Peter Hitchens's Blog, page 174

How to Report on a Controversy in Modern Britain

A certain newspaper carried on a certain date a very interesting story on its front page, to which I will not refer you or link for reasons which will become clear. The report was about a leading politician. But I won��t name him or her because I have heard that he or she thinks that this story threatens the privacy of one of his or her children, whose sex I will also not reveal. I��d better not say which party he or she belongs to since they��re all the same, so this matters less than you might think) or how leading he or she is, either. No clues here.

The story said that this politician (let us call her or him X) , was considering sending the child (whom we shall call Y) to a leading private school (which I will call Z) in a large city somewhere in South-East England (which I shall call A).

Now, the thing about X (who lives in A) , is that X has said in the past that X hoped to send X��s children to state school. X has in fact sent several of X��s children (I won��t say how many, in case it identifies X) to a state primary school (which I shall call B) and a number of children (whom I shall call D) to a state secondary school (which I shall call C) . Both of these schools (B and C) are in the city of A. So is the independent school called Z. For reasons I can��t explain, because they would reveal important details about both Y and B ,Y cannot go to C. But D can go to C. And Y can go to Z, though no decision has yet been taken.

X was careful, very sensibly, to qualify this. State schools in A, especially secondaries, are of, shall we say, variable quality, especially for children of one of the two sexes (let us call this sex E, a sex which includes child Y). X has made sympathetic remarks about other parents who have been scared off by poor state secondary schools, especially (but not exclusively) in the city of A . Really the issue is about whether X��s decision to consider independent school Z for child Y reflects in any way on the success (or failure) of the school policies of X��s party (which, like all the parties, claims to be sorting out the state sector and making it wonderful) .

I hope you are following me, because I am not sure I am following myself. But I am sure you will agree that this ABC and XYZ method of reporting these matters, not to mention the almost total failure of the rest of the media to follow the original story in the unnamed paper with any vigour or verve, is far superior to the way in which the media used to report the educational choices of leading politicians whose public pronouncements differed (or seemed to differ) in various ways from their private policies, notably Anthony Blair, who spurned Labour��s beloved local comprehensives for a highly selective Roman Catholic school miles from his home, or Harriet Harman, who spurned Labour��s beloved local comprehensives in favour of a grammar school, or Diane Abbott, who spurned Labour��s beloved local comprehensives in favour of an independent school.

I��d ask anyone commenting on this posting not to engage in speculation about the identity of X or Y, or about the name of the city or the names of any of the schools involved.

View more on Peter Hitchens's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 02, 2016 00:18

The Bell Affair -an attempted defence of the C of E and my rebuttal of it

I have been asked if, for the sake of fairness, I could link to a supposed defence, by an official of the Church of England, of the Church��s decision to publicise an allegation of child abuse against the late Bishop George Bell.

Happy to do so

Here it is. The author is Gabrielle Higgins, The Chichester Diocesan Secretary

'In October 2015, the Church of England announced that the Bishop of Chichester had issued a formal apology following the settlement of a civil claim regarding sexual abuse against the Right Reverend George Bell.

Bishop Bell had a long and distinguished ministry as bishop of Chichester from 1929 until his death in 1958.

The process leading up to the settlement, the apology and the announcement was long, complex and carried out with all the sensitivity that a case of this nature demands. Given the nature of the allegations and the reputation of Bishop Bell, it is however understandable that questions have been raised since the announcement was made. These have come from members of the church nationally and locally, as well as from the media.

We would like to take this opportunity to try to answer some of these concerns �� as best we can. For legal reasons, it has often been impossible to respond to specific questions about the case and we understand this has been frustrating. It is possible however to clarify three broad areas to which the majority of concerns relate.

Presumption of Innocence

In criminal cases, innocence is presumed until guilt is proved and the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. This means that no-one can be subjected to criminal penalties by the state unless their guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The concept is probably familiar to most people, but not well understood. In popular culture the assumption is that this principle applies to all ��legal cases��, but in fact it applies to criminal prosecutions only.

