Ship of Fools: The Carlile Report and George Bell

Thread: The Carlile Report and George Bell Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020399

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

So Lord Carlile of Berriew has taken a look at some of the George Bell affair and issued his report. As some of us had already worked out, the church - at all levels - was spectacularly cack-handed in the way it dealt with the whole thing and subsequent attempts to try to justify its actions have been worse.

No proper investigation, no attempt to trace anyone who could cast light on the period in question, etc, etc, etc. To this day, no-one from either the diocese or Lambeth has taken the trouble to speak to George Bell's domestic chaplain, or the niece of the Bell's housekeeper who lived in the Palace in Chichester.

IMV its one thing for the church to fall over itself to try to make amends for not listening to complaints in past years, its quite another to decide - as seems to have been the case - that it is preferable to drag a deceased man's name and reputation through the mud in the name of expediency and being seen to have "learned lessons".

It is clear from reading the report that, far from it being an open-and-shut case of George Bell being an abuser, there is serious doubt that the complainant (who, Carlile makes very clear, should NOT have been described as a "victim") had any grounds to make the complaint, or even whether she had ever been to the Palace in Chichester. Evidence from medical professionals, and others, was ignored in favour of seeking to minimise any payment made to the complainant.

Even now Lambeth is issuing statements saying they disagree with Carlile's conclusions: unbelievable; and Peter Hancock, lead bishop on safeguarding, issues a statement saying

quote:
We recognise that Carol has suffered pain, as have surviving relatives of Bishop Bell. We are sorry that the Church has added to that pain through its handling of this case.

In other words, he still refuses to even mention the possibility that there has been serious character assassination purely in the name of expediency and saving money. Meanwhile poor old Martin Warner, bishop of Chichester, is pushed front-and-centre to try to steer between the scylla of stating there may have been a false accusation and charybdis of acknowledging that the systems and processes of the CofE are fatally flawed.

It is beyond high time that the CofE stopped being so amateurish and put its administrative house in order. Before that happens, George Bell should be restored to his previous position of esteem, commemorated in the liturgical calendar, and all those institutions which were hastily re-named return to their original title.

[ 16. December 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Early warning. Please remember Commandment 7 and our relative poverty, and be very careful how you comment, directly or indirectly, about the character and actions of folks who are still alive.

It's a valid topic for serious discussion and there is information in the public domain. But handle with care.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Thanks for the hostly advice, duly noted and will be adhered to.

But in raising the point about referring to the person making the allegation in the case of George Bell, Carlile himself makes the point that they should have been referred to throughout as a "complainant", not as a victim; in this he was echoing the advice and ruling of Sir Richard Henriques in his Report on the debacle of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Midland and other investigations.

Lord Carlile links the allegations made against George Bell with those made about Lord Brittan and Lord Bramall in relation to the likelihood of them being correctly made and in being badly handled.

What I was trying to point out in my first post is that not only does mud stick, but in the case of statements emanating from some CofE figures they seem unwilling to desist from trying to ensure that at least some of the mud flung is kept on the reputation of George Bell: in other words, neither ++Justin, +Hancock or +Warner seem able to issue a statement that even goes the limited distance of stating that they may have been wrong about Bell.

And that is the ultimate injustice because George Bell isn't here to defend himself and the CofE seems not only unable but entirely unwilling to accept that it may have got it wrong; the very limited terms of the enquiry that Lord Carlile was asked to make shows that very clearly.

It has been abundantly clear for decades that the CofE is lousy at dealing with people who allege clerical abuse; what the Bell affair has shown is that it is equally lousy at dealing with situations where people are, for whatever reason, wrongly accused of abuse. And in both cases the CofE seems unwilling to admit that it is in the wrong.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Alas, the Church of England is a company of poor, perishing, miserable sinners.

As are we all, which, I think, is why Our Blessed Lord warned about casting the first stone.

IJ

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It seems to me that there is a inherent problem that Lord Carlile of Berriew seemed to skate neatly over this morning whilst interviewed on the radio about his report: you can't defame the dead. And a dead man has no right to judicial process to "clear his name".

The only facts that we have are that someone accused George Bell of abuse decades after he died, that it took a long time for the church to recognise that these are/were credible and that the events described were a long, long time ago.

Now for all that Lord Carlile of Berriew blusters, the reality is that we actually can't tell what George Bell did or didn't do 60 years ago. The witness is/was apparently coherent and credible.

The church might be able to say that the accusations are out-of-character, but this has never stopped abusers before. The church might not be able to find corroborating evidence, but then what evidence would we expect to find 60 years later? The church might indeed have conducted a deficient investigation, but then it is quite hard to see what else they could have done other than listen to the witness report and determine that it sounded credible.

The opprobrium being flung at the Anglican structures, and at the Archbishop of Canterbury personally, seem to me to be quite far off the mark.

The church has a crappy record on believing people making reports of abuse. And the church isn't a historical or detective agency.

George Bell might well be an angelic figure in Anglican circles, but that doesn't in itself mean that a victim shouldn't be heard when the reports seem believable.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

My sympathies are with the victim, of course, but also with +Martin Warner, trying to make sense of it all.

He started off as a server at Our Place - bet he wishes he'd stayed there.

IJ

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I don't think the CofE, or any institution, needs a record on believing people making reports of abuse.

What they need is a record on taking such reports seriously and investigating them thoroughly and compassionately. As soon as we adopt the paradigm that all reports are believed (to be true), we start throwing innocent people under the bus.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As soon as we adopt the paradigm that all reports are believed (to be true), we start throwing innocent people under the bus.

This particular guy is dead. That bus left long ago.

Unless you have some specific ideas about how an institution is supposed to verify a claim made about events 60 years ago, I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be done.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As soon as we adopt the paradigm that all reports are believed (to be true), we start throwing innocent people under the bus.
This particular guy is dead. That bus left long ago.

Unless you have some specific ideas about how an institution is supposed to verify a claim made about events 60 years ago, I'm not sure what you're suggesting should be done.

By taking such claims seriously but not being credulous. Investigate the claim, and do the best possible job of either confirming or refuting it.

Yes, I'm aware that Bell is dead. So are a lot of people. I wouldn't want their posthumous reputation trashed by unsubstantiated accusations any more than I'd want them to lie untroubled by their hidden abuses.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

In commemorating Bell we aren't just commemorating the man; we are commemorating his witness: his ecumenism; his opposition to anti-Semitism and Nazism; his opposition to indiscriminate methods of war and punishment of the whole German people. If we treat the man's reputation unjustly we treat his witness unjustly too.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

The stark reality is that the way this whole business has been handled means that we are never likely to get to the bottom of what actually happened.

I am fully prepared to believe that SOMETHING happened; I don't think "Carol" has made this all up. But equally I am aware that over a long period of time, memory alone cannot be 100% reliable. I have had personal experience of this just recently, when an event I attended as a child which I would have sworn took place in one manner has been proved to me beyond doubt to have happened in a very different way. In short - something I thought I had a clear memory of was shown to be wrong in significant ways. I don't want to belittle "Carol" or her pain, simply to point out that memory alone cannot be regarded as reliable, no matter how vivid that memory may be.

Regardless of the truth (or otherwise) of the matter, the C of E hierarchy come out of this looking extremely stupid and it ill-behoves them to try and dismiss Lord Carlile's criticisms and recommendations.

quote:
It is beyond high time that the CofE stopped being so amateurish and put its administrative house in order. Before that happens, George Bell should be restored to his previous position of esteem, commemorated in the liturgical calendar, and all those institutions which were hastily re-named return to their original title.

I agree with L'organist on this. As things stand at the moment, there is no justification for ditching all the things relating to Bishop Bell. To continue to do so will simply confirm that Welby et al are still determined to throw him under a bus for their own convenience.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

Yes, he's dead, so can't speak up for himself. He may/may not be guilty. There are such things as false allegations. Why has this lady waited so long? How can you prove one way or another - if the alleged abuser is dead?

We don't know all the facts. There are one or two issues with the story...... But how can we possibly judge at this distance?

Yes, CofE in those days was lax.....but so was everyone else, including many parents who regularly beat, belted and slapped their kids never mind anything else. Do we then judge them all at this length of time? Mine would end up in prison for physical/emotional abuse today! Where do we stop?

We need to spend our energy in looking at more recent cases where people do need to be brought to justice. We need to ensure that we tighten up Safeguarding (not just of children) in churches. No use in condemning or tut-tutting if we don;t ensure users are safe.

Many churches still don't have policies or procedures, especially some of the New Churches. It's no good having a policy that has no procedures that are kept up to date or actions not enacted upon. That is what we need to be looking at - not historic cases where a person can't defend themselves nor justice carried out because they are dead.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I've read the report in its entirety with its addenda, and agree with L'Organist and Dafyd.

My impression from cheesy's post is that he or she has not read the report.

It seems to me that Lord Carlile is better at lawyering than Hancock, Welby, and Warner are at being bishops.

There. I hope that keeps the Ship on the right side of the law.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

There is a further area of profound concern which is this:

The allegation levelled against George Bell was handled from 2014 onwards according to protocols that the CofE have decided should be the way forward for all such situations such as this - that a "Core Group" should be set up by the relevant diocese to investigate allegations, pass things on to the police (if they have not already been informed), liaise with the claimant, review all and any evidence uncovered, seek independent reports from medical professionals if any claim for compensation is sought, take legal advice about any such claim for compensation, etc.

Lord Carlile's review makes it clear that in the Bell case this "Core Group" was, in effect, no such thing: it had a membership that changed, most meetings took place without everyone in the group being present - maybe I'd better quote the report here

quote:
I derive the following conclusions from the whole of the picture given to me by Core Group members, and from the Group’s Minutes:
The Core Group was set up in an unmethodical and unplanned way, with neither terms of reference nor any clear direction as to how it would operate.
As a result, it became a confused and unstructured process, as several members confirmed.
Some members explicitly made it clear to me that they had no coherent notion of their roles or what was expected of them.
There was no consideration of the need for consistency of attendance or membership.
The members did not all see the same documents, nor all the documents relevant to their task.
There was no organised or valuable inquiry or investigation into the merits of the allegations, and the standpoint of Bishop Bell was never given parity or proportionality.
Indeed, the clear impression left is that the process was predicated on his guilt of what Carol alleged.
Despite some reservations, the process largely assumed the eventual public release of Bishop Bell’s name, and a summary of the alleged
circumstances.
There was no focus on any special issues arising from the fact that Bishop Bell died in 1958.
There was no real attempt to inform any surviving member of his family.
No criminal law expert was instructed to be part of nor to advise the group.
It was not fully clear that the psychiatrists respectively were instructed on
a different basis.
The discussion and approval of the apology letter and media statement was poorly structured and based on a false premise that disclosure was inevitable.
There was inadequate consideration of matters arising in this particular case that might have justified denying liability altogether, including the
issue of the time bar for a claim.
There was inadequate consideration of matters arising in this particular case that might have justified a settlement of Carol’s claim on the basis of
litigation risk, with a confidentiality clause including repayment for breach.

The is 15 major criticisms - not some minor differences, which is the impression that has been given by Bishop Hancock and Lambeth.

The first five points, in particular, should fill anyone with alarm since they show that even in the one area where one might have thought the CofE had at least some expertise - the setting-up and servicing of a committee - the whole process was chaotic and sub-standard.

Rather than trying to belittle Lord Carlile, or to protect its own back, what the hierarchy of the CofE should do now in relation to safeguarding is to acknowledge that it isn't up to the task and bring in real experts, not task well-meaning (?) clerics and diocesan staff with the job. Instead we get a statement from Bishop Hancock which includes this

quote:
... it is clear from the report and minutes of Core Group meetings that much professional care and discussion were taken over both agreeing the settlement with Carol and the decision to make this public.

In other words, the CofE's "Lead Safeguarding Bishop" thinks professional care and discussion were present in a group with a membership that had significant changes over a short period and some of whose members had no clear idea of what their purpose was - that was what they told Lord Carlile!

As for the criticism levelled at me for my OP (and others have levelled at Carlile) about the difficulty in investigating the claim made by "Carol" I can only quote the report again

quote:
Had the evidence my review has obtained without any particular difficulty (see section [H] below) been available to the Church and the CPS, I doubt that the test for a prosecution would have been passed. Had a prosecution been brought on the basis of that evidence, founded upon my experience and observations I judge the prospects of a successful prosecution as low. I would have expected experienced criminal counsel to have advised accordingly.

In other words, had the diocese bothered to check in Crockford whether or not George Bell's chaplain was still alive (he was) they could have asked for his recollections - Carlile did. Carlile also traced some of the complainant's family members - again, something neither the diocese nor Sussex Constabulary had even attempted.

