|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Carlile Report and George Bell
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Gee D
I think it is clear from the report that Lord Carlile believed that the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt. His criticisms of the process included both evidence gathering and evidence weighing.
The Carlile Report should at the very least give anyone who believed George Bell was guilty pause for thought. There is a famous line from '12 Angry Men' in which one of the jurors, confronted with a piece of information, observes 'I have a reasonable doubt now'. If ++Justin does not have 'a reasonable doubt now', I have no idea where his head is.
[ 26. January 2018, 11:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gee D
I think it is clear from the report that Lord Carlile believed that the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt. His criticisms of the process included both evidence gathering and evidence weighing.
That is the conclusion Carlile would have reached had that been his task (and it is the conclusion I've reached also) but as that was not his task he did not make it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In this week's Church Times there is this Leader, plus other copy about the concerns raised by others that occupy prime place inside on page 4.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gee D
I think it is clear from the report that Lord Carlile believed that the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt. His criticisms of the process included both evidence gathering and evidence weighing.
That is the conclusion Carlile would have reached had that been his task (and it is the conclusion I've reached also) but as that was not his task he did not make it.
But his report is so damning in exposing the inept processes followed by the CofE that any reasonable person would be able to draw the obvious conclusion that "the evidence did not justify a finding of guilt". That Welby cannot admit publicly this conclusion indicates either
a) He is mentally unable to draw this conclusion.
b) He knows something that no-one else does about the accusation.
c) He is stubborn and/or proud to such a degree as to bring into question his fitness for the job.
I'm struggling to come up with any other explanation.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
To clarify. You cannot read Carlile and conclude, reasonably, that a finding of guilt was justified either under civil or criminal law.
The C of E paid compensation on the basis of a highly imperfect process. Maybe as a form of pragmatism ++Justin decided to do that to avoid a risk. On the basis of the flawed process maybe that was understandable. Asserting that decision was still justified, following Carlile, makes ++Justin look wrong headed and stubborn. I do not see how that can be avoided.
I suppose, again as a matter of pragmatism, ++Justin may have concerns about backing away from the original decision. Perhaps 'Carol' may re-emerge. Perhaps the media may say the only way of resolving this is some kind of further enquiry, not into process? I guess he might prefer to face the flak in order to avoid the alternatives.
But that still looks unfair to the reputation and memory of George Bell. Even if continuing the pragmatism is somehow justified.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The C of E paid compensation on the basis of a highly imperfect process. Maybe as a form of pragmatism ++Justin decided to do that to avoid a risk.
And I would have no problem with that. "Well, we've screwed up so many times in the past, it really wouldn't do to try and fight this too hard. Let's err on the side of generosity." It's the blithe trashing of a dead man's reputation that is so offensive. That and the wilful determination to keep on doing this even when all the evidence indicates that a grievous misjustice has been done. This is not clear and strong leadership - this is foolhardiness of the highest order.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There is another possibility to add to those Oscar the Grouch has set out. We seem to have swung full circle from dismissing claims of abuse out of hand to accepting the allegation of irrefutable proof. Those who do not accept this position are often pilloried throughout the media. This possibility is that Welby is aware of this and does not want the church to be seen as falling back into the bad old days of dismissal.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Sure, Gee D. But it is still a pragmatic argument, and puts the church's perceived 'face' ahead of the reputation of a dead priest. I'm pretty uncomfortable with that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Welby and the Pope and meeting in the middle with two extremes of bias.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Sorry Martin, can you expand on that?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose, again as a matter of pragmatism, ++Justin may have concerns about backing away from the original decision. Perhaps 'Carol' may re-emerge.
I think 'Carol's' situation is an issue. If ++Justin declares that +George Bell is innocent he is effectively saying to her "I know we behaved badly to you when you first raised this, and then we conducted a crap investigation which doesn't prove anything one way or another, but I'm going to make a declaration now which says you were mistaken or lying."