The case of Bishop George Bell was a civil and not a criminal case �� regardless of the serious nature of the allegations. Bishop Bell has not been denied the ��presumption of innocence��, because proceedings were never brought before a criminal court. This may seem like a technical point, but it is important that this fundamental legal principle is understood.

Where allegations are made against a deceased person, as is the case with Bishop Bell, they must �� of course �� be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly, however uncomfortable this may prove, or however high profile the individual may be. The death of the person does not mean that allegations should not or cannot be investigated at all. It only means that a criminal prosecution cannot be pursued.

The Evidence was not disclosed

Many have asked to see the evidence on which the civil case was settled, and many have expressed concern that we have not been able �� or seemed willing �� to provide it.

The desire for transparency does not sit easily with the requirement for confidentiality. Many vexed questions from local, national and international correspondents have been raised, which is understandable given the international standing of Bishop Bell as a theologian and church leader.

But here we must also consider the courage displayed by any survivor in coming forward. The law rightly affords them protection to safeguard the confidentiality of their deeply personal information.

Time and again we hear from people reporting abuse about how painful it is for them to disclose their experiences, as reporting involves re-living. We sympathise with those struggling to come to terms with Bishop Bell��s situation. We also understand the desire to see the evidence. However, this cannot outweigh the individual��s right of privacy.

Even if we wanted to reveal the information, we would be unable to do so: the survivor��s privacy is protected in law. It is legally impermissible for the Church to disclose any evidence used in the settlement, or any information that might lead to identification of the complainant. To be absolutely clear: no specific confidentiality agreement has been applied in Bishop Bell��s case; confidentiality laws apply in all cases of this nature.

Betrayal of Memory?

The third tranche of questions raised by this case is an extremely difficult one. It relates to the question of betraying the memory of someone praised as one of the greatest Churchmen of the 20th Century, a man who had devoted so much of his ministry to the cause of peace.

There is no doubt that George Bell achieved many great things during his lifetime, for which he is rightly honoured and which should continue to be remembered. But any suggestion that those who have done good deeds should be afforded an extra degree of protection from serious allegations cannot be upheld. This is fundamentally wrong.

This position led many institutions, including the Church, to respond to allegations of sexual abuse so poorly in the past and we cannot �� and will not �� allow this to continue in the 21st century. All allegations of abuse must be taken seriously and dealt with sensitively and professionally; we must never demand a higher threshold of suspicion because the accused person is of high standing, or has an ��impeccable�� reputation, however uncomfortable this may make us feel.

To conclude: this case has been extremely difficult for all concerned. Many complexities �� legal and otherwise �� have given rise to many questions. A number of the questions which have risen cannot be answered, and this blog offers clarification as to why that is so, and also provides some guidance to those frequently-posed questions to which answers can be given.'

Gabrielle Higgins, Chichester Diocesan Secretary

22nd Jan 2016

It can be found here:

http://www.anglican.ink/article/diocese-chichester-defends-handling-george-bell-abuse-claims

MY reply: To be clear, it is the *publicising* of a solitary unproven accusation made by an unnamed person concerning events alleged to have happened decades ago, and the way in which this revelation of an unproven allegation somehow turned into several prominent media stories declaring that the allegation was a fact, that seems to me to be completely indefensible.

If the details can��t be publicised, and I personally accept that they now can��t. then why should the general accusation be publicised?

I have no objection to the kind and generous treatment of the complainant, and indeed support it up to and including the payment of compensation. In the absence of proof, we should give the complainant the benefit of the doubt to that extent.

But I cannot see what purpose was served by this publicity, nor, as it happens, can I see how it has helped the complainant, who clearly wishes to stay out of any spotlight.

I am more than happy to publish this supposed defence, as it seems extraordinarily weak to me. It is absurd, in my view, to say that the case ��was a civil and not a criminal case��.

No civil case against George Bell in such a matter could, in my view, conceivably have taken place before a criminal case on the issue had been heard. If a serious crime such as this is alleged against someone, then its truth or falsehood are resolved in a criminal court to criminal standards of proof ��beyond reasonable doubt��. Only after such a trial might the accuser be able to sue for a civil tort. I think it would have been extremely difficult to proceed, let alone succeed, with such a suit had the Jury brought in a verdict of 'not guilty'. Thus, the presumption of innocence still very much applies, and would have stood as a barrier against any civil suit had the accusation been made in Bishop Bell��s lifetime. There is no excuse for dispensing with it now.