Moreover, in cases such as this the release of details of the alleged abuser are frequently followed by an influx of other allegations: this did not happen in the case of George Bell. That is highly unusual and, while not guaranteeing innocence it does point towards it being more likely. There was someone who got in touch with Lord Carlile when his enquiry was announced - "Pauline" who, as a child of a domestic servant, "lived-in" at the Palace for the first 11 years of her life, which covered the entire period when the alleged abuse was supposed to have happened. To cut a long story short, I'll quote Carlile again

quote:
It is at least very possible, and in my view likely, that Pauline’s recollection broadly is correct. I tested her account, and
found it compelling. This does not necessarily negate what Carol has said – and it is not my role to choose between them. Nevertheless, had the Core Group been aware of this evidence, they might well have approached their task differently. I consider that an inquiry into the facts by somebody with criminal investigative experience could well have found her, especially after a call for evidence.

Can someone please explain to me how, after reading that (and much, much more) Lambeth Palace thinks it appropriate and right to issue a statement referring to "great wickedness" in relation to George Bell, all the while sticking to its guns that the decisions made in this case were fair and right.

If anyone - anyone - thinks this report is going to improve the public perception of the CofE in relation to clerical abuse they're deluding themselves. OK, so bad enough: but when reasoned (and reasonable) criticisms are levelled at the CofE it decides it "doesn't accept" them.

Mission anyone?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In commemorating Bell we aren't just commemorating the man; we are commemorating his witness: his ecumenism; his opposition to anti-Semitism and Nazism; his opposition to indiscriminate methods of war and punishment of the whole German people. If we treat the man's reputation unjustly we treat his witness unjustly too.

This raises once again the question of whether, and to what extent, a person's positive achievements can be negated by their (alleged) sexual failings.

Does George Orwell's use of young Burmese and Moroccan prostitutes negate in any way his anti-totalitarianism, for example, or Martin Luther King's serial adultery compromise his anti-racism?

I wrote a magazine article on this theme some years ago when Field Marshal William Slim, who defeated the Japanese in Burma, was accused of molesting some boys at an orphanage during his term as governor-general in Australia during the 1950s.

Is it too much to hope that we can simply and simultaneously commend the good in a person's life and condemn the bad?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

In this case, 'the bad' is one uninvestigated allegation. Let's not forget that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I agree with L'organist's latest post. There were massive process errors in the operations of the Core Group. At the very least, that should be acknowledged, and not minimised.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Kaplan Corday

quote:
Is it too much to hope that we can simply and simultaneously commend the good in a person's life and condemn the bad?

The answer to your question is of course not.

Bus that is not what we are being asked to do in the case of George Bell. In his case, schools and other institutions have been re-named; his day of commemoration has been removed from the lectionary and liturgical calendar; friends and relatives who wish to remember a much loved man by placing flowers at his memorial in Chichester Cathedral have them removed and are told they are not allowed to remember this man. That goes way beyond what is reasonable even if there was overwhelming proof that the allegation was correct and proven.

The statements issued from 2015 have been loaded and unfair, calling the claimant a "survivor" and a "victim" without a shred of proof. In press briefings we were told that the claimant had not expressed any desire for monetary compensation, yet that is totally untrue: from first to last, every communication has mentioned compensation and two in relation to sums that might be obtained if they went to the Press. I feel bound to ask why Lambeth and the diocese were at such pains to either ignore or deny that was done: could it be that they assumed the rest of us would let it to unchecked and unquestioned?

In the name of simple justice this whole case needs to be re-examined and by a very different group from the rag-tag-and-bobtail crew - aka the Core Group - who have so far done both bell and "Carol" such dis-service so far. To properly and rigorously investigate cannot reach a definitive verdict, but it would be able to point to the probability of whether or not the allegation is true. And that is not to say that it would label the complainant as truthful or otherwise: but it would be a chance to give both of the people named in this allegation equal status.

To those who would say "Let it rest: George Bell is dead, has been for decades, and cannot be hurt by the allegation or smearing of his memory" I would say this: would you feel so sanguine if it were your father or much-loved Godfather?

In the meantime, if the CofE is genuinely interested in putting in-place rigorous and fair procedures for the investigation of abuse it must take on-board the work of Lord Carlile - dare I say they could do a lot worse than ask him to draft for them a set of protocols to be followed in such cases. Certainly, on the evidence of not only Lord Carlile's investigation but their reaction to it, the offices in Lambeth and the lead bishop for safeguarding appear to be entirely unsuitable to perform any such task.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I think, in the real world, we can hardly claim that someone was simultaneously a saint and a child molester.

I also think, that when I worked in law enforcement, if my colleagues had presented a case to a judge with the sort of omissions that were present in the case of George Bell, the case would have been thrown out and they would have been looking at a move from Investigation to a new and exciting career managing the Reprographics room.

I can understand why those involved wanted to demonstrate a decisive break with the past. But what they have appeared to have demonstrated is the truth of Martin Luther's dictum that human beings resemble a drunk, trying to mount a horse. Having fallen off one side they promptly remount, only to fall off the other.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

I was not assuming Bell's guilt in my last post,
which is why I included the word "alleged" in parenthesis.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

In the meantime, if the CofE is genuinely interested in putting in-place rigorous and fair procedures for the investigation of abuse it must take on-board the work of Lord Carlile - dare I say they could do a lot worse than ask him to draft for them a set of protocols to be followed in such cases.

Agreed again.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
mr cheesy: Now for all that Lord Carlile of Berriew blusters, the reality is that we actually can't tell what George Bell did or didn't do 60 years ago.

.........errrrr, doesn't this come under 'innocent until proved guilty'?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Bus that is not what we are being asked to do in the case of George Bell. In his case, schools and other institutions have been re-named; his day of commemoration has been removed from the lectionary and liturgical calendar;

Yeah. I can see this is painful for some, but I struggle to see this as being as bad as you're suggesting. Again, we don't actually know the truth of the allegations, if at some point in the future it was possible to be absolutely sure that they were true, it would be uncomfortable to have these things in place.

The alternative that you are suggesting appears to be to continue with these things until such time as overwhelming proof emerges that the individual isn't worthy of them.

quote:
friends and relatives who wish to remember a much loved man by placing flowers at his memorial in Chichester Cathedral have them removed and are told they are not allowed to remember this man.

This does seem harsh and unnecessary if it is true.

quote:
That goes way beyond what is reasonable even if there was overwhelming proof that the allegation was correct and proven.

The flower thing does. The former, not so much.

quote:
The statements issued from 2015 have been loaded and unfair, calling the claimant a "survivor" and a "victim" without a shred of proof.

This isn't quite true - the witness statement is proof, and the individual concerned has been determined to be a coherent witness. What there is missing is corroborating proof, but again it is hard to see what there could be so long after the event.

A couple of people were not spoken to by the review. But in-and-of-itself that doesn't prove that the events didn't happen.

quote:
In press briefings we were told that the claimant had not expressed any desire for monetary compensation, yet that is totally untrue: from first to last, every communication has mentioned compensation and two in relation to sums that might be obtained if they went to the Press. I feel bound to ask why Lambeth and the diocese were at such pains to either ignore or deny that was done: could it be that they assumed the rest of us would let it to unchecked and unquestioned?

No idea. That's pretty weird.

quote:
In the name of simple justice this whole case needs to be re-examined and by a very different group from the rag-tag-and-bobtail crew - aka the Core Group - who have so far done both bell and "Carol" such dis-service so far. To properly and rigorously investigate cannot reach a definitive verdict, but it would be able to point to the probability of whether or not the allegation is true. And that is not to say that it would label the complainant as truthful or otherwise: but it would be a chance to give both of the people named in this allegation equal status.

How exactly are you imagining that a new group would be able to come to a firm (balance of probabilities) conclusion about something that happened 60 years ago? Most of the relevant witnesses are dead, paperwork is likely missing and there are strong personal reasons for some to defend the name of Bell (including, let's be clear Lord Carlile of Berriew who was baptised by him).

I see the criticism that the original group wasn't properly set up, but then we're talking about something that happened a very long time ago. Unless one is planning to engage professional historians and researchers - and even then accept that firm conclusions may not be possible because the information isn't available - it is hard to see how this group could be set up.

quote:
To those who would say "Let it rest: George Bell is dead, has been for decades, and cannot be hurt by the allegation or smearing of his memory" I would say this: would you feel so sanguine if it were your father or much-loved Godfather?

The honest truth is that I'm in no position to tell whether an allegation made about someone I know 60 years ago is true or not. The fact that I might have known the person well is not, in-and-of-itself, proof that it didn't happen.

The only two facts we have in this case are (a) someone has made an allegation and (b) it isn't possible to refute or prove the allegations either way from this distance. Personal feelings about the saintliness of the accused are understandable, of course.

quote:

In the meantime, if the CofE is genuinely interested in putting in-place rigorous and fair procedures for the investigation of abuse it must take on-board the work of Lord Carlile - dare I say they could do a lot worse than ask him to draft for them a set of protocols to be followed in such cases.

I don't believe this at all. Carlile is clearly an interested party and clearly wanted to set up an impossible investigation about an allegation of events 60 years ago. His views are tainted by his passion for the subject of the allegation.

quote:
Certainly, on the evidence of not only Lord Carlile's investigation but their reaction to it, the offices in Lambeth and the lead bishop for safeguarding appear to be entirely unsuitable to perform any such task.

Harsh and unhelpful. In this incident, the person offering the allegation has been believed and assisted over-and-above the rights of a dead cleric.

Imagine the alternative; the woman being told that her allegation couldn't possibly be true because George Bell was a good man, because his old housekeeper said that it didn't happen and because the guy is in the Anglican lectionary.

I'm sure that this decision hurt, but it is not credible to suggest that the structure could have done anything else - without the risk of pushing away others making claims about historical abuse.

[ 18. December 2017, 09:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
.........errrrr, doesn't this come under 'innocent until proved guilty'?

No.

It is possible that Jimmy Savile would have gotten off if some/all of his crimes had come to court. Let's not forget that individually the claims against him are built up from eyewitness statements.

I think most of us accept he was a monster even if there wasn't enough to build a criminal case.

Now imagine that the events had happened 60 years ago, that a small handful of witnesses survived and that there was a passionate group who wanted to preserve his memory.

I think even with the widespread crimes of Jimmy Savile, it would likely be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probabilities, that he had done them. And we'd probably be relying on a few uncorroborated witnesses.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

A Bishop George Bell Group was formed in response to these allegations which has a website with some interesting material on it here

Bell was Bonhoeffer’s contact in the UK. Bell was a member of the House of Lords, and in the event of a successful military coup, he would have been contacted to open negotiations for a German surrender. Bonhoeffer met him to discuss these matters at a conference in Sweden in 1942, and they formed a friendship.

Bonhoeffer’s last statement was a hurried message to Bell via Sigismund Payne Best a fellow prisoner and British agent, “This is the end, for me the beginning of life.” But Bell recorded a fuller version, “Tell him that for me this is the end but also the beginning. With him I believe in the principle of our Universal Christian brotherhood which rises above all national interests, and that our victory is certain - tell him too that I have never forgotten his words at our last meeting.”

Bell’s reputation is not his alone, but is entangled with the life of the wider Church and the ecumenical hopes formed in response to WW2.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Even Saville was innocent until proven guilty.

The evidence against him was overwhelming, and the cover-ups that led to his crimes going unprosecuted during his lifetime extensive.

Either everyone, or no one, deserves a presumption of innocence. The complainant was a credible witness, and I expect his housekeeper at the time would also be a credible witness telling the obverse of the story.

I've no dog in this fight, except that as a member of the CofE, I prefer to see the church authorities and administrators act with some degree of competence, rather than conduct a somewhat shambolic 'investigation' which misses even the most basic procedures and fact-checking.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Even Saville was innocent until proven guilty.

Yes - when he was alive.

Since his death there has basically been free rein to publish the stories - which nobody seriously are suggesting are untrue.

quote:
The evidence against him was overwhelming, and the cover-ups that led to his crimes going unprosecuted during his lifetime extensive.

IANAL but I have heard several times police and lawyers saying that it might have been hard to get a conviction. Certainly Savile thought nobody could touch him.

quote:
Either everyone, or no one, deserves a presumption of innocence. The complainant was a credible witness, and I expect his housekeeper at the time would also be a credible witness telling the obverse of the story.

Really.

So if someone accuses you of something and you present your wife as a character witness, you think that they're of equal value?

Is it not at least possible that the housekeeper saw one side of someone and a witness saw another?

The only way that one could definitively disprove an allegation would be to show that facts - such as dates and events - were not possible and didn't match up. Simply providing a counter-narrative of someone's goodness is not evidence.

quote:
I've no dog in this fight, except that as a member of the CofE, I prefer to see the church authorities and administrators act with some degree of competence, rather than conduct a somewhat shambolic 'investigation' which misses even the most basic procedures and fact-checking.

