Thinking Anglicans

Clearly not “in accordance with Lord Carlisle’s recommendations,” since the identity of the accused person has been revealed. Let’s all just hope and pray they are much more thorough this time, though confidence will be low. The trouble is, we end up believing no one, and that may very much hurt a complainant.

I remember many years ago hearing shocking rumours about Peter Ball’s behaviour before he received a police caution. It seems unbelievable that Ball’s identical twin had no knowledge of his brother’s activities when countless others in the Church of England knew.

After the excoriating analysis of the National Safeguarding Team’s incompetence in the Carlile report, how on earth can they be trusted to follow this up? As for releasing this latest statement… words fail me.

Great news from Pyong-Yang! ‘Fresh information’ has come forward about Bishop Bell about which we can say nothing, except we’ve known about it for two weeks and have just decided to release it, just before the General Synod at which our Dear Leader might otherwise have had to explain his refusal to apologise over his comments re: Bishop Bell!

But at least the Bishop Bell case is successfully kicked into the long grass, well past this Synod meeting and perhaps other meetings as well.

In fact, a glacial investigation could have the very positive effect of pushing any further public disclosure past the 2020 Lambeth Conference.

[snark]

Abp Welby’s statements on the case, especially the most recent, make a little more sense now – though they seem no less ill-advised. I note from the IICSA transcript that one subject they will be looking at, in March and again in July, is whether the Church is more motivated by protecting itself than by protecting complainants. This latest statement won’t help to allay suspicions that t he Church is primarily motivated by the wish to protect itself. Abp Welby and Bp Warner (among others) are also listed as being late in submitting their signed witness statements to the Inquiry.… Read more »

“As this is a confidential matter we will not be able to say any more about this until inquiries have concluded.”

Hang on. If it’s a “confidential matter,” then why say anything about it at all?

I don’t know if there’s a garden at Lambeth Palace, but at present rate of progress (same-sex marriage, George Bell) the Dear Leader’s going to need a bigger patch of long grass to kick things into!

I thought that the CofE was being run as a business, Kate, where reputation is everything, perception is reality, and nobody else’s reputation matters. This is shaming and disgraceful, and I hope that our GS reps will not be duped by it, and will pursue their questions next week with increased vigour.

Sadly, this deeply troubling matter becomes more so daily. In reply to Father David, in the light of the events of the past few days it seems improbable in the extreme that the Church would re-instruct Lord Carlile, and it would be extraordinarily magnanimous on his part to agree to undertake the further investigation if asked.

The world would be a better place if the police stopped investigating dead people other than as ways to close cold cases. There are reasons to investigate dead suspects. If there is a crime where there is no doubt that it actually took place – a body with a knife in its back, a safe with a large explosive-made hole, a rape victim with unambiguous evidence of rape – then coming to the conclusion that the perpetrator is dead allows the case to be closed. Sometimes this goes wrong, of course – there have been cases, although I can’t recall… Read more »

There is possible cause and effect here, in the sense that the publicity around the Carlile report gave space for, or encouraged, the new complainant to come forward, or simply made that person’s mind up about doing so, or caused that person to want to add that person’s evidence. I use the word “complainant,” even though the Church did not in its statement, because several journalists are saying they “understand” that the “information” is a new complaint. Someone seems to have leaked what the Church did not say officially. Which is rather low, even if a complaint is true; but… Read more »

One might think that ‘George Bell has been at it again’.– but no tis the beauracratic bunglers-

while Bishop Bell is doing his utmost from heaven.

To attack a person of Bell’s stature , commemorated in the Calendar is disgraceful.

An own goal ffs….

If there has been a fresh complaint, it hasn’t even been investigated yet. That being so, this latest is much worse than the 2015 press release. Emphasis on “if,” since the hierarchy haven’t even confirmed that much. Until more details are released, this new information could be anything, from corroboration of the original complaint, or even exculpatory evidence. Very strong words from the church’s own handpicked judge. Even if evidence of Bell’s guilt finally emerges, this process has been a disgrace from start to finish, something unaffected by Bell’s guilt or innocence. It was always about the principle as much… Read more »

Am I alone in thinking that this sort of vague statement is practically an inducement to gossip and speculate, and hence a case of placing a stumbling block in the path of others on the part of the CofE?