Updated 26 July (video recordings added)
Transcript of day 9 (Thursday)
Video recordings are available:
List of documents adduced on day 9
Witness statements:
Media reports:
Independent Bishops involved in sexual abuse do not get ‘an easy ride’, Archbishop of Canterbury claims
Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury calls for mandatory reporting of sexual abuse
Church Times IICSA: I am ashamed and horrified, says Welby
In the light of yesterday’s IICSA revelations (see transcript below), Archbishop Welby would now do well to consider – sooner rather than later – apologising for his regrettable “significant cloud” remark against Bishop George Bell – and also in the light of yesterday’s last remark by the Archbishop, on what was a difficult, painful day for all concerned: “We have got to learn to put actions behind the words, because ‘Sorry’ is pretty cheap” July 11 2019 – IICSA Thursday – Page 50 – Bishop Bell https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/12777/view/public-hearing-transcript-11-july-2019.pdf Q. = Fiona Scolding A. = Graham Tilby [National Safeguarding Advisor]: Q. Once… Read more »
Just to emphasise, because I think it’s important, that when Briden “describes the evidence as unfounded” that is referring specifically to Alison’s complaint of abuse, and the case of Carol is NOT being reported here as “unfounded”. I only mention this because the two cases are separate, and a higher threshold of evidence was judged to be present in Carol’s case, compared to the separate case of Alison. The continuing position of the Church is that it has not been possible to establish George Bell’s innocence or guilt in the case of Carol. I just mention this because sometimes it… Read more »
“George Bell should be declared by the Church to be innocent of the allegations made against him”
~ Lord Alex Carlile QC [February 1 2019]
Justice must be universal, or it’s no justice: complainants and the accused aren’t in competition; all must have justice, or none will. We end up talking past one another because we start from different places. It’s a false choice to say that “Carol” must be “discredited” to declare Bell innocent. We’re all entitled to be presumed innocent unless there’s sufficient evidence to overturn that assumption. This is categorically not about “Carol” as a person. I wish her nothing but well. Overwrought as it may sound, this is about a fundamental principle of justice. Regarding Carlile, his terms of reference specifically… Read more »
Susannah, I understand your position with regard to ‘Carol’. The problem, however, is that the Church’s original investigation of her claim has been shown by Lord Carlile to be fundamentally flawed, but the Church (i.e. the National Safeguarding Team) has not been willing for her allegations to be re-tried by a fair process such as Chancellor Timothy Briden conducted in respect of ‘Bell 2’. Both Lord Carlile and Timothy Briden were precluded by their terms of reference from any assessment of the credibility of Carol’s allegation (in Mr Briden’s case, expressly: see ToR para 15). Thus, Bishop Timothy Thornton’s answer… Read more »
Part of the problem with Carol’s case is that at the distance of time there is little chance of any “fair” or conclusive process. One of Carol’s issues is that this situation is not down to her – the matter was not properly and fully investigated when she first came forward, and the reasons for that are the responsibility of the Church. Carol, I think, could properly argue that she has been deprived by the church of the investigation her allegations ought to have had. So it is not just Carol v George Bell and the truth or otherwise of… Read more »
Yes, and on that account Carol is as much a victim of the incompetent process conducted by the NST when ‘investigating’ her allegations as is the late George Bell. But if it was not prepared (for whatever reasons) to have a re-trial of those allegations following the Carlile Review, the Church (i.e. the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Chichester and the Bishop at Lambeth) should not have made the comments they have about Carol’s claims; the most egregious of which is Justin Welby’s ‘significant cloud’ remark. Interestingly, when Justin Welby was asked about his position on George Bell during… Read more »
Significant that Caroline Boddington and Edward Chapman have been to see Peter Hancock (+PH’s evidence) about how safeguarding issues impinge on the appointment to the See of York. It all points to the widespread speculation that Dame Mullally is on her way up the A1.
I don’t see how the second sentence follows on from the first.
I think it needs someone with a better record of dealing with abuse than the current Bishop of London, who does not seem to have achieved very much. Mind you it’s hard to think of a diocesan bishop who has. Maybe we need to skip the diocesans and appoint one of the suffragans, some of whom do seem to have a better understanding and motivation.
Or maybe tear up the current practice and have a wide ranging advertising campaign and a much more transparent process. Hustings followed by election by all members of electoral rolls?
If TA had a “Like” button like Facebook, I would have clicked this one, perhaps with a smiley face emoji as well.
Can someone explain why the appointment of an arch/bishop should not follow the same process as the appointment of an incumbent: advertise, receive applications, select. Simples, as the meerkats say. There’d be ever such a lot of applicants for sees in the home counties, and hardly any for the likes of Carlisle. I’d go to Carlisle – the city of my awakening in several senses – even though the bishop no longer lives in Rose Castle, but in an uninspiring 19th century vicarage in Keswick. But the world at large will be relieved to know that I’m too old. Anyway,… Read more »
Because there is a belief that only people selected to have reliable views can be trusted to discern the will of God.
Well, we really need the sort of bishop who (for example) is prepared to import an entirely new and independent SG team to rake through everything and then to ensure that the local constabulary set up an investigation into anything which comes out of said trawl. Bizarrely, the only one whom I know to have done that is currently suspended. In view of the shoddy practice which has been indicated at IICSA this last couple of weeks but about which the ABC has done nothing, I can only assume that in order to attract the attention of ++Cantuar the suspendee… Read more »
There’s also a very real question mark whether the suspension was done lawfully. In the terms of its announcement, it wasn’t. If it was lawful, the announcement was seriously defective. I have read references to ACAS and other extraneous bodies, and talk of suspension as ‘a neutral act’ during evidence from people at the highest level during the IICSA hearings in the last few days but, seemingly, no understanding of the binding terms of section 37 of the CDM, as was vigorously discussed on an earlier TA thread when the suspension was announced. One wonders who is giving legal advice… Read more »
Some interesting tit bits emerging from Welby’s evidence – not least that he went ahead and appointed Tim Thornton as Bishop at Lambeth even though there was a complaint ongoing about his failure to report a safeguarding complaint in Truro. Obviously Welby was determined to have his cheer-leader for business at Lambeth, come what may. This is the sort of thing that makes Matt Ineson’s evidence – and the way he has been treated – all the more of a cause for outrage. They didn’t get. They still don’t get it. And they will never get it. As for Dame… Read more »
I don’t think either archbishop ever thought they would be held accountable for the failings of the church, much less their own personal failings; they had an air of ‘can this really be happening to me of all people’ about them as they were cross examined by learned counsel. I thought Dr Sentamu in particular had a certain snippiness in many of his responses to their forensic questioning; methinks this will not have played well with the Inquiry panel and they’ll find the Inquiry’s final report very uncomfortable. Someone told me that there was no (arch)bishop at the State banquet… Read more »
Who froze whom? The leaders of the opposition parties declined their invitations. Did the Archbishops do the same?
You’re right to pick me up on that point Jeremy, but as The Queen was the host and the invitations would have gone out in her name, my hunch is that they would have attended had they been invited.
As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Her Majesty The Queen cannot be amused by her ecclesiastical subjects – most notably her Archbishops who appear to have a pathological inability to offer any genuine apology for mistakes made: At last week’s Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse [IICSA], Archbishop of York John Sentamu was asked: “Is there now any impediment in the collective Church mind that prevents an apology to Mr Ineson for that original abuse as a young lad whilst under the care of the Church?” The Archbishop of York replied: “I think the real problem comes because… Read more »