Again, you seem to be vastly underestimating the effort and difficultly of proving anything about a named individual from a distance of 60 years.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Bonhoeffer’s last statement was a hurried message to Bell via Sigismund Payne Best a fellow prisoner and British agent, “This is the end, for me the beginning of life.” But Bell recorded a fuller version, “Tell him that for me this is the end but also the beginning. With him I believe in the principle of our Universal Christian brotherhood which rises above all national interests, and that our victory is certain - tell him too that I have never forgotten his words at our last meeting.”

I wonder how Bell justified this interpolation. Is the suggestion that Best passed on other statements?

Bonhoeffer is an interesting case study - despite the study and availability of information about him, it still doesn't seem possible for professionals to agree on some widely accepted facts about him.

Most historians seem to accept he had a role in an assassination attempt, some seem to think this wasn't possible. Many see the eyewitness claims about his death as authoritative, some say that the details are not possible.

Most of these were based on information which emerged from near the time. How much harder would it be to establish what had happened from a distance of 60 years?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The alternative that you are suggesting appears to be to continue with these things until such time as overwhelming proof emerges that the individual isn't worthy of them.

Sounds OK to me. And certainly better than the alternative of not commemorating the good that people have done unless we can be absolutely sure that they were entirely without sin.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

In the meantime, if the CofE is genuinely interested in putting in-place rigorous and fair procedures for the investigation of abuse it must take on-board the work of Lord Carlile - dare I say they could do a lot worse than ask him to draft for them a set of protocols to be followed in such cases.
I don't believe this at all. Carlile is clearly an interested party and clearly wanted to set up an impossible investigation about an allegation of events 60 years ago. His views are tainted by his passion for the subject of the allegation.

A useful link.

Note this.

quote:
The review, commissioned by the NST on the recommendation of the Bishop of Chichester, was carried out by Lord Carlile of Berriew. As he writes in the introduction, his purpose was not to determine the truthfulness of the woman referred to as Carol in the report, nor the guilt or innocence of Bishop Bell, but to examine the procedures followed by the Church of England.

.

If Carlile was not to be trusted to write an objective report on process, then the fault lies with the NST in their commissioning of the report.

So far as the objectivity of the report is concerned, the apologies from Archbishop Justin Welby, Bishop Peter Hancock and Bishop Martin Warner go a very long way to confirming that.

On this point, why do you think his views are tainted? And even if they are, does that mean that he cannot produce an objective report on the failure of process? Bias is normal; those charged with the responsibility for objective reporting know that they need to work to set any pre-judgments aside in favour of looking at what actually happened.

I've read the report in detail. Personally, I can see no evidence that its criticisms of process are affected by prejudice. YMMV.

[ 18. December 2017, 09:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
snip

So I have no idea why you're going so hardball on this, but you simply seem to have forgotten both the Golden Rule, and any form of jurisprudence.

There are very good reasons why we shouldn't behave like a drunkard trying to mount a horse (falling off one side, only to immediately remount and fall off the other).

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

Bonhoeffer’s last statement was a hurried message to Bell via Sigismund Payne Best a fellow prisoner and British agent, “This is the end, for me the beginning of life.” But Bell recorded a fuller version, “Tell him that for me this is the end but also the beginning. With him I believe in the principle of our Universal Christian brotherhood which rises above all national interests, and that our victory is certain - tell him too that I have never forgotten his words at our last meeting.”
I wonder how Bell justified this interpolation. Is the suggestion that Best passed on other statements?

Bonhoeffer is an interesting case study - despite the study and availability of information about him, it still doesn't seem possible for professionals to agree on some widely accepted facts about him.

Most historians seem to accept he had a role in an assassination attempt, some seem to think this wasn't possible. Many see the eyewitness claims about his death as authoritative, some say that the details are not possible.

Most of these were based on information which emerged from near the time. How much harder would it be to establish what had happened from a distance of 60 years?

Payne Best went to see Bell, and each of them wrote their recollections of the conversation, Bell first, Payne Best in a later autobiography. He didn’t know much about the relationship between Bell and Bonhoeffer.

Bonhoeffer’s life is very well documented. There is an interesting controversy about the manner of his execution, though, which has recently surfaced on his Wikipedia page.

The classic account is from a doctor, told to Bonhoeffer’s friend and biographer, Bethge, which speaks of this ‘lovable man’ kneeling in prayer, then climbing the steps to the scaffold and being dead within minutes in complete submission to God.

However, conspirators were usually hanged with wire, often being taken down before death for additional barbarities. Bonhoeffer’s group included Admiral Canares and General Oster, who we might expect to get the full works. The executions took six hours. There are no steps at Flossenburg. The doctor who spoke to Bethge was responsible for reviving people after hanging, so will have wanted to sanitise his account.

You have to make a judgment. It may well be that scholars avoided public discussion of these things until after the deaths of Bethge in 2000 and Bonhoeffer’s twin, Sabine in 1999.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Mr Cheesy: I don't want it to seem like we're playing a private game of tennis but...

quote:
...the witness statement is proof, and the individual concerned has been determined to be a coherent witness.

No witness statement is “proof” of anything other than (assuming it has been transcribed accurately and is agreed as so being) the fact that it has been made: it isn’t even proof that it is made in good faith.

quote:
What there is missing is corroborating proof, but again it is hard to see what there could be so long after the event.

Not so: Lord Carlile found people with ease; moreover he didn’t even have to look for one person – she got in touch with him from the USA after it was publicised that he was undertaking his review. And she was the most compelling witness since she lived in the palace in Chichester for the entire period when “Carol” alleges abuse took place.

Further: George Bell’s life has been well-documented and, as Lord Carlile points out, this was a great help because it meant potential witnesses were readily and easily identified – for example the large group of Kindertransport children who lived at the palace.

quote:
A couple of people were not spoken to by the review. But in-and-of-itself that doesn't prove that the events didn't happen.

There are, literally, hundreds of people who were available, easily traced if someone – either the Core Group or the local constabulary – had the will to do it: agreed it doesn’t prove things didn’t happen but (as has been noted by many, many criminologists over the years) the type of abuse alleged is not of the “one-off” variety involving usually only one child.

quote:
How exactly are you imagining that a new group would be able to come to a firm (balance of probabilities) conclusion about something that happened 60 years ago? Most of the relevant witnesses are dead...

Simple: interview people like “Pauline” formally: look at the contact Lord Carlile had with the domestic chaplain; seek out the children of gardeners and other cathedral staff who were around the palace gardens; former choristers – frankly there are potentially hundreds of people who can be found.

quote:
... paperwork is likely missing

Paperwork is not missing: there is a massive archive of his own papers, most of the office paperwork still exists, and there is more with the several authors who have written about Bell, plus those who have written about those with whom GB had significant interaction, such as Bonhoeffer, etc, etc, etc.

quote:
... and there are strong personal reasons for some to defend the name of Bell (including, let's be clear Lord Carlile of Berriew who was baptised by him).

You imply that people who seek to stand-up for the reputation of GB have some private reason for so doing: has it never occurred to you it could be in the name of simple justice and fairness.

As for Lord Carlile: he was not baptised by George Bell for the simple reason that he is JEWISH.

quote:
I see the criticism that the original group wasn't properly set up, but then we're talking about something that happened a very long time ago. Unless one is planning to engage professional historians and researchers - and even then accept that firm conclusions may not be possible because the information isn't available - it is hard to see how this group could be set up.

Not so: the “Core Group” was set up in 2014. In any case, it should have been blindingly obvious to anyone tasked with an allegation dating back more than 50 years that an investigator would be required in exactly the same way as if the alleged event happened last week. I don't think that citing length of time and "difficulty" really cuts the mustard.
It should be noted that from start to finish no meeting of the Core Group was attended by all of its named members: personally, I find that astonishing even without taking into account the incredible sensitivity of the reasons for its being set-up in the first place.

The criticism from Lord Carlile isn’t only about how the group was set up: it was that various people sent deputies or were appointed half-way through its meetings. It was that where proper investigation took place – getting a report from a forensic psychiatrist in particular – a member of the Group took it upon themselves to draw-up a summary to present to the Group, rather than letting members see the whole thing; members of the group werent told who had drawn-up the summary which reported a “conclusion” that was not given by the expert and differed from his opinion in several key areas. Lets be quite clear about this: if this had happened in a criminal case it would likely have been viewed as potential evidence tampering.

quote:
Personal feelings about the saintliness of the accused are understandable, of course.

I hope you didn't mean to sound patronising...

I have no personal feelings about George Bell: I never met the man, I have never been part of any organisation or group dedicated to his works or defending his reputation. What I do have is a passionate commitment to the principle of innocence until proven guilty (what used to be called fairness) and believe that everyone deserves to have equal status before the law or any other investigatory body or process.

quote:

quote:
in an earlier post of mine
In the meantime, if the CofE is genuinely interested in putting in-place rigorous and fair procedures for the investigation of abuse it must take on-board the work of Lord Carlile - dare I say they could do a lot worse than ask him to draft for them a set of protocols to be followed in such cases.
I don't believe this at all. Carlile is clearly an interested party and clearly wanted to set up an impossible investigation about an allegation of events 60 years ago. His views are tainted by his passion for the subject of the allegation.

How and why have you reached the conclusion that Lord Carlile is an “interested party”? The only thing that he mentions that might relate to your remarkable statements above is that he thought it curious to task him to look solely at processes in what was clearly a very delicate and sensitive situation (evidenced by the setting up of the George Bell Group among other things) which was crying out for cool, calm investigation.

What Alex Carlile has is a passion for the law and the principle of justice for all, something which you think is a taint – remarkable.

quote:

quote:
in an earlier post of mine
Certainly, on the evidence of not only Lord Carlile's investigation but their reaction to it, the offices in Lambeth and the lead bishop for safeguarding appear to be entirely unsuitable to perform any such task.
Harsh and unhelpful. In this incident, the person offering the allegation has been believed and assisted over-and-above the rights of a dead cleric.

“By their fruits... etc”: or to put in the vernacular, If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, is feathered like a duck, and quacks like a duck – ITS A DUCK.

When you use the word “believed” you get to the central problem with this allegation and others levelled in similarly well-publicised cases where the use of words like “credible”, “belief”, and “victim” have been used without due care. There can be a world of difference between something being possible and something being credible; finding a statement believable does not automatically render it fact; and anyone can allege or claim that something happened, but that doesn’t mean they are a victim.

Meanwhile indiscriminate use of words like "sin" and "wickedness" in relation to George Bell have shown absolute bias on the part of the CofE towards their own man: this was entirely unnecessary and unfair, and it has been repeated in statements from Bishop Hancock and Lambeth in the past few days.

quote:
Imagine the alternative; the woman being told that her allegation couldn't possibly be true because George Bell was a good man, because his old housekeeper said that it didn't happen and because the guy is in the Anglican lectionary.

I would not and have not suggested that the complainant should have been told her allegation was impossible: I have suggested that it should have been treated with due respect, which would have meant it was properly investigated. Frankly, to effectively say “We believe you dear, here is compensation” is not only wrong to the reputation of the person being casually labelled an abuser, it is patronising to the complainant.

quote:
I'm sure that this decision hurt, but it is not credible to suggest that the structure could have done anything else - without the risk of pushing away others making claims about historical abuse.

Yes they could and should have done something else: they should have treated “Carol” seriously, they should have treated her allegation seriously and acted accordingly by investigating thoroughly.

Dammit, all they had to do was look in the one reference book in every CofE office – Crockford’s Clerical Directory – to find the domestic chaplain who was still alive a full four years after the second complaint was made. Its easier than using a telephone directory to find a CofE priest, it even gives their full work history.

Please – read the report and look up Lord Carlile.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So I have no idea why you're going so hardball on this...

One reason might be that if the complainant or any close family are still alive, then this must be at least as hard for them as it is for those who love and respect the late Bishop.

This is an awful situation and the only way it could have been better would have been for as objective and independent an investigation to have been done as possible in the first place. That didn't happen, and it's right that the CoE get toasted for that.

But just as we have no grounds for assuming the late Bishop is guilty, we also have no grounds - unless I've missed something? - for assuming that the complainant was making a maliciously false complaint.

There needs to be a way to respect both. I'm not sure I know what that is.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I made a mistake. The comments I heard were by Desmond Browne QC, not Lord Carlile.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Posting on the fly from my mobile. Lord Carlile is indeed the son of Polish Jewish refugees, but I found a link to an interview in which he described himself as a baptised and confirmed member of the C of E. He also said he wasn't religious. I'll provide the link later.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Erroneous Monk

quote:
...if the complainant or any close family are still alive, then this must be at least as hard for them as it is for those who love and respect the late Bishop.

The complainant is still alive, and there are also extant siblings.

In fact in a couple of her communications "Carol" refers to a sibling as having been aware of what she alleged happened. When this was later investigated the sibling said they had no recollection whatever about it; in fact they went further and refused to support her allegation - make of that what you wish.

quote:
This is an awful situation and the only way it could have been better would have been for as objective and independent an investigation to have been done as possible in the first place. That didn't happen, and it's right that the CoE get toasted for that.

