct 22 2015 – Bishop of Chichester (Martin Warner) Statement on the Rt. Revd George Bell [1883-1958] 

“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

Feb 20 2019 – ‘The Bishop Bell Question’ – David Lamming – General Synod 2019 – Church House Westminster [Wed Feb 20 – 17.45-19.00]

2000px-Logo_of_the_Church_of_England.svg

General Synod 2019 – Church House Westminster

Wednesday Feb 20 – 17.45-19.00 – Questions – David Lamming

“Has the House of Bishops considered encouraging the Archbishop of Canterbury to revisit the judgement he expressed on 15 December 2017 (on publication of the Carlile Review) that ‘a significant cloud is left over [Bishop Bell’s] name’, particularly in view of the Briden Report dated 17 January 2019 and the recent statement by Lord Carlile that ‘The Church should now accept that my recommendations should be accepted in full, and that after due process, however delayed, George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him’?”

GS Misc 1213 – Progress Report by the National Safeguarding Steering Group – The Rt Revd Peter Hancock – Lead Bishop for Safeguarding

40. The decision of the Right Worshipful Timothy Briden (acting in his capacity as
commissary to the Bishop of Chichester) was published by the Bishop of Chichester
and the Archbishops’ Council on 24 January 2019. The decision related to ‘fresh
information’ brought to the attention of the Church following publication of Lord Carlile’s independent review into the Church’s original handling of allegations against the late Bishop George Bell. The terms of reference for the independent investigation and independent ‘decision-making body’ (Timothy Briden) did not involve re-investigating the allegations made by ‘Carol’, for which a civil settlement had already be made.

 

Feb 8 2019 – RWS Note – “With Lord Carlile QC and Timothy Briden upholding the moral and legal principle of the presumption of innocence and justly declaring Bishop Bell innocent in law, should Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner be allowed to defy this principle by refusing to declare Bishop Bell innocent?” ~ Richard W. Symonds

“With Lord Carlile QC and Timothy Briden upholding the moral and legal principle of the presumption of innocence and justly declaring Bishop Bell innocent in law, should Archbishop Welby and Bishop Warner be allowed to defy this principle by refusing to declare Bishop Bell innocent?”

~ Richard W. Symonds

Feb 8 2019 – “The Church threw Bishop Bell under the bus and threw the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence into the bin. Who is responsible for such a moral and legal disgrace? The buck stops where?” ~ Richard W. Symonds

bus-thrown-under-198636530-365x247

“The Church threw Bishop Bell under the bus and threw the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence into the bin. Who is responsible for such a moral and legal disgrace? The buck stops where?”

~ Richard W. Symonds

photo