Carlile's view was that a litigation risk settlement was the way forward. There are two elements to that first is the damage and cost to the person or institution conducting the litigation, and the second is the risk of losing. Carlile concluded that a settlement on that basis would have been justified, and in his view if the other evidence he identified was up to scratch there was a chance that on the balance of probabilities 'Carol' would fail to make her case. None of that declares +Bell innocent, since the other evidence was not actually tested.
From here the best that can be said is that the enquiry should not have concluded, as they appear to have done, that +Bell was probably guilty. The accusation, however, remains - although it remains only that, an accusation.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The apology is mine L'organist.
The Pope is too biased to one of his bishops, Barros, to countenance collusion in abuse and Welby is too biased against one of his predecessor's bishops because of subsequent collusion by another. They have bias in common.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
BroJames
Very perceptive. Pretty much what I was reaching towards in thinking about risks.
Actually, I think it was possible for ++Justin to make statements which avoided that risk. There is enough cloth to turn the coat both ways. He should have focussed on the process failures and the way they have muddied the waters. 'Never again' is actually important. That leaves hanging what might have happened after a better process, without in any way criticising 'Carol'.
I think that's what I would have done. It's a fudge, but when there aren't any good answers, you have to go for the least bad.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Perhaps ++Justin was preoccupied with the news that was leaking out about John Smyth and the Iwerne camps? And at the time of his last statement on the Carlile Report it had just emerged that his previous statement about his contacts with the camps was not entirely accurate...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Ah, the skeleton in the cupboard. But I think it represents a different challenge to ++Justin. Don't think it really relates to this thread.
.
[ 28. January 2018, 00:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sure, Gee D. But it is still a pragmatic argument, and puts the church's perceived 'face' ahead of the reputation of a dead priest. I'm pretty uncomfortable with that.
We've just been given the report of the Royal Commission into child abuse by institutions. One point very clear in the report (and in the publicity as evidence was being given) is the danger of suggesting that a claim is spurious. Now, most claims are perfectly genuine, but not all - but if you suggest that one is false is to invite a lot of adverse publicity.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Right of course. But I'm inoculated against absolute credulity about anything. It can put power into devious hands. There's a difference between taking seriously and believing.
Anyway, I'm a fan of 'The Crucible'. And I don't mind courting unpopularity on such a fundamental point.
[ 28. January 2018, 10:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
THAT is part of justice. Welby is not being just to Bell in trying to be just to Carol and the legions of still living abused since Bell's day. Carol has been horribly damaged by something on the church's unsafeguarded watch that's for sure, and for that it should pay and has.
Well. That's what I wrote before following the trail all the way back to the Brighton 'Argus'.
I believe her.
£15,000 paid in 2014/5 is a joke.
However, whether a jury would have found in her favour, even if they believed her, I don't know. One can believe all one likes but still feel compelled to find contrarily in law.
It is completely possible for Bell to be a saint and a monster.
The resurrection will tell. For us all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Did you mean this?
The Argus report headline helps ++Justin to keep any 'Carol' cork in the bottle, doesn't it? There may well be some Lambeth House news management going on. 'Carol' did not find the settlement laughable. I can't see that the article provides any fresh information about what actually happened. Do you think it does?
[ 28. January 2018, 13:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There are multiple Guardian articles starting here they led me here.
I'd never read her account before. She's either a very simple soul. Or a very clever simple soul. Occam's razor says the former.
Saying Bell couldn't be a monster because he was a hero is absurd. Bitter and sweet DO flow from the same fountain all the time. I knew Savile. And had NO idea. Bit of a lad, great man.
And fifteen grand is an insult.
[ 28. January 2018, 13:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Martin: Have you read the Carlile Report. I ask because the articles you give links to, especially the one in the Guardian, are based on the briefings from the Church House press office and, as such, perpetuate the myth (exposed by Carlile) that there was (a) evidence that the claimant had been abused, and (b) that there was evidence or likelihood that George Bell was the putative abuser. Neither of those assumptions can be taken as read.