What investigation that did take place found no evidence or suggestion the allegation was true.

quote:
But just as we have no grounds for assuming the late Bishop is guilty, we also have no grounds - unless I've missed something? - for assuming that the complainant was making a maliciously false complaint.

Questionable. [material removed by host]

quote:
I am going to tell my story and sell it to the highest bidder to gain compensation. (1995)
...at least other churches offer some sort of compensation for ruined childhood by disgusting perverts (2012)
I think the church owes me something in the way of compensation for all iv suffered (2013)

While that may not show malicious intent or motivation it does show that the idea of monetary gain/reward was there. In addition initial offers of counselling were either not taken up or were actively rebuffed.

And one of the matters raised by the forensic psychiatrist (in the report which the Core Group only received in summary) was the possibility of false memory syndrome...

[ 18. December 2017, 17:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

[intervention to remove potential breaches of C7, content removed]
/hosting

[ 18. December 2017, 17:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I fail to see how any inquiry, however well-conducted, can possibly arrive at the truth of an affair such as this after so many years have elapsed, and, of course, given the fact that Bishop Bell is long dead.

That's not to say that investigations can't or shouldn't be made, but with a strong caveat.

IJ

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

mr cheesy seems to forget that the onus is on Bell’s accusers to prove their case not for his supporters to prove him innocent.

Not being an Anglican and largely ignorant of the life and times of Bishop Bell I have even less of a dog in this fight than Doc Tor. I have, however, a bias towards the principle of a presumption of innocence until proved guilty and an aversion to guilt by accusation. The weight of accusation against Savile is such that I would be reluctant to enter the trenches on his behalf, but that against Bell seems to rest on the unproven testimony of a single complainant.

One can understand that the Church of England acted as it did because it did not wish to give the impression that it was in denial regarding sexual misconduct by its clergy and agents, as has been egregiously the case with the Romans. Regarding Bishop Bell, however, it seems pretty clear that its motives led it to become blind to the weakness of the evidence against the Bishop, and like many bureaucracies was, and seemingly still is, reluctant to admit to its mistake. There is, however, a positive consequence in that it has highlighted the virtues of Bishop Bell which would otherwise be forgotten if ever known by people like myself.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

The letters are reproduced in full in the Carlile Report.

[material removed by host]

[ 18. December 2017, 17:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The psychiatrist (professor Made) who was asked to consider credibility is quoted in the report as saying

quote:
I have no reason to believe that the material allegations are a conscious fabrication.

On the other hand, he also says

quote:
The distorting and sometimes creative nature of recall has been recognised since the work of Bartlett in the 1940s… It is a consistent finding of research in this field that these problems with recall are unrelated to questions of honesty, integrity, intelligence or level of education. The consequence is that neither the individual nor anybody else can test the reliability and accuracy of a recollection except by reference to other sources of information.

As far as the process was concerned the fundamental problem - once the complaint was raised in 1995 was the then Bishop of Chichester's failure to take appropriate action. There was then a further delay in 2012, which the complainant felt was just sweeping her complaint under the carpet.

The second problem was that the core group did not function effectively. There was enormous lack of consistency of those who were present in the group from one meeting to the next. It was initially instigated by the diocesan safeguarding officer, but it is not clear that anyone really oversaw its working.

The report's recommendation arising from this is

quote:
Each such group should have one person nominated at the beginning as Chair who is expected to chair all meetings throughout. Groups should be established with as continuous and permanent a membership as possible.

In fact the core group was chaired in different phases by two people whose membership of the group didn't fully (?if at all) overlap in time.

Further down the line, it then looks as though those coming later into the picture accepted the core group's evaluation of the situation, although Lord Carlile clearly identifies that the flawed process had led to a conclusion that wasn't fully defensible.

The changing membership of the group was, I think, highly problematic. It looks as though only 2 members of the group made all the meetings. Some members were only appointed part way through and so on. A table of attendances is revealing (A = absent, - = not appointed, p= partial attendance, t = attendance by telephone)

code:

	.	A	1	A	3	4	A
	.	B	A	2	3	4	5
	.	C	1	2	3	4	5
	.	D	1 	2p	3	4t	A
	.	E	1	2	A	4	A
	.	F	1	2	3	4	5
	.	G	1	A	3	4	5
	.	H	1	2	A	4	A
	.	I	1	2	A	4	5
	.	J	1	2	3	4	A
	.	K	A	2	3	4t	5
	.	L	1	2p	A	4	5
	.	M	-	2	3	4	5
	.	N	-	2	A	4	5
	.	O	-	-	3	4	A
	.	P	-	-	3	4t	5
	.	Q	-	-	-	4	5

To some extent the actions and statements that followed flowed quite naturally from the conclusion that the core group appears to have reached. It's not clear that the group understood that its process was flawed, let alone communicated that to the others who then interacted with its conclusions.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thread locked temporarily, for some Hostly editing of content in accordance with Commandment 7. Will be re-opened shortly.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

And, we're back.

After consultation backstage we have taken the exceptional step of redacting some parts of some posts and deleting one post entirely.

I'm also re-stating my previous follow-up to Barnabas62's earlier host post:

Discussing the report is fine. Note, however, that Lord Carlile has refrained from judging guilt or innocence of either "Carol" or Bishop Bell, so we should too.

If discussion tips over into allegations that go beyond the report and into Commandment 7 territory, questionable content will be deleted and/or the thread locked without further notice, and the admins alerted.

We take an extremely dim view of people playing fast and loose with Commandment 7.

/hosting

[ 18. December 2017, 17:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Hum. Well this makes it tricky to see what we can actually discuss on this thread.

It seems to me that in paras 36-40 is making a statement about what he thinks the principles of the original Core Group should have been and taking into account what he says in para 52 and what he says should have been given considerable weight in para 56, it is hard to conclude that he isn't actually making a judgement about the allegation - which appears to be beyond the scope of the review in para 35, even though he repeats that he shouldn't be doing so.

Paras 214-220 make statements that might easily be irrelevant (for obvious reasons, although perhaps difficult to spell out here), particularly given the central sentence of para 216. Weight is also given in 221-225 to something important yet not remembered (para 223) which is taken as fact a few paras before.

In contrast other information such as that in para 5 is determined to be unsubstantiated - with the implication that a missing memory from 60 years ago by two people is worth more than something reported by a source to a journalist. And the lack of contact from the journalist or source is given some special status even though the journalist morally if not legally cannot reveal the source if they want to remain hidden. It is also entirely possible, for example, that the person mentioned in that para is sick or otherwise unable/unwilling to engage with Lord Carlile. Either way, there is more than one witness.

The clear suggestion from these paras is that if the Core Group had known about their contents, they would not have come to the conclusion that they did.

I also note that the person who made the complaint has reiterated it to The Argus saying: “The fact is, it happened whether he would have been found guilty or not, whatever Lord Carlile says.”

Furthermore Lord Carlile says in that piece: "Of course there are cases – occasionally, and I have to say occasionally – where only one person has been abused, but with the kind of abuse that was complained of here it’s very unusual for there to be only one person who’s been abused."

Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :

If the Church wants to be taken seriously it needs to leave investigation of criminal allegations to the police from the outset. Any attempt to 'investigate' could lead to accusations of tampering with or withholding evidence or attempting to pervert the course of justice. If I thought anything of that nature was going on in our shed I would involve the police. Lets face it who would call the police to take communion if the vicar was off?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Hum. Well this makes it tricky to see what we can actually discuss on this thread.

How about just about anything in or related to the report that doesn't approach potential libel? Just a suggestion.

Actually, let's make it an official suggestion.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
One can understand that the Church of England acted as it did because it did not wish to give the impression that it was in denial regarding sexual misconduct by its clergy and agents, as has been egregiously the case with the Romans.

It seems pretty clear from Lord Carlile's report that the C of E hierarchy's anxiety stemmed more from the fact that Chichester Diocese had a well-known track record for serious child safety failings and that the events surrounding Bishop Peter Ball were very much in the news at the time.

It is therefore understandable (to a degree) that the Powers That Be felt the need to move swiftly in the case of Bishop Bell. Another fiasco along the lines of Peter Ball couldn't be countenanced. Sadly, as Carlile clearly sets out, this meant that they went far too far in the opposite direction. I wonder if things might have been different had Bishop Bell been the Diocesan Bishop of any other diocese than Chichester?

One of the problems that I now have is that the C of E hierarchy seem to have come to a rather mule-like decision that having passed judgement so swiftly and decisively on Bishop Bell, they cannot now back up from that position, even when presented with clear evidence that the whole process was severely flawed from start to finish. What is wrong with simply saying "we made a mistake, but at least we did so with the best of intentions"? I - for one - would find such a statement acceptable and even refreshing.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

ISTM that from the hierarchy’s POV it’s not at all simple. Carlile says the complaint wasn’t adequately investigated. He also says that a fairly simple investigation might have led the group to a different decision about where the probabilities lie. I think he has been scrupulous in identifying enough other evidence that should have been found to support his conclusions about the failures of the enquiry, but he doesn’t say that he has found everything that could be found, nor does he attempt to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion. His argument is that if they had come to a different view they might still have sought to come to a settlement with the complainant, but could have sought a confidentiality clause.

On the basis of what is in the report the apology would now have to be along the lines of: We believe the complainant has a genuine belief that she was abused but we are no longer able to find enough evidence to confirm or deny this. If such abuse took place as she remembers it was a wicked act. We are sorry that the complaint was not taken seriously when it was first raised in 1995, and for the delay in 2012. We recognise that the delay was hurtful for the complainant [but we do not believe a better response in 1995 would have enabled a different outcome to the investigation*]. We are sorry too that the conduct of the enquiry has harmed the reputation of Bishop Bell who may not have deserved it. We continue to be determined to take such complaints seriously, and we will be changing our practice in the light of this report to ensure proper investigations are carried out in a way that is as fair as possible to all concerned, living or dead. [* if this is true]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
If the Church wants to be taken seriously it needs to leave investigation of criminal allegations to the police from the outset. Any attempt to 'investigate' could lead to accusations of tampering with or withholding evidence or attempting to pervert the course of justice. If I thought anything of that nature was going on in our shed I would involve the police. Lets face it who would call the police to take communion if the vicar was off?

Since the Royal Commission here started hearings, let alone reported, I think that's become the approach of churches, schools and other institutions. Tell the police asap so the allegations can be looked into by those whose role is to investigate alleged crimes, and further so it can't be said that you're trying to hide something. A bit hard to get the police interested when the alleged perpetrator has been dead these last 40 years though.

To a complete outsider, the conduct of the C of E in 1995 appears to have been totally inadequate. Sweeping these things under the carpet is not the right way to deal with them, as so many institutions here have found out during the Royal Commission. The response in 2012 looks to fall into much the same category. This may serve as a good prompt to review the whole Core Group procedure generally along the lines others above have suggested but starting with mandatory reporting to the police. Perhaps steps could be taken to establish liaison with the area police force to have a particular person to whom the complainant could be referred. Assistance could be offered to a complainant in making contact.

As a sideline, leaving the initial investigation to the police has the benefit of not muddying the waters in any subsequent criminal proceedings. There have been criminal appeal cases here where convictions have been overturned as unsafe; inappropriate suggestions may well have been made to a complainant or witness during the course of taking statements.

In the meantime, and until there is some decent evidence produced, we'll continue to remember Bp Bell on 3 October for his fearless work in decrying anti-semitism, nazism, the rescue of the children and the area bombing of Germany, as well as in the area of ecumenism.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

It is difficult to understand how the Church of England, with its contacts with the education and local authority mechanisms through its school system, could have got call group work so spectacularly wrong.

It is also a little naive to think that the report author does not offer a view on the evidence, despite his protestations. Read paragraphs 258 to 263 of the report. It is fairly clear what he thinks of the case on the assumption that he is right about the facts available to him.

The Church of England calendar is full of people that ought not to be commemorated. One rabbit anti-Semite, one-person very much likely to be complicit in a murder, another responsible for starting a civil war. Perhaps we shouldn’t commemorate people adore.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

The Church of England calendar is full of people that ought not to be commemorated. One rabbit anti-Semite, one-person very much likely to be complicit in a murder, another responsible for starting a civil war. Perhaps we shouldn’t commemorate people adore.

I feel like I've been around this block before - having seen unavoidable evidence that someone I previously revered had a very dark side.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Last Sunday I listened to a sermon about wolves and sheep, during which the preacher suggested that there was also something of the wolf within each of us.

That's an uncomfortable, but sadly true, insight. We need to stop both putting people on pedestals and demonising them (not infrequently, aided and abetted by the media, doing both in succession to the same person, e.g. Savile).

My own theory is that our inevitable tendency to do so is simply a way of distancing ourselves from the very good and the very bad, ruling us out (as we mistakenly believe) from ever being capable of being the former and somehow (also mistakenly) immunnising us against becoming the latter.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I learned pretty young not to revere any person.