In any case, no criminal or civil case could have been mounted against George Bell in either 1995, the time of the first allegation, or 2013, the time of the revival of the allegation, since on both occasions he was deceased (in 2013 he was considerably more deceased than he was in 1995, having died in 1958) , and you cannot sue the dead, any more than you can prosecute the departed.

I am not sure what civil case could ever have been mounted in an English court against anybody or anything connected with this. I'd be interested in the opinions of others as to what shape it might have taken. The Bishop who is alleged to have mishandled the original complaint, in 1995, the late Eric Kemp, is also deceased, having died in 2009. So he cannot be sued. Could the current Church of England or the Chichester diocese be sued? You would have to ask a lawyer, which I am not, but for what, exactly, could they be sued, and what could such a trial establish? Could the church or diocese be held responsible for the alleged actions of a defunct bishop, half a century ago? Or for the alleged inaction of another defunct bishop, 18 years ago at the time of the second complaint, now 21 years ago?

I can see difficulties here. In any case, the normal law of limitations on civil suits is 12 years, which would have expired in 2007 in the case of Eric Kemp��s alleged failures, and by about 1956 in the case of George Bell��s alleged actions. And surely at such a trial some effort at defence of the Church and of Bishop Bell might have been attempted, which seems to have been absent from any of the processes which led to the public and probably permanent damaging of Bishop Bell��s hitherto high reputation. Personally, I don��t accept that his reputation can be taken in parts. If this charge were proven to be true, all else collapses in dust and ashes. True Good is done in minute particulars, and so is true evil. Publicising the charge was the most damaging thing anyone could do to a deceased man with a high reputation, imprisoning that reputation for all time in a dank cell of shame. Did anyone truly know enough to do this?

View more on Peter Hitchens's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 02, 2016 00:18

She's done the bank scandal... maybe Margot Robbie can explain the Great Happy Pills Delusion

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail On Sunday Column

The biggest scandals go on for years because they are so huge that nobody notices them. We stand and watch outrageous things going on, thinking that everything is all right because nobody else is making a fuss.

The new film about the 2008 bank collapse, The Big Short, makes this point perfectly. Anyone who wanted to could see the great lending boom was based on garbage, worthless loans that would never be repaid.

But most people didn��t want to. And even now we shy away from the blatant truth. The film��s makers, realising how easily our attention wanders, hired the Australian actress Margot Robbie to sit in a bathtub, naked except for a few thousand symbolic bubbles, to explain sub-prime mortgages in simple (and very crude) English.

The Big Short��s makers, realising how easily our attention wanders, hired the Australian actress Margot Robbie to sit in a bathtub, naked except for a few thousand symbolic bubbles, to explain sub-prime mortgages in simple (and very crude) English

How I wish I could afford to hire her to explain the equally shocking truth about the vast ��antidepressant�� scandal that goes on all around us.

But, just as banks and investors were willing �� if blinkered �� accomplices in the mad folly that ripped the West��s economy to bits eight years ago, many doctors and decent men and women are complicit in the Great Happy Pills Delusion.

Doctors can get plenty of rewards from drug companies for promoting their pills. Invitations to conferences at five-star hotels, with diving, golf and fishing laid on are not unknown. Others are paid to write apparently unbiased articles in medical journals praising a company��s drugs.

But even those who don��t accept this are often relieved to have something, anything, to prescribe to the dozens of unhappy patients who seek their help. If they and the patient believe these pills work, then, in a way, they will. So would inert pills made of chalk, as it happens.

If only Margot Robbie could be hired tp explain the equally shocking truth about the vast ��antidepressant�� scandal that goes on all around us, in which many decent men and women are complicit

And so the patients, too, are recruited into the ��antidepressants saved me from misery�� campaign. There��ll be some in every street and workplace, given that more than 53 million prescriptions for these drugs are dispensed in the UK to about four million people every year.