In particular, there is clear evidence that "Carol" was encouraged to give extra details to support her claim by taking her on a visit to part of the Bishop's Palace in Chichester, after which she reported for the first time supposed details about the location where she would see and meet the bishop. Unfortunately, what the person who took her on this visit didn't know was that the interior of the Palace at the time of this visit was fundamentally different from how it had been in Bell's time and that it was impossible for any encounter between "Carol" and the bishop to have been as she described. There are other major discrepancies which have been noted, not least that although the most famous photograph of Bell has him in clerical morning dress, this was not something he ever wore other than on the rare occasions (weddings, Buckingham Palace garden parties) where it was required.
No one is suggesting that "Carol" has entirely invented a scenario where she may have been abused by someone: but it is being suggested, gently, by looking at evidence that the likelihood of it being George Bell is remote - and that the more evidence comes to light the more remote it becomes.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thanks L'organist. I'd like to read all that you have and I know that your presentation will be warranted.
The moral of this story is: potential victim/izer/s need chaperones at all such times. That lack should be punished regardless.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...
No one is suggesting that "Carol" has entirely invented a scenario where she may have been abused by someone: but it is being suggested, gently, by looking at evidence that the likelihood of it being George Bell is remote - and that the more evidence comes to light the more remote it becomes.
Yes, that's the conclusion I've been coming to, although like the rest of us I only have whatever information is in the public domain as a basis for my views. My guess is that 'Carol' was abused by somebody, quite possibly a cleric, but it can't be proved who it was and there's certainly not enough evidence to allow us to conclude, even on the balance of probabilities, that it was George Bell.
Now I suppose Lambeth could have said something like 'we are satisfied that 'Carol' was probably abused at The Palace in Chichester, we don't know who did it, we don't think it was George Bell, but because it was at The Palace we think, in retrospect, that it was still right to pay her some money as an expression of regret, if not an admission of liability'. But that would require ++Welby to admit or imply that he'd been wrong in what he said earlier and I don't have the impression that he's the kind of man who finds that easy.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thanks L'organist. I'd like to read all that you have and I know that your presentation will be warranted.
The moral of this story is: potential victim/izer/s need chaperones at all such times. That lack should be punished regardless.
You need to Google 'Carlile Report' and you will find a link to a pdf. It is eye-opening.
[ 28. January 2018, 16:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Got it. Before I read it, can all things be true?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lincoln Imp
Apprentice
# 17123
|
Posted
It is a strange sort of integrity an Archbishop lays claim to who has issued a public statement about a "thorough investigation" having taken place. This claim has been shown to be utterly incorrect by a report that was commissioned by himself.
[text removed pending admin ruling]
[ 28. January 2018, 20:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds. (Tennyson)
Posts: 30 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Got it. Before I read it, can all things be true?
Don't all things need to be weighed first?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Lincoln Imp
I've asked Admin and Hosts to look at your post under the Commandment 7 guideline.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Lincoln Imp, Barnabas62 has recused himself from further hosting here for the moment because he's been involved on the thread; in the meantime I've just removed the tendentious text from public view pending admin discussion and ruling.
/hosting
[ 28. January 2018, 20:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Martin 60 quote:
Got it. Before I read it, can all things be true?
No, all things can't be true.
Not only was the so-called "investigation" botched, but the so-called Core Group, tasked with overseeing so-called investigation and then ruling on what it may or may not have turned-up was deeply flawed, and the Group contained members who didn't seem to realise that allowing some people to see a full report but others only a precis was crazy - and that said precis was in fact a travesty of what the full report contained.
I ploughed through the whole of the report and its appendices over 2 days, and it made my hair stand on end.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I ploughed through the whole of the report and its appendices over 2 days, and it made my hair stand on end.
I was genuinely surprised at how utterly bad the process was. By contrast, the clarity of Lord Carlile's writing and analysis was very cleansing. Above all, I thought his report was fair and balanced, in very sharp contrast to the shambolic processes of the Core Group.
[ 29. January 2018, 23:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I ploughed through the whole of the report and its appendices over 2 days, and it made my hair stand on end.
I was genuinely surprised at how utterly bad the process was. By contrast, the clarity of Lord Carlile's writing and analysis was very cleansing. Above all, I thought his report was fair and balanced, in very sharp contrast to the shambolic processes of the Core Group.