But Savile is a very poor example. He didn’t need demonising, his terrible acts spoke for themselves. It was the earlier reverence which contributed to him being able to hide in plain sight.

Get rid of the pedestals - all of them.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes Savile's terrible acts spoke for themselves. The bit we have difficulty computing is that monsters can also perform good actions, and I'm far from sure that Savile is any exception to that.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

One of the issues in this case, as far as investigation was concerned, is that with George Bell having been dead for over 50 years by the time the allegations were first reported to the police, they (quite rightly IMO) were not willing to spend time and resources in investigating them. I seriously doubt that their attitude would have been any different had the allegations been referred to them in 1995. So the diocese did not have the option of leaving the investigation to the police.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I learned pretty young not to revere any person.

But Savile is a very poor example. He didn’t need demonising, his terrible acts spoke for themselves. It was the earlier reverence which contributed to him being able to hide in plain sight.

Get rid of the pedestals - all of them.

I don't know that this is really possible - it seems part of the human condition to look to others for inspiration and personal aspiration. In knocking down pedestals, we just open space for erecting someone else in place.

I think the problem is in two parts; first we tend to pick inspirational characters without enough (time or physical) distance. Second we tend to latch onto certain attractive characteristics, diminishing their humanity - so if/when it turns out that they're somehow flawed, that can really shake our faith in.. well, everything.

But the alternative seems to be to be set adrift in a lonely world, only able to take inspiration from the things/people immediately around us.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes Savile's terrible acts spoke for themselves. The bit we have difficulty computing is that monsters can also perform good actions, and I'm far from sure that Savile is any exception to that.

I'm fairly sure that concentration camp commanders were kind to their children. But equally, I'm pretty sure that their great and evil acts overwhelmed any good that they did in their family.

I think we're really into the weeds if we're suggesting that it might be OK to be inspired by the good acts of a monster.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm not sure everyone finds it easy to imagine concentration camp officers being kind to their kids.

The issue of safe and/or legitimate sources of inspiration is a separate and interesting question.

Perhaps deserving of a separate thread?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

It is also a little naive to think that the report author does not offer a view on the evidence, despite his protestations. Read paragraphs 258 to 263 of the report. It is fairly clear what he thinks of the case on the assumption that he is right about the facts available to him.

Here is para 258

quote:
258. That said, if the criticisms are substantially valid, in my judgement the decision to settle the case in the form and manner followed was indefensibly wrong. In giving that view, again I emphasise that it is not part of my terms of reference to venture an opinion as to whether Carol was telling the truth. Mine is (I hope) an objective exercise about the conduct of a potential piece of litigation

(The bold text is mine)

He has of course formed a very critical view about the operations of the Core group, believing that their sloppiness led to unjustified actions. But that is different to judging the case. Rather, he observes that in his view there were good grounds for the CofE to deny liability, yet these were not properly considered by the Core Group. His wording is very careful on that point, as the emboldened sentence makes clear.

And so far as this thread is concerned, with the Commandment 7 strictures emphasised, that is a very important distinction.

[ 19. December 2017, 08:33: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Today's Thunderer column in The Times is from the pen of Andrew Chandler, biographer of George Bell and the acknowledged expert on Bell, his life and work.

It is surprising that neither the Core Group nor West Sussex Police seem to have taken the opportunity to interview Mr Chandler, particularly in light of the fact that he has read all of Bell's famous blue notebooks in which GB kept notes of all his meetings, appointments and engagements and which cover the period 1919 to 1957, a year before GB's death. Mr Chandler is on the staff of the University of Chichester so it should have been easy for him to be contacted.

Anyway, Mr Chandler shares my view: that the Carlile review casts a cloud over the CofE at both local and national level and that in its reaction to it the cloud is thickest and darkest over Lambeth.

(I hope none of this falls foul of any of the Commandments?)

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
It is difficult to understand how the Church of England, with its contacts with the education and local authority mechanisms through its school system, could have got call group work so spectacularly wrong.

Actually I find this one of the easiest things to understand. Lord Carlile comments (paragraph 94)

quote:
It has become clear to me that Dioceses have a very high degree of independence. This is not unique to the Church of England: in the Roman Catholic Church even single monasteries in some cases are almost entirely self-governing.

A former Bishop of Peterborough used to describe it as being like 42 petty baronies. Within diocesan administrations those concerned with particular fields make the effort to keep up with those working in similar fields - at least on a regional basis. But I don't suppose those who work for the diocesan boards of education have much idea about the work of those handling complaints like this or clergy discipline issues, and vice versa

quote:
It is also a little naive to think that the report author does not offer a view on the evidence, despite his protestations. Read paragraphs 258 to 263 of the report. It is fairly clear what he thinks of the case on the assumption that he is right about the facts available to him.

I read him as saying that a little basic investigation, which would have been within the capacity of those involved, would have revealed enough evidence to show that the complainant's case might or would not be accepted buy a court on the balance of probabilities. His point is that there are grounds on which the claim might have been contested - but he really only looks at litigation risk, he does not weigh and evaluate the competing evidence.

If they had reached that conclusion, he argues, then it would have been indefensible for them to settle the complaint in the way that they did. A 'litigation risk' settlement, such as he suggests might have been achieved, factors in not only the irrecoverable costs of litigation, but also the risk that the court takes a different view from the advisers and that new evidence may emerge down the line which will change the picture.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

He has of course formed a very critical view about the operations of the Core group, believing that their sloppiness led to unjustified actions. But that is different to judging the case. Rather, he observes that in his view there were good grounds for the CofE to deny liability, yet these were not properly considered by the Core Group. His wording is very careful on that point, as the emboldened sentence makes clear.

And so far as this thread is concerned, with the Commandment 7 strictures emphasised, that is a very important distinction.

And we can all take a personal view as to whether he's actually succeeded in that. I don't think he has - simply stating that he is not doing something doesn't actually mean that he isn't.

On a more general point, it strikes me that Lord Carlile has treated writing this report like a statutory inquiry (which it clearly wasn't) and has made judgements about the absence of people talking to him. He's been involved in various inquiries, so that's understandable. Nobody is under any obligation to talk to a private and non-criminal investigation, and their absence can't be taken to mean anything significant.

Secondly he's tried to walk a self-imposed tightrope, claiming first that this isn't something which could or should meet a criminal standard of evidence, but then treating the accusation as something which is capable of being legally weighed against other character statements - and giving significant weight to the views of interested parties.

It's a failure of a report. There is nothing useful which can be taken from this report should an accusation of this kind be presented to the Anglican structure in the future.

The best that can be said is that a huge amount of time and resources would ideally be put into an investigation of a 60 year old accusation (including engaging with the police and getting advice from government lawyers - which seems to me to be a fairly wild suggestion).

It's not a practical suggestion. Leaving aside the questions of compensation and badly-worded official statements by the church - nothing that has been offered in this report would have made the slightest difference.

And we're no further forward knowing what to do if it happened again.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Today's Thunderer column in The Times

Is there any way of viewing this without having to register and sign in?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Today's Thunderer column in The Times
Is there any way of viewing this without having to register and sign in?

You could buy a copy from your local newsagent.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I read him as saying that a little basic investigation, which would have been within the capacity of those involved, would have revealed enough evidence to show that the complainant's case might or would not be accepted buy a court on the balance of probabilities. His point is that there are grounds on which the claim might have been contested - but he really only looks at litigation risk, he does not weigh and evaluate the competing evidence.

That's not really correct. Para 56 includes something that Lord Carlile says should have been given significant weight (compare with para 5, which is said to be unsubstantiated and therefore ignored), it is hard to conclude that he isn't in the process weighing and evaluation competing evidence

quote:
If they had reached that conclusion, he argues, then it would have been indefensible for them to settle the complaint in the way that they did. A 'litigation risk' settlement, such as he suggests might have been achieved, factors in not only the irrecoverable costs of litigation, but also the risk that the court takes a different view from the advisers and that new evidence may emerge down the line which will change the picture.

That seems to me to be a difference that doesn't amount to anything.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by mr cheesy

quote:
On a more general point, it strikes me that Lord Carlile has treated writing this report like a statutory inquiry [snip]

Agreed, he has applied great rigour to the task - but is that such a bad thing? It strikes me that's like going to a shop to buy a generic whisky, being given a bottle of 15 year-old single malt and then complaining about it!

quote:
Nobody is under any obligation to talk to a private and non-criminal investigation, and their absence can't be taken to mean anything significant.

Again, I agree, but equally it is usual that family members lend one another support in times of stress and matters of emergency.

quote:
Secondly he's tried to walk a self-imposed tightrope, claiming first that this isn't something which could or should meet a criminal standard of evidence, but then treating the accusation as something which is capable of being legally weighed against other character statements - and giving significant weight to the views of interested parties.

But Lord Carlile had to look at standards of evidence since the whole raison d'être for the Core Group was to decide on the issue of compensation as it might be applied if a criminal case has been pursued (my italics) and the support offered by the CofE included putting the complainant in touch with a firm of solicitors.

As for weight given to views,etc, etc: the CofE itself was/is an "interested party" so where do you suggest he over-stepped the mark?

quote:
It's a failure of a report. There is nothing useful which can be taken from this report should an accusation of this kind be presented to the Anglican structure in the future.

Choosing my words very carefully here, I cannot fathom how you reach that conclusion. Quite apart from anything else, it offers a simple and practical bullet-point list of exactly how any church body should handle an accusation of this kind (or any other, for that matter) in the future. Granted, we might like to think that an institution such as the church doesn't need advice in how to run an effective investigatory committee but the evidence in this case it that it did and does.

quote:
The best that can be said is that a huge amount of time and resources would ideally be put into an investigation of a 60 year old accusation (including engaging with the police and getting advice from government lawyers - which seems to me to be a fairly wild suggestion).

I hope you didn't really mean to say that engaging with the police in relation to allegations of abuse should be seen as a "fairly wild suggestion". For goodness' sake: has the CofE learned nothing from its previous ham-fisted attempts to distance itself from people like Peter Ball, Roy Cotton, Colin Pritchard, etc, etc, etc? I'd have thought that the criticism of the actions of George Carey over Peter Ball made it abundantly clear that the church must engage with the police where there are allegations of serious criminality, either recent or historic.

quote:
Leaving aside the questions of compensation and badly-worded official statements by the church - nothing that has been offered in this report would have made the slightest difference.

Unbelievable. If the suggestions offered by Lord Carlile had been followed, then not only would those concerned at the reputational damage to Bishop Bell been assured that he, despite being dead, had been accorded equal weight in the scale of priorities with the complainant, but the complainant would have had their allegation handled with a proper process that was far more than about damage-control for the reputation of the CofE. Whatever the protestations to the contrary, all the way down the line the main thrust of the 'official' church response to the allegation was one of seeking to minimise damage to its own reputation and limit any financial recompense it made to the complainant.

quote:
And we're no further forward knowing what to do if it happened again.

We are miles further forward because Lord Carlile has, as I say above, given us a handy list of the processes and procedures that should be followed.

edited - coding madness removed

[ 19. December 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
(I hope none of this falls foul of any of the Commandments?)

So far as I can see, that's all fine in that post. For the avoidance of doubt, what we are seeking to avoid in this specific instance is potentially libellous speculation about living persons. That includes impugning their motives and making accusations against them that go beyond what is in the public domain.

If you want to do that in public (and you may feel there is a case for doing so), I suggest you do so in a forum where you have clearly discussed the potential libel issues with the publisher beforehand; Purgatory isn't such a forum.

As your post demonstrates, there's plenty to discuss without doing so, though.

Any more questions about host or admin rulings on this thread should be directed to the Styx.

/hosting

[ 19. December 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But Lord Carlile had to look at standards of evidence since the whole raison d'être for the Core Group was to decide on the issue of compensation as it might be applied if a criminal case has been pursued (my italics) and the support offered by the CofE included putting the complainant in touch with a firm of solicitors.

I don't think this was the whole raison d'être for the Core Group, and I can't find in the Carlile report the words that you have italicised. Also, AFAICT the standard of proof they had to consider was that of 'balance of probabilities' as if a civil case had been pursued. Although, even with this lower standard of proof, it is clear from the Carlile report that there were more factors to be taken into consideration than just the complainant's account of events.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Choosing my words very carefully here, I cannot fathom how you reach that conclusion. Quite apart from anything else, it offers a simple and practical bullet-point list of exactly how any church body should handle an accusation of this kind (or any other, for that matter) in the future. Granted, we might like to think that an institution such as the church doesn't need advice in how to run an effective investigatory committee but the evidence in this case it that it did and does.

I don't think that this is shown. An old QC says that he's not making judgments about an accusation when clearly he is; dismisses and weighs evidence even whilst saying that he isn't and goes far beyond the terms of reference of the inquiry. He hasn't simply looked at the group making the decision, he has assessed whether they should have made a different decision.

