Posted                       

quote:

---

... Having had experience in my professional career of dealing with the fall-out from bungled investigations, I can say that once an investigation has been bungled, it's usually impossible to retrieve the situation. That is even more likely to be the case if the allegation is about events 60+ years ago when inevitably almost everybody relevant is now dead. One is ultimately left with the conclusion that the whole thing has already been bungled so badly that one cannot with integrity say that one believes any of the possible versions of the story, or, for that matter, which versions are more likely to be true or false. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Two points, one of which you may not like, but never mind.
(i) To identify someone as a 'survivor' is to accept that something happened. People in official positions of responsibility shouldn't make that identification without anything to back it up, other than the person's own word. There has to be an evidential bar set somewhere. Until then. 'claimant' or some such term is better.
(ii) If 'Carol' was abused- and I think she may well have been- she might not have been abused by George Bell. People make mistakes about identities, especially with the passage of time. Consider the allegations against Lord Macalpine, which seem to have arisen because the survivor (the word is appropriate in this case) had mixed him up with the real abuser, Peter Morrison MP, who he resembled in some ways (and he admitted this as soon as he realised that that's what he'd done).
Oh, and one more thing. Some of George Bell's defenders need to be reminded that there is of course no reason why he could not have been both a great ecumenist and witness to Christian principles in international affairs, and an abuser of a little girl. But the important point is that it hasn't yet been shown that he was the latter

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

We are enormously grateful to Lord Carlile for this ‘lessons learned’ review which examines how the Church handled the allegations made by Carol in the 1990s, and more recently. Lord Carlile makes a number of considered points as to how to handle such cases in future and we accept the main thrust of his recommendations.

---

quote:

---

29. Subject to the above, alleged perpetrators, living or dead, should not be identified publicly unless or until the Core Group has (a) made adverse findings of fact, and (b) it has also been decided that making the identity public is required in the public interest.

---

quote:

---

137. On the 4 April the police emailed Colin Perkins. They confirmed that they had interviewed Carol and had reviewed some files at Lambeth Palace. They advised:
a. the allegations were credible;
b. were Bishop Bell still alive it was probable that he would have been arrested for the matter;
c. they were wary of committing further police resource to the matter because Bishop Bell was dead and therefore there was no active child protection issue;
d. Bishop Bell was not able to defend himself and there was a danger of bringing his surviving family into disrepute based on claims that might be impossible to disprove;
e. the Sussex Police would not be able to assist in the event of the Church deciding to engage in proactive publicity;
f. they supported the current Bishop Dr Warner’s view that there should be a meeting of a core group.

---

quote:

---

138. The above advice did not suggest that the matter could be proved to the criminal standard – beyond reasonable doubt (not to be confused with the civil court standard, the balance of probabilities).
139. At this point the limited police action effectively ended.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

It would be better for all those involved, on both sides, to accept that, rather than persisting in digging themselves into the mess. Justice is no longer achievable on this, save in the age to come.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Those of us with perhaps too much time, and a distressing tendency to keep old publications, could retaliate with detailed instances in still-available sources that could link the name of the 105th incumbent of St Augustine's cathedra with a term implying a person to be a bender of, or stranger to, veracity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

22.ACC then referred to paragraph 32 of the first meeting minutes. ACC asked what the group thought the police were doing with regards to this case. CP said that it took a very long time to obtain information from the police, and
they never received the full document they were waiting for. The police informed him that had the defendant been alive he would have been arrested. They also told him that if the Church wanted to bring this issue into the public
domain that the police would be unable to provide resources.
23. ACC pointed out that the police would have had no lawful power to arrest GB had he been alive, as the arrest conditions would not have been met. He would have been interviewed under caution instead. ACC asked if the core group felt that the police action would have been equivalent to being charged. CP and GW clearly stated that they did not. They knew that arrest and charged is not the same thing.
24.ACC asked what they thought would have happened had they not settled. CP stated that they were told by PJ that if they chose not to settle and this went to court then the judge would have ruled in favour of the complainant. This discussion with PJ was a decisive moment

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

It is not the function of the criminal justice system to investigate, to no purpose, those who cannot be brought to book, nor the Church’s place to request that it should.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

ACC pointed out that the police would have had no lawful power to arrest GB had he been alive, as the arrest conditions would not have been met. He would have been interviewed under caution instead. ACC asked if the core group felt that the police action would have been equivalent to being charged. CP and GW clearly stated that they did not. They knew that arrest and charged is not the same thing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

There's many a slip between arrest and conviction. But still, throwing someone under the bus over an interview under caution? Of course, you'd interview someone in those circumstances and the allegations are such that you'd do it under caution. But unless you've got something more substantial, you have got the square root of naff all.