This is what happens when amateurs get involved in a job for the professionals.
An investigator in the British Justice system will have to produce a case that will survive being torn to pieces by a defending barrister in an open courtroom, it will have to survive the attentions of a judge and persuade a jury of twelve honest persons. This system is far from perfect but it does introduce a certain amount of analytical rigour among investigators.
The whole thing reminds me, in a way, of the Comrade Delta business in the SWP. I don't think either the Core Group or the SWP intended to cock things up so spectacularly but neither have the relevant skill set to investigate this sort of things. The people who do have the relevant skill set often get it horribly wrong so you can imagine when people who have never investigated anything in their lives are caught up in a traumatic case with their emotions pulled every which way. I enjoy detective fiction as much as the next man but Holmes, Poirot, Lord Peter and Campion are fictional. There is a reason that every industrialised state in the world has a trained and professional police force and not a bunch of gentlemen amateurs snarking at the dullness of Scotland Yard and revealing that the butler did it by a series of intuitive leaps.
If we are going to have Core Groups investigating this stuff, could they at least get a Copper in on the case and have a designated person to raise every plausible objection to the verdict to anticipate the rather obvious howls of rage from the media before they actually happen.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
...
The whole thing reminds me, in a way, of the Comrade Delta business in the SWP. I don't think either the Core Group or the SWP intended to cock things up so spectacularly but neither have the relevant skill set to investigate this sort of things. ...
You'll have to explain that. Assuming SWP stands for Socialist Workers' Party (does it, or here does it stand for something else?) not all of us move in those sort of circles, or take much interest normally in what goes on there.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Comrade Delta tangent
Here is a link
Looks like a good parallel. Good support for Callan's view.
A camel is a horse built by a committee. A Board is long and narrow. It is made of wood.
[ 30. January 2018, 15:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
That's what I had in mind. I have rather more sympathy for the Diocese of Chichester than for the SWP (to put it politely) but both cases involved criminal investigations carried out by people who did not have the capacity for them. God knows, during my brief and insubstantial career in Law Enforcement some of my colleagues got it in the neck from the judges and the media. What on earth possessed the SWP or the DoC to think they could do better?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Martin 60 quote:
Got it. Before I read it, can all things be true?
No, all things can't be true.
Not only was the so-called "investigation" botched, but the so-called Core Group, tasked with overseeing so-called investigation and then ruling on what it may or may not have turned-up was deeply flawed, and the Group contained members who didn't seem to realise that allowing some people to see a full report but others only a precis was crazy - and that said precis was in fact a travesty of what the full report contained.
I ploughed through the whole of the report and its appendices over 2 days, and it made my hair stand on end.
'strewth! Professor Maden's findings are as good as it gets as are Lord Carlile's.
Poor Bishop Bell's posthumous reputation and his living relatives feelings.
Poor 'Carol'.
Welby was right to pay, wrong to publicize his ill informed, ill processed thoughts.
[ 30. January 2018, 16:51: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Incompetent to judge? Seems a pretty good finding, really.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Barnabas62 quote:
...the shambolic processes of the Core Group...
And with even less justification than Carlile suspected.
Even as we look at the wreckage from the Bell debacle, the Church of England has at its dispoal the country'd leading expert on Safeguarding Law, the co-author of Children Law and Practice which is generally regarded as the "bible" for case law involving children. One of its co-authors, Lord Andrew McFarlane QC is the current President of the Clergy Discipline Tribunals.
Now let Peter Hancock (Bishop of Bath & Wells and supposedly "lead" bishop on safeguarding) tell us why it is that with someone like McFarlane available to them they can't make a stab at organising a Core Group correctly...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Now Church House issues a new press release announcing that a second allegation has been received about George Bell - apparently made some time ago but now Lambeth and the Lead Safeguarding Bishop have decided that now is the time to make it public.
According to Church House the report was forwarded to the Police but there is nothing at all about it on the website of the relevant force (Sussex Police) - no appeal for other complainants, not a word.