You are of course free to think that this offers a roadmap as to how the structure should do things differently in the future. I don't think that it does in any sensible way.

quote:

I hope you didn't really mean to say that engaging with the police in relation to allegations of abuse should be seen as a "fairly wild suggestion".

No, I'm referring to Treasury Counsel (which I assumed meant government lawyers - but on second look possibly does not) para 170.

As the interactions with the police showed, they're unlikely to have resources to investigate claims from 60 years ago with this level of evidence.

quote:
For goodness' sake: has the CofE learned nothing from its previous ham-fisted attempts to distance itself from people like Peter Ball, Roy Cotton, Colin Pritchard, etc, etc, etc? I'd have thought that the criticism of the actions of George Carey over Peter Ball made it abundantly clear that the church must engage with the police where there are allegations of serious criminality, either recent or historic.

No argument that police should have been informed. The record of the police interaction is that it wouldn't have made any difference at all.

quote:
nbelievable. If the suggestions offered by Lord Carlile had been followed, then not only would those concerned at the reputational damage to Bishop Bell been assured that he, despite being dead, had been accorded equal weight in the scale of priorities with the complainant, but the complainant would have had their allegation handled with a proper process that was far more than about damage-control for the reputation of the CofE. Whatever the protestations to the contrary, all the way down the line the main thrust of the 'official' church response to the allegation was one of seeking to minimise damage to its own reputation and limit any financial recompense it made to the complainant.

I understand your point of view.

quote:
We are miles further forward because Lord Carlile has, as I say above, given us a handy list of the processes and procedures that should be followed.

OK. Well, then we disagree.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I think there is a very clear set of useful recommendations set out in paragraphs 20-34 (inclusive) of the report. It surprises me that some of them should have needed to be made, but that flows from the failures of this particular core group.

Looking at it, and having looked at the current Practice Guidance, it seems to me that there may have been a lack of clarity about who were members of the Core Group, and who should not be members as such, but be kept informed about its progress.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But Lord Carlile had to look at standards of evidence since the whole raison d'être for the Core Group was to decide on the issue of compensation as it might be applied if a criminal case has been pursued (my italics) and the support offered by the CofE included putting the complainant in touch with a firm of solicitors.
I don't think this was the whole raison d'être for the Core Group, and I can't find in the Carlile report the words that you have italicised. Also, AFAICT the standard of proof they had to consider was that of 'balance of probabilities' as if a civil case had been pursued. Although, even with this lower standard of proof, it is clear from the Carlile report that there were more factors to be taken into consideration than just the complainant's account of events.

I think that he is applying some level of judgement about the chances of the case winning in a criminal case - see para 30 and also 170, 171, 254

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I agree he judges (in para 171) that there was only a low chance of a prosecution being successful. In the other paragraphs he is not making his own judgement, I think, only saying that the Core Group should have been taking appropriate steps to enable them to make a judgement.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I agree he judges (in para 171) that there was only a low chance of a prosecution being successful. In the other paragraphs he is not making his own judgement, I think, only saying that the Core Group should have been taking appropriate steps to enable them to make a judgement.

I think this amounts to the same thing. And surely disagrees with what you said previously:

quote:
I don't think this was the whole raison d'être for the Core Group, and I can't find in the Carlile report the words that you have italicised. Also, AFAICT the standard of proof they had to consider was that of 'balance of probabilities' as if a civil case had been pursued. Although, even with this lower standard of proof, it is clear from the Carlile report that there were more factors to be taken into consideration than just the complainant's account of events.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I agree he judges (in para 171) that there was only a low chance of a prosecution being successful. In the other paragraphs he is not making his own judgement, I think, only saying that the Core Group should have been taking appropriate steps to enable them to make a judgement.
I think this amounts to the same thing. And surely disagrees with what you said previously:

quote:
I don't think this was the whole raison d'être for the Core Group, and I can't find in the Carlile report the words that you have italicised. Also, AFAICT the standard of proof they had to consider was that of 'balance of probabilities' as if a civil case had been pursued. Although, even with this lower standard of proof, it is clear from the Carlile report that there were more factors to be taken into consideration than just the complainant's account of events.

I think there's a difference between saying "I believe X did (or did not) commit a crime" and saying "I believe some other group should have satisfied themselves about whether X did (or did not) commute a crime"

I don't see how what I have said contradicts my assertion that it is not the case that

quote:
the whole raison d'être for the Core Group was to decide on the issue of compensation

I do think they had to make a decision. I disagree that the group's whole raison d'être was about compensation.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Having read the Report, my strong sense of what Lord Carlile is saying is that (i) the CofE didn't investigate this properly, despite what it had said, and the basic reason for that is in his words 'over-steering' in an effort not to be thought of as in any way covering anything up (ii) there was information, pretty easily available, which needed to be set against Carol's claims. And from that second point, I think, we have to come to the conclusion that at this date, in the absence of any corroboration, we simply can't prove - or disprove- the claims. For example, Canon Carey, Bishop bell's chaplain, had no memory of Carol being there- but neither did he of Pauline, who was a girl of Carol's age who said she lived at the Palace with, I think, her mother(and did not remember Carol either).

I don't think, on the evidence we have available, that we're entitled to conclude that Bishop Bell was a child abuser. But the accusation has been made and we can't be sure that it's untrue, either (although I hope that it is). For example, here's a scenario which seems to me to be prima facie plausible and compatible with the other evidence (and absence of complaints) that Carlile unearthed, if we believe that Carol's claim might have been true:

'George Bell experienced sexual attraction to young girls. He regarded this as an affliction and, as a Christian and a churchman of strong moral character, always resisted acting on the attraction. However, for a period in about 1950, for reasons we don't know- perhaps some kind of personal or spiritual crisis- his usual determination failed him and, disastrously, he lapsed and abused Carol.'

Now, I'm not saying that's true_ I hope it isn't- and all I know about the case is what was in the Carlile report. But if something like that had happened, what picture would we have of Bell? Not a serial abuser like some of the other clerical abusers who have been detected in recent years, but a good man, heroically resisting for years something which was a burden to him, who for a period fell and harmed someone else. The appropriate response would be sadness, not condemnation (of the man- condemnation of the act, certainly).

But this is mere speculation, trying to suggest that it's not necessarily a choice between Bell the traduced saint and Bell the paedophile monster. And at this date we simply cannot know what happened or didn't happen, although we can now conclude that the claims that have been made are probably not, on the balance of probabilities, persuasive.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But this is mere speculation, trying to suggest that it's not necessarily a choice between Bell the traduced saint and Bell the paedophile monster. And at this date we simply cannot know what happened or didn't happen, although we can now conclude that the claims that have been made are probably not, on the balance of probabilities, persuasive.

The difficulty is that it is easy to come up with any number of seemingly reasonable pieces of speculation, all based on the same, thin, pieces of evidence. In some scenarios, George Bell really is some sort of abuser. In others, he is utterly innocent and either the victim of a false memory or of mistaken identity.

The point is that almost all of these alternative scenarios can be made without for a moment doubting the sincerity of 'Carol'.

Unless there is evidence of which we (and Lord Carlile) are unaware, there is no way to work out which of these plausible scenarios is the right one. Which makes the Core Group's rush to condemnation even more flawed, and Welby et al's refusal to acknowledge this even more ill-advised.

In addition to all that has been written so far, Martin Sewell's analysis is well worth a careful read.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Having read the Report, my strong sense of what Lord Carlile is saying is that (i) the CofE didn't investigate this properly, despite what it had said, and the basic reason for that is in his words 'over-steering' in an effort not to be thought of as in any way covering anything up (ii) there was information, pretty easily available, which needed to be set against Carol's claims.

Not necessarily "set against", but rather "considered in assessing". That's really what the Carlile report is all about, whether the Core Group had gathered as much material as possible before deciding whether the sincerity of Carol's belief had sufficient basis in fact to warrant a payment of compensation. He found that it had not.

As for Mr Cheesy's comment that he proceeded as if he were conducting a statutory enquiry, there are two questions. Was not an enquiry established by the C of E to examine how its procedures has worked in a specific example, an official enquiry for the C of E, and akin to a statutory enquiry? And the second is how otherwise do you consider he should have proceeded?

A comment that he's an old QC does not really help my assessment of his report.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Gee D
Alex Carlile is a former LibDem MP who was made a QC very young (36) and has had a very distinguished legal career including, among other things, being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2001. He is President of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

In addition to all that has been written so far, Martin Sewell's analysis is well worth a careful read.

Agreed. It is notable in particular for this comment.

quote:
When you end up apologising to both the Accused and the Complainant for your institutional incompetence, it is time for a fundamental debate about what is wrong at the highest levels of the Church of England.

Yet now we see our Bishops picking a fight with Lord Carlile on the applicability of transparency in special cases. One is bound to suggest that he is not the one who needs lectures on the subject, and that our church leadership is not perhaps best placed to deliver them.

That strikes me as an accurate observation.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Having read the Report, my strong sense of what Lord Carlile is saying is that (i) the CofE didn't investigate this properly, despite what it had said, and the basic reason for that is in his words 'over-steering' in an effort not to be thought of as in any way covering anything up (ii) there was information, pretty easily available, which needed to be set against Carol's claims.
Not necessarily "set against", but rather "considered in assessing".

Yes, that's a much better way of putting it- thank you. And, Oscar the Grouch, I agree entirely. The CofE's rush to judgement was not inexplicable but it was wrong.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It may be of interest to note here that attempts to get Safeguarding included on the agenda for the February General Synod meeting are meeting resistance; and further note that when questions about safeguarding are raised one is met with the bland assurance "The House of Bishops are responsible for safeguarding".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Gee D
Alex Carlile is a former LibDem MP who was made a QC very young (36) and has had a very distinguished legal career including, among other things, being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2001. He is President of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Thanks, but I had checked up on him. The "old QC" was something I picked in Mr Cheesy's post, but which seemed not to take the matter forward.

[ 19. December 2017, 22:26: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry Gee D. Blame my patronising post on over-exposure to screaming school-children leading to an emergency single malt infusion.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks, but I had checked up on him. The "old QC" was something I picked in Mr Cheesy's post, but which seemed not to take the matter forward.

The point that I was trying to make is that this report would have looked rather different if it had been written by someone with long experience of social work, a historian etc. In this report he even says that this cannot be considered under the usual criminal standards of evidence, but then goes on to assess it by that standard - introducing evidence which he says is important, but would surely be tested and considered weak if it ever came to a court. In newspaper interviews I posted above, it is clear that he considers that paedophiles pretty much always attack more than one child - and that the lack of other reports is significant.

The point about him trying to run a statutory inquiry is relevant when he makes assertions in the text about the lack of people coming forward to make reports to him. It might - arguably - be expected that people might come forward to a statutory inquiry, rather less that they'd come forward to a private inquiry set up by the Anglican church. The fact that Lord Carlile thinks that he can assess and dismiss information based on absence says a lot about the role he thinks he has with reference to his inquiry.

That said, if this report had been written by a historian, I don't suppose the conclusion would have been a whole lot different - I just suspect it'd be lacking in a lot of irrelevant legalese.

Someone made an accusation. A bunch of other people said that they didn't recognise the individual in question because of various reasons in the accusation. These reports might be in conflict, but they might not be. The personal character witnesses have little relevance to the reliability or credibility of the report.

In the situation of a statemate and with little other information, the Anglican structure chose to make a payment without accepting culpability or liability. It was a relatively low payment, and as Lord Carlile himself says, the only other way to avoid this would have been to spend a lot of legal time getting different legal advice (presumably costing a lot) to avoid it, possibly trashing the witness in the process. And there are clearly other factors other than that legal opinion in play for the Anglican structure.

Issues about the release of statements by the bishops and the other issues of the lectionary and renaming are surely what the report should have been about.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I suppose that the answer to all that can be very simple. This report was commissioned and written in the context of a claim for compensation to be resolved by negotiation or otherwise in court. And it involves the interpretation and examination of legal documents. A senior lawyer, particularly one with the strong emphasis on civil liberty issues, is the natural choice for that role, not a social worker or an historian.

His age of course is irrelevant, a cheap slur, save that as an older person he has had more of life's experiences than a 21 year old.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No doubt to the chagrin of ++Justin and the Bishop for safeguarding, the issue of George Bell, the Carlile Report and the traducing of Bell's reputation won't go away.

As reported in the Telegraph last week, an impressive collection of church luminaries have written to the Times last Friday and former choristers this week demanding that Lambeth, and the CofE in general, stop behaving so shabbily over the reputational damage caused to the memory of George Bell.

When will Lambeth see that doing nothing - or rather appearing to stick their fingers in their ears and drone la-la-la is not an option?

Meanwhile, can anyone tell us whether or not Safeguarding has been put on the agenda for GS next month, not as a Q&A session but a proper debate?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

L'organist, ++ Justin hasn't done 'nothing'. His statement is,

quote:
“I cannot with integrity rescind my statement.”