---

quote:

---

167. Had Bishop Bell still been alive, unless there was evidence that he appeared to represent a danger to the public he would not have satisfied the arrest conditions. I am surprised that the police did not appear to be aware of this. The probability is that, had he been alive, his premises and any computer would have been searched under a warrant, and he would have been interviewed under caution at a police station, not under arrest. This is of some significance because the Core Group may well have taken an exaggerated view of the use of the word ‘arrest’, as being in some way of itself evidence pointing towards guilt – which it is not.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Assuming you were addressing me, Albertus, if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that the only person I referred to as a survivor was myself. So unless you're suggesting that you're not prepared to take my word for that without evidence (which I don't think you were!) then I'm unclear why you take issue with what I said. If I'd been referring to Carol, I'd have said 'alleged' survivor for legal reasons. But privately, I believe her because I know what it is to report abuse and not be believed and if I were her I'd be glad that ++Justin appears to be paying me the same courtesy.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
You also draw a valuable distinction between what one is free to believe as a private person, and what one is justified in accepting if one has to act in a public capacity.

---

Absolutely! And you appear to be the first person I've discussed this issue with on social media who's appreciated that distinction!


--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
You also draw a valuable distinction between what one is free to believe as a private person, and what one is justified in accepting if one has to act in a public capacity.

---

Absolutely! And you appear to be the first person I've discussed this issue with on social media who's appreciated that distinction!


--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
There are serious questions and concerns about abuse that happened at, and through, the Iwerne "Bash" camps with which ++Justin had very close involvement - he was a trustee of the charity that ran them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This sets the Carlile Report and George Bell in a wider context.

---

I think the problem, such as it is, is that we know that people/ organisations we approve of can turn out to be a bit sleazy (c.f. Oxfam and this mornings headlines about someone we all thought was one of the good guys) and we all know that people were inclined to brush things under the carpet, back in the day, that the whole rhetoric of "believe the survivor" becomes a thing.

Then of course, you get the whole phenomenon of "Nick" and of the late Lord Brittan having his deathbed vexed by a false allegation of child sex abuse and the business with Cliff Richard, und so weiter.

A confession, of sorts, a few years ago I applied for a job and was asked how I would respond in the case of an allegation of child sex abuse. I ran it past a retired headteacher and two child protection officials. Let's just say the original draft didn't survive the first telephone call. As I've said before, this is no job for amateurs. It's not wildly clear that the professionals are doing brilliantly either.

We are in terra incognita, we need a system that treats people like Tyler Durden with the respect they deserve whilst also respecting due process and the presumption of innocence. That is bogglingly difficult which is probably why we are in the state we are in.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posted                          

quote:

---

...an individual or an institution that played, or may have played a direct or significant role in relation to the matters to which the Inquiry relates; has a significant interest in an important matter to which the Inquiry relates; or may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the Inquiry proceedings or in a report prepared by the Inquiry.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Is safeguarding difficult? Is going forward, learning from all this, difficult? There is no point sitting in prison wondering how we got there when the doors are all open.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Is safeguarding difficult? Is going forward, learning from all this, difficult? There is no point sitting in prison wondering how we got there when the doors are all open.

---

Blimey Martin, of course, it's difficult. Sexual abuse is one of the most heinous things one person can do to another and it can be incredibly difficult to prove. And to complicate matters abusers are not necessarily furtive degenerates in dirty macs. Some of them are charismatic and well liked members of their community. And people are not keen to believe that charismatic and well liked members of their community are, in secret, horrible people. There are basic things that could be done to improve matters, like not covering up well attested accusations of abuse, but the divergence between the number of sexual assaults, the number of sexual assaults reported to the police and the number of sexual assaults that actually result in people going down does indicate that we might not have actually cracked this one yet.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

As for the past, shut up and pay up.

---

quote:

---

...expressed thanks for people’s prayers, and admiration for the “increasing professionalism” of Church’s safeguarding staff. He wanted to pay “sincere tribute” to victims and survivors of abuse. “I am humbled by their courage."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

What can be done NOW, going forward, to guarantee, that's GUARANTEE, that it NEVER happens again in the Church?

---