And I'm sure we're all deeply reassured by this in the statement from Church House quote:
The Core Group is now in the process of commissioning an independent investigation in respect of these latest developments.
bearing in mind that by releasing a statement naming George Bell they are already going in exactly the opposite direction of that recommended by Alex Carlile.
So, expect another smear campaign and textbook case of how NOT to run an investigation.
I propose that the Ship start a campaign for ++Justin to be given a model whelk stall as an archepiscopal reflection of the Easter Offering.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
The church has known of the complaint for 'at least a fortnight'. The alleged assault took place '70 years ago'.
Have they no shame? The timing of this is obviously designed to affect upcoming discussions at General Synod.
Ignoring Lord Carlile's advice not to reveal names before allegations have been investigated tells me all I need to know.
An error compounded as a defence of ++Justin, with scant regard for the late George Bell.
This is crap behaviour even if there is something in this ancient allegation. Which I beg leave to doubt, taking into account both the timing and the deliberate revealing of George Bell's name.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And I'm not alone in thinking that the increasing pressure for the issue of Safeguarding to be debated at GS may be behind this latest assault on George Bell.
The response from Alex Carlile is interesting: quote:
I am not privy to the information that is referred to in the church’s press release. But I think it was unwise, unnecessary and foolish to issue a press release in relation to something that remains to be investigated and which was not part of the material placed before me over the period of more than a year in which I carried out my review. During that period the review was well known and it was open to anybody to place information before me.
Those of you who don't give Archbishop Cranmer preferred status may find THIS gives pause for thought.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This all seems yet more confirmation of what I said on the 23rd January.
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. ...
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
So, when it was just one insignificant woman's word against that of a Great Man of God, Bell's defenders said that she was clearly deluded because if he was an abuser, how come there were no other alleged victims? Now it appears there might have been another accuser but that's being dismissed as well!!!
And Justin Welby's being accused of only being concerned about the church's/his reputation but speaking as a survivor myself, I feel like he's one of the few people who's prepared to believe what survivors say. Would that more others did the same...
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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
[ 02. February 2018, 08:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
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
This.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm sure that Albertus was merely reflecting the danger of using the word "survivor" in cases where guilt has not been finally established. This is specifically mentioned by Carlile, together with the use of "victim", in sections 239iv, 274 and 292 of his report. In the latter paragraph he proposes substitution by the term "complainant" - which is similar, I think, to your use of "'alleged' survivor".
Please note that, where "Carol" is concerned, Albertus stated that he believes that abuse is quite likely to have taken place. However he questions whether it was undubitably perpetrated by Bell.
[ 02. February 2018, 09:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Repeating useful link.
Included in that link is the following comment. 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.
Included in those recommendations, at para 29 of the report, was a clear recommendation that the name of the accused, living or dead, should not be revealed while investigations were ongoing.
So why was George Bell's name revealed? It is a central point, a part of the main thrust of those recommendations, that it should not have been.
(Cliff Richard made precisely the same point over the release of his name while investigations were proceeding and there was no arrest, no charge.)
Read the report on the previous police investigation into George Bell. Basically they took a view re 'Carol's letters and statements'. They did not look for any other information. They did not do any further investigation because they could not charge a dead man. And Church House know this.
Tyler, everyone wants justice for victims of abuse. The key word is justice. Justice has not been well served here. A mishandling of both facts and decent principles of investigation doesn't serve anyone.
From para 29 of the report
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.
To make it clear, receiving an allegation is not making an adverse finding of fact.
This what the police had to say in respect of 'Carol's complaint.
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.
Carlile comments as follows. 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.
[ 02. February 2018, 10:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Enoch 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.
Laudable sentiment. And it would be a good thing it the CofE press office, Lambeth, and +Peter Hancock could bring themselves to see the fairness of it; unfortunately they seem hell-bent on keeping George Bell's name in the public eye, and doubly hell-bent on ensuring that in the mind of everyone Bell's name is automatically linked with the word "abuser".
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
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.
Don't push your C7 luck.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