You may disagree with that. I might also. But let's apply a bit of the sort of analysis that Jordan Petersen might insist on but which Kathy Newman won't recognise. ++ Justin hasn't done nothing. He's done something which you and the people who have written to the quality press don't agree with.

There are possibly four options. There may be some others, but these are the ones that spring to my mind. Three involve doing something, and he has done one of those:-

1. To say that he's come to conclusion that Bishop Bell has been falsely traduced. That is also saying that 'Carol' was either lying or acting out of false memories. There would be no need to say which, but it would mean the diocese should not have paid anything at all, despite legal advice at the time. It should have insisted 'Carol' sue and fought her claim through the courts.

2. To say that he's come to the conclusion that the accusations were true. That is saying either that Lord Carlile's review got it wrong, or that it only relates to the incompetence of others in the way they handled the complaint was handled. It has no bearing on the substance of the claim.

3. To say something like what he has said, which is a variant of 'I don't know one way or the other'. 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. Or

4. To say nothing, skate over it, and hope it goes away. That is the option that is 'doing nothing', not 3.

He would only have 'done nothing' if he had remained silent.

If there are more options, perhaps you could say what you would do if you were him? Should he actually have chosen 4, or a different one of those four options, or is there something else?

Remember 'we shouldn't be where we are now' may be an entirely valid comment but it is not an option. History is not reversible.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To say that he's come to conclusion that Bishop Bell has been falsely traduced. That is also saying that 'Carol' was either lying or acting out of false memories.

I'm sorry, but I think that this is a false conclusion.

If you say that Bishop Bell was falsely traduced, this doesn't mean that 'Carol' must be lying, nor that she acting out of false memories (although that must remain a possibility). It is simply saying 'the accusation against Bishop Bell is impossible to prove one way or the other and the "investigation" was conducted in such a way as to falsely leap to a conclusion that cannot be justified.' There are many possible reasons why we can take the initial accusations of Carol seriously and yet still refuse to trash the reputation of Bishop Bell. One that has risen to the surface in recent days is the possibility of an error of identification - that something DID happen at the Bishop's Palace but it wasn't Bishop Bell.

The complaint against Abp Welby is that, despite Lord Carlile's damning report on the process that condemned Bishop Bell, Welby has insisted at every opportunity to give the impression that these allegations are effectively proven and not up for question.

His stubbornness is, quite frankly, baffling. More than that, it just undermines any credibility that the C of E might still have in the wider society. How can Welby (or any bishop) offer any comments about 'justice' without having them thrown right back at them?

Whilst I have little time for the Daily Mail, Peter Hitchen's writings on the subject are worth reading:
What does the archbishop think he is doing?

A couple of pertinent snippets:

quote:
It is clear that had Lord Carlile been asked to rule on George Bell’s guilt or innocence, he would have pronounced him ‘not guilty’. So what, precisely is the evidence on which the Archbishop of Canterbury, supposedly spiritual leader of millions, guardian of the foundations of truth and justice, maintains that there is still a 'cloud' over George Bell’s name? Does he have second sight? Does he know something he is not telling us? If so (though I cannot see how this can be so), why will he not say what it is?

quote:
I have never seen him acknowledge the Carlile report’s clear demonstration that the secret trial of George Bell was what it was, a badly-run, one-sided mess which failed to find key evidence or witnesses, and even failed to tell some of its members about key evidence which greatly undermined the accusation.

With historians, theologians and newspaper editors lined up against him, I am beginning to think that Welby has some sort of death wish.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Welby is unjustly, overcompensatingly wrong. We'll never know, we can't. The Church should help the complainant anyway, with a financial settlement, for the historically inevitable safeguarding failure that made the complaint possible.

[ 24. January 2018, 10:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

What Carlile explicitly says is

quote:
it was not part of my task to consider the truth of the allegations and I have not done so.

He concludes that there was evidence to counter the claim that abuse had taken place, and that therefore liability should have been denied. The outcome then would either have been litigation with the claim being tested on the balance of probabilities, or a 'risks of litigation' settlement with denial of liability (and In Carlile's view a confidentiality clause).

If the case had been pursued in court, either the allegation would have been found to be proved on the balance of probabilities, or not proved. Neither outcome would firmly establish Bishop Bell's innocence.

The big problem is the bungled process which led to the initial statement. The process can't be re-run. The Archbishop of Canterbury can't categorically assert Bishop Bell's innocence and clear his name. The most he can say is that the core group failed to give proper consideration to all the evidence, and that the claim against Bishop Bell might not have stood up in court.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I suspect it was a failure of nerve, Martin. ++Justin did not want another horrible cause celebre, and the associated publicity. Nor do I think they were sure about what else might crawl out of the woodwork as a result of that publicity. Choosing to believe the accuser may well have been pragmatic. And you are quite right about historical systemic and process failures.

I guess he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. At least that's probably what it felt like.

[ 24. January 2018, 11:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

That just won't do to say it is a failure of nerve, for the simple reason that the Archbishop was offered the position he holds, and he accepted it, to provide leadership - that is the whole reason for there being an Archbishop: to be a leader for the faithful and a leading pastor for his flock, lay and ordained.

If the current incumbent of the post either doesn't feel able to offer that leadership, or feels he hasn't within himself the qualities to offer it, then we're in a position of being rudderless, at the very least.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That just won't do to say it is a failure of nerve, for the simple reason that the Archbishop was offered the position he holds, and he accepted it, to provide leadership - that is the whole reason for there being an Archbishop: to be a leader for the faithful and a leading pastor for his flock, lay and ordained.

If the current incumbent of the post either doesn't feel able to offer that leadership, or feels he hasn't within himself the qualities to offer it, then we're in a position of being rudderless, at the very least.

That is the case if for you, this is the one cause that is the deal-breaker, the thing on which he stands and falls. Either you conclude he has got this right. You therefore accept his leadership in all things. Or you conclude he has got this wrong. In that case, for you, he is a busted flush on everything else.

Do you, though, accept that for some of the rest of us, this is merely one cause among many? That involves accepting that one of the pains both of leadership and being led is 'win some, lose some'.

Alternatively, had you already decided that you don't reckon much to him generally? If so, this is just another reason that confirms you in your poor opinion of him. But then, are you being entirely fair if you should describe his handling of this particular issue as the reason why you think he should resign and you regard the church as rudderless?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No, it is not a case of any one thing being a 'deal-breaker', but I find it worrying that on an issue where the church (CofE) is especially vulnerable because of past mistakes, mishandling and prevarication, such a mess has been made and that there seems to be so little awareness of the importance of getting it right.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

In fact I've just now logged on for my latest fix with Archbishop Cranmer and found this which expresses my anxieties far better.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

To repeat: Lord Carlile did not consider whether Bp Bell had committed these assaults or not. He was concerned with the process followed to determine the compensation claim. so it's perfectly OK for +++Cantaur and anyone else to offer their own opinion as to whether or not Bp Bell did assault the claimant while still endorsing the report.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In fact I've just now logged on for my latest fix with Archbishop Cranmer and found this which expresses my anxieties far better.

See, that article is exactly why I'm increasingly wondering what the point of bothering on a Sunday morning is. (Content, not form or analysis - I agree with Mr Sewell throughout).

If things are that bad, which they (IMO) are, then I'm struggling with how the whole thing - religion - is any more than a human construct built on sand. Maybe I'm just in a bad place at the moment. The CofE increasingly looks like idiots leading people who knows where. Very good parish clergy, including my own, excepted.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Please bother. For me. I don't go.

I should be able to soon. It will do my head in, but I need to learn to worship with other wretches even though I hate half the words. May be the wind will blow a little.

I pray it, He does for you. Now. I did.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To repeat: Lord Carlile did not consider whether Bp Bell had committed these assaults or not. He was concerned with the process followed to determine the compensation claim. so it's perfectly OK for +++Cantaur and anyone else to offer their own opinion as to whether or not Bp Bell did assault the claimant while still endorsing the report.

It's not OK Gee D. Not OK at all. He has NO IDEA. And I speak from head spinning experience.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Welby and the Pope and meeting in the middle with two extremes of bias.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Sorry Martin, can you expand on that?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Got it. Before I read it, can all things be true?

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Lincoln Imp

I've asked Admin and Hosts to look at your post under the Commandment 7 guideline.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Incompetent to judge? Seems a pretty good finding, really.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

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...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

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 by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Further information related to the police review of the Carol case.
From Annex H, to found in this link to Annexes

From which you find this rather startling exchange.

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

Here is a link to the key participants referred to by initials in that discussion.

Colin Perkins [CP] - Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser for the Diocese of Chichester
Gemma Wodsworth (GW) - Independent Sexual and Domestic Violence Adviser to the
Diocese
Lord Carlile of Berriew [ACC]
Paula Jefferson (PJ) (not in attendance) - external solicitor advising but not a member of the group

Lord Carlile's assertion (and he is a very experienced lawyer) that the earlier police statement was wrong i.e there would have been insufficient grounds to arrest George Bell, rather than interview him under caution, has never been queried. Any arrest would have been unlawful.

The Lambeth "case" re George Bell and 'Carol' is no case at all.

[ 02. February 2018, 12:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Agreed, Barnabas. But as I said, it is very, very clear that there is a concerted attempt by Lambeth, spearheaded by statements from Lambeth and the national safeguarding team, to ensure that GB's name, linked to the word "abuse", is kept in the public gaze, regardless of their words to the contrary.

One feels bound to ask if they make the (IMV) rather prissy statement "No interviews will be given" because they realise they can't justify this latest brouhaha? It smacks of desperation.

However, it does appear that one bishop, at least, has taken on-board what Carlile had to say in his Report: there is no statement at all from the current Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner.

[ 02. February 2018, 15:31: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

You know things are really bad when even The Daily Telegraph comes out with things like this

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.

You can find the whole opinion piece here - registration is free.

Things have come to a pretty pass when the name of the current ABofC and the institution he heads is described as being reputationally damaged by the recent statements and actions. The write comes within a gnat's crochet of using the term witch-hunt - and, as ArchbishopCranmer has pointed out, it is beyond belief that this latest campaign had nothing to do with the George Bell Group's conference (held at Church House, Westminster) taking place yesterday.

(edited to correct coding madness)

[ 02. February 2018, 15:57: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

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.

That's pretty damning.

That said, when the subject comes up, I usually point out that being arrested is no guarantee of guilt. My favourite example is an arrest perpetrated by some of my erstwhile colleagues. The targets were believed to be violent and so, to avoid unpleasantness, the door was kicked down and the premises flooded by hard-faced men with flack jackets and automatic weaponry. Needless to say everyone came quietly except one gentleman who, bless his heart, sobbed like a child. A cursory investigation, back at HQ, revealed that he was an insurance salesman who had been present for entirely reputable reasons and was entirely bewildered when he found that he had blundered into an armed raid on Very Bad People. Needless to say he was given a cup of tea and a profuse apology and sent on his way. So somewhere out there there is a blameless gentleman who has been arrested for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. That doesn't make him Marlo Stansfield.

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

This seems unanswerable as a matter of justice. The police could not fairly say he would have been arrested without a prior opportunity to respond in an interview. And of course he would have to be interviewed. But he was dead. They cannot, fairly, second guess such an interview.

So they were left with the square root of naff all. I can't for the life of me imagine why the police statement was drafted as it was. To complete the picture, here is an excerpt from the main report.

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.

[ 02. February 2018, 18:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Thank you for pointing this out and for making me re-read your post. I am very happy to recognise that you did not refer to 'Carol' as a survivor, and to say that if I had read your post more carefully I would have worded my response so that it could not be read to imply that you had. 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.

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

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!
[Smile]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Awesome.

Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on :

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!
[Smile]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, some people just don't seem to get that, do they?(Tho' there are people on here who I'm sure do.) Glad to be on the same wavelength on that one!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It would seem that the Archbishop of Canterbury still can't see sense and is pinning the issue of his own integrity to the mast.

This is a dangerous line for him to persist on, risking the counter-argument that if it is a simple case of "no smoke without fire" then perhaps the same rationale should be applied to his protestations of ignorance of events at Iwerne and its subsequent cover-up.

Perhaps the charitable approach to ++Justin's dilemma is that voiced by John Charmley in The Times but is it any better for the CofE to have an ABofC with intact integrity but questionable judgement?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Safeguarding is scheduled for discussion at the General Synod tomorrow, I think.

I do not understand ++Justin's rejection of the Carlile recommendation re anonymity in the absence of arrest and charge.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

The question of anonymity for alleged abusers is, of course, wider than the issue of Bishop George Bell, and Lord Carlile's view on the issue predates his involvement in the Bishop Bell affair, and does not derive from his experience of this enquiry. The issue is hotly contested as a simple Google search reveals.

The same flaws in the original Core Group process which failed to find evidence for considering Bishop Bell to be guilty as alleged, also failed to turn up evidence which might have drawn an opposite conclusion and allow his name to be conclusively cleared. The most that can be said is that because of the failures of the Core Group process it was not justified in concluding that on the balance of probabilities Bishop Bell was guilty - but that is different from unequivocally declaring him to be innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty is an evidential presumption in English Law (amongst other systems), but it does not mean that a person acquitted at trial didn't commit the crime. It only means that when tried the burden lies wholly on the accuser to prove the defendant's guilt, defendants do not have to prove that they are innocent.

As I see it, then, ++Justin is caught in a cleft stick. In the debate about anonymity, the Church of England (along with others) disagrees with Lord Carlile. As far as the Bishop Bell case is concerned, he was clearly a man who did a great deal of good. He is also someone against whom this allegation has been made. Apart from apologising for a botched process which has neither substantiated nor dismissed the allegations, I can't see how he can say more.

[ 09. February 2018, 10:10: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Its about timing and its about acceptance, as you say, of the presumption of innocence unless guilt has been proved. And in every statement from ++Justin he says that we have to keep in mind that these allegations have been made - which might (at a stretch) be considered fair if he applied the same rule-of-thumb to himself, but he doesn't.

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. Twice it has been shown that statements made by ++Justin about what or who he knew have not been correct, and there are more unanswered questions or unchallenged assertions that statements haven't been entirely accurate.

++Justin himself uses the word "integrity": IME it is a dangerous thing to seem to be wrapping onself in the cloak of righteousness if there is even the remotest chance that at some later stage it may be found you were not entirely deserving of such covering.

And not to see the danger in that - never mind the unfairness to the memory of Bell - shows judgement that could (should?) be questioned.

[ 09. February 2018, 10:17: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The moral argument re anonymity is conditional. For folks still alive, unless they have been arrested and charged, (as opposed to being interviewed as part of an investigation) why should their identity be revealed? It seems quite unfair that it should. (Indeed, Sir Cliff Richard was paid a massive sum of compensation by the police for their revealing of his identity. He was never arrested, never charged.)

So far as Bishop Bell is concerned, it is incontrovertible that there would have been insufficient grounds to arrest him on the basis of the accusation, but sufficient grounds to interview him, and carry out some searches, if he were still alive. I do not see how his death removes the same provision of anonymity. It presumes, years in the future, that he would not have been able to provide satisfactory answers.

[ 09. February 2018, 10:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

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.

I'd not seen that ++Justin was a Iwerne trustee. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned in any of the reports I've seen.

AIUI he was involved as an 'officer' in the camps in the mid to late 70s. He said his involvement finished when he moved abroad in 1978. Apparently he continued to receive an Iwerne newsletter, and also came back once in 1979 to give a talk.

++Justin is described as being a friend of Mark Ruston who investigated the allegations in 1982. Mark Ruston was vicar of the Round Church in Cambridge, but he must have been practically old enough to have been Justin's father (Mark was a curate at St. Paul's Church in Cambridge in the mid 50s). It's hard to imagine him confiding the stuff he investigated in 1982 to someone who had lodged with him as a student three or four years previously - even if they had been good friends, and even if that person had also been involved as an officer at Iwerne.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

In my estimation, in recent posts this thread is fast moving towards Commandment 7 territory.

Do not post unsupported allegations of wrongdoing.

Whistleblowing is a worthy exercise, but the Ship's discussion boards are not the place to engage in it, still less potentially libellous speculation.

/hosting

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

If I may add my ha'porth, it seems to me that some are in danger of forgetting that those involved, along with the rest of us, were and are fallible human beings, and that a drop of charity all round would be in order.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This sets the Carlile Report and George Bell in a wider context.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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. [Votive]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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 by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The trouble is that much of the "evidence" that has informed/ is informing the approach to safeguarding comes from people who are officially recognised as "survivors" of abuse. All well-and-good if they are, but there are a disturbing number of instances where people who are accepted as bona fide survivors of abuse turn out not to be, with some having mental health issues, and a small but significant number are (at best) Walter Mittyesque fantasists or anti-social malcontents (at worst).

The vast, bloated shambles that is the IICSA has created a special category of "core participant" (CP), a role that is defined as

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.

It is emerging that there are people who have previously been exposed as (to be charitable) being mistaken in their claims of abuse who have nevertheless been granted CP status. Since CPs are not only given privileged access to all the material submitted to the Inquiry (though expected to "promise to keep the evidence confidential") but also will be able to suggest lines of questioning it is an open invitation for allegations that have already been shown to be untrue to be given yet another airing.

Bland assurances that the reputations of people named by fantasists, the unbalanced or the malevolent will not be damaged are worthless. Yes, I realise there is an overwhelming feeling that in the past institutions like the CofE have got things badly wrong by shielding, even enabling, abusers in their wickedness; but sacrificing the reputation - and the mental well-being - of innocent men and women in the name of "fairness" is not a solution.

I suggest that until one actually know first-hand someone who has had their reputation besmirched by false allegations, and who has had their life, career, relationships and friendships laid waste in the process, the damage that can be wrought is unimaginable to the average person or institution. To have institutions appear sanguine about such pain as "collateral damage" is nauseating and will do nothing to promote either fairness, safeguarding or the well-being of genuine victims of abuse.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sometimes you don't know who to believe.

The problem with 40 year old accusations was well explored in the Carlile Report. Uncorroborated testimony, or uncorroborated denial, aren't enough in themselves to establish guilt or innocence. And after 40 years whatever evidence of corroboration, either by accusor or accused, is generally lost in the mists of time.

Carlile's suggestion, para 49 of his report, in the cases where the accused has died, is the civil law test of balance of probability should be applied by any adjudicating body. That involves taking a view. And taking a view is not making a guess at veracity. You have to have reasons for your view. Taking an accusation seriously is not the same as finding that it passes the balance of probability test.

[ 11. February 2018, 20:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Spot on. Taking an accusation seriously is taking it seriously enough to be tested.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

As regards safeguarding, IMO this sums up what should be considered best practice:

If we are ever to achieve closure on this issue, we need to acknowledge that there are two vulnerable categories here - the victims, and those thrust into a living hell by false accusations. We cannot damage one group to serve the needs of the other.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The National Safeguarding Team (NST) and powers-that-be are doing it again.

For those of you short of time, here is a precis:
Desmond Browne QC, former Chairman of the Bar Council of England & Wales, has offered his services to Barbara Whitley, niece of George Bell, so that she can be represented at meetings of the Core Group over the "latest" allegation. Although not a close friend, Browne is known to Mrs Whitley - surely a consideration when appointing/ approving to represent the interests (and so report on matters to them) of a 93 year-old?

But no! The CofE's NST has drawn up the rules pertaining to such groups in such a way that they (and they alone) have the power to appoint (in reality approve or not) a person to represent the interests of those accused of abuse, or in this case their surviving relative(s).

So, the church's own NST draws up the rules for any investigation and then decides on who can represent interested parties: spot anything wrong here.

Rather more curious is the person that the NST has decided should represent Mrs Whitley (effectively represent the interests of George Bell): it is Donald Findlater, trustee of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation which is a charity specialising in the treatment (my italics) of sex offenders and abusers. As you can see from his CV, his background is in probation and offender management.

Barbara Whitley is 93 years old and has already been caused great upset and distress by the handling to-date of affairs to do with her uncle. Now the church, in the shape of +Bath & Wells and the NST, is causing her yet more.

Why?

Could it be because Desmond Browne QC is a member of the George Bell Group; moreover, as an eminent QC he has experience of working with the opacity frequently to be found in forensic enquiries of this nature and of slicing through bulls**t and procrastination to get at core issues and truth.

So of course a person from a background of offender management is going to be far better at representing the interests of a woman he has never met but who just happens to be on the National Safeguarding Board of the Church of England as well as on the Guildford Diocesan Safeguarding Panel.

And bishops (and others) wonder why those outside the CofE loop look at the horlicks of policy and practice with a mixture of horror, incredulity and rage.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That is weird!

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Someone on Archbishop Cranmer has pointed out that even those charged with heinous terrorist offences are allowed to choose their legal representative, which makes the CofE's NST's insistence that George Bell's niece not be allowed to do so even more bizarre.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

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 by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Well, its taken a while but Private Eye has finally got around to noticing the Bishop Bell saga: the latest issue draws neat lines linking the interests of the EIG and the Core Group. Apologies can't give a link, its in the print edition only.

Meanwhile, there is more detailing the CofE's caring attitude to abuse survivors on ArchbishopCranmer HERE. Read it and weep.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

Words fail me. As a person who experienced sexual abuse from a CofE employee (and as an RMN), I have some understanding of the psychological ramifications of abuse. Such an unempathic, uncompassionate way of treating someone. Utterly shameful.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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.

Aye Callan, but that's a different country. I.e. the past. What can be done NOW, going forward, to guarantee, that's GUARANTEE, that it NEVER happens again in the Church? As for the past, shut up and pay up.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Martin 60

quote:
As for the past, shut up and pay up.

In the case of the person referred to in the link 2 posts up, the CofE, in the shape of the National Safeguarding Team, deducted 30 pence from an expenses claim because to get to and from a therapy session they bought two single tickets, rather than a special ticket called a DayRider which cost 30 pence less.

Something I find more disturbing: the NST (Bishop Peter Hancock and his merry band) will only pay for therapy if they are sent reports by the therapist. Does anybody else experience unease about that?

And the NST won't pay for therapy unfront: they demand that the person (in this case someone abused by Bishop Peter Ball) settle the account and then submit a claim for reiumbursement; this survivor's experience is that it is taking the NST 120 days - that is 17 weeks - to pay up and, as I said, they will only do so if they get a report of the therapy session.

Just how does this sit with pronouncements from Bishop Hancock (our "expert" on safeguarding) at General Synod earlier this month in which he

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."

I'd add that he should be shamed by their fortitude: just how does the good bishop think that a person who is unemployed finds the wherewithal (at £80 per session) to pay for therapy and then wait four months to be reimbursed?

Ah, but controlling costs is everything. As Private Eye pointed out, just why exactly was a lawyer who acts for Ecclesiastical Insurance present at every single meeting of the now infamous Core Group tasked with investigating - I use that term in its loosest sense - the allegation from "Carol" about Bishop Bell?

Well, the good lawyers seems to have got the message about saving money, but perhaps they're still shooting wide of the mark in their second aim which is (to quote their own website) ...defending clients against allegations of historical and contemporary abuse and managing the reputational damage they can cause.

[ 24. February 2018, 13:15: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My shut up and pay up was to the Church. Never to a victim or even malicious allegator. If an allegation can be made due to a vacuum created by lack of safeguarding, that's the fine for that.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

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

That's daft, Martin. Nothing could 'GUARANTEE' that my own unhappy mauling as a kid will 'NEVER' be repeated in the Church, or anywhere else (within the family, for me; I would like to remove all doubt that I might be casting nasturtiums at any institution). But we can do our best to act when allegations are made, test to see if they are well-founded, and try to reduce the days that young people are alone in fear. I think we've come forward a fair way with that, but this thread shows, like everything, the processes often go wrong. So let's iterate, with as much intelligence as we can.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Martin
I wasn't impugning the victim/survivor in the Peter Ball case at all (or in any other case, come to that): I was seeking to highlight that, after everything that has gone before - all the cock-ups, cover-ups, vacillating, reports ignored, etc, - and the fine words of our Archbishop and our Safeguarding Bishop, it seems the energies of the National Safeguarding Team are still focused on money, in the case of the Peter Ball victim on saving 30 pence on bus fares and insisting on having records of therapy sessions.

Although perhaps the figure of 30 is apt in this case: its just that rather than pence, perhaps in the case of the NST is ought to be 30 pieces of silver ?

The NST should be ashamed of themselves - their attitudes in this case certainly do nothing other than shame the church of which they are part.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

L'organist, Sir, Ma'am, I'm sorry for the confusion. I was casting no stone in your direction or anywhere else. I was concerned that my 'shut up' could be interpreted to mean anyone apart from the Church, i.e. victims, despite my 'pay up' being to the Church.

mark_in_manchester - agreed, I'm using hyperbole for the axiom that prevention is cheaper, more effective, better than, morally superior to, cure.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I see, Martin - perhaps I was a bit slow.

The word 'guarantee' has contractual associations to me; I imagine its users lining themselves up for a payout. And since any such a guarantee is impossible anyway, I'd prefer to talk more messily about how each inevitable failure suggests ways in which we might try to make this work a bit better. Slowly, slowly.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's not you mark. You are 1000% right. There must be chaperones. CCTV with sound. Personal cameras with microphones on the lapel. No coverage? Sue. Fine. Make it a criminal offense.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I think two adults always is simple, and do-able. But perhaps we better let the thread alone for its intended purpose.
cheers
Mark

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Never two men.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0