The trouble is that rigorous science, in which they are tested against sugar pills, increasingly doubts that they do work. And, worse still, there is worrying evidence that the side effects of some of these drugs may be very serious indeed.

Now, in the respected pages of the British Medical Journal, comes a stinging report, carefully analysing 70 trials of ��antidepressants��, which found that some common drugs of this kind actually double the risk of suicide and aggressive behaviour in under-18s.

This, by the way, does not mean that adults are unaffected. The drug companies�� research repeatedly under-reported deaths and episodes of self-harm by tested patients.

A drug that does not really work is one thing. A drug whose users harm themselves (or others) is another.

The vast extent of this problem and the huge sums of NHS money spent on it may make media and politicians think it must be all right. But they thought the same about sub-prime mortgages. And it was not all right. Nor is this.

Those who voted Tory in 2010 to ��get Gordon Brown out�� might ponder George Osborne��s relentless Brown-style raids on private pension funds

Our crazy war on savers

In Japan now they are starting to charge people for keeping healthy credit balances in the bank. It is called ��negative interest�� and is part of a vicious war on savers under way all over the world. It��s pretty intensive here too. Those who voted Tory in 2010 to ��get Gordon Brown out�� might ponder George Osborne��s relentless Brown-style raids on private pension funds, punishing and robbing dedicated savers with extra taxes, to subsidise Google��s tax breaks.

The same goes for ��quantitative easing��, designed to push small investors into putting their cash into risky places to get any return at all. Those who refuse have their interest-free bank balances slowly drained by inflation (which is supposed to have disappeared, but hasn��t). How long before there��s ��negative interest�� too? Destroying the savings and hopes of the middle classes is what, in the end, led to Germany��s gruesome descent into fanatical madness in the 1930s.

It helped put Vladimir Putin in power in Moscow. It is deeply irresponsible politics as well as deeply irresponsible economics.

I think I could just about bear it, even so, if people didn��t keep telling me what a great and righteous Chancellor George Osborne is. It is, once again, a lie so huge that they get away with it.

So now all of us must live in the knowledge that a double murderer, with severe psychiatric problems, is living secretly among us. I defy anyone to say with total assurance that it is safe to let him out. His crime is said to have been horrific. But he has been released into the ��community��. He is in his 40s, but we cannot know his new name, or his old one, or where he is or what he does.

This is thanks to our ��Supreme Court�� (the name is itself a lie, for it is not supreme at all, but subject to Parliament and also the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg).

These exalted personages overruled four wiser judges, and common sense. If they have made a terrible mistake, how will they be made to pay for it?

Last week I finally underwent root canal dentistry, the lurking ill-defined horror that lies in wait for the middle-aged. Well, I am here to report that it was nothing like as bad as most of the things I have heard it compared to. And it was far less gruelling, protracted and demoralising than trying to extract an apology for wrongdoing from the BBC, or a Left-wing newspaper, or from a railway company �� all activities I have been engaged in during the past few weeks.

Not all Gas and Gaiters

The Archbishop of Canterbury has had a nasty surprise. It follows the Church of England��s decision to publicise, in national media, an unproven claim of child abuse against the long-dead Bishop George Bell, one of the C of E��s few genuinely great men.

Now Justin Welby has had a stonking letter from Bishop Bell��s niece, Barbara Whitley, telling him off. Mrs Whitley,91 and with a mind as sharp as a guillotine, wrote to the Prelate: ��My uncle was an extremely holy, private man. A deep thinker with many engagements and a loving, helpful wife. I am convinced he would not have done any such thing��.

This must have come as something of a surprise, since the C of E��s bureaucrats had assumed George Bell had no living relatives.

You would have thought Mrs Whitley, herself the daughter of a Bishop, deserved a swift and personal reply. But Archbishop Welby passed the matter to a subordinate. Mrs Whitley has written to him again, protesting that her Uncle��s name is being smeared. I do hope he writes back himself, this time.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll dow

View more on Peter Hitchens's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on February 01, 2016 00:19

An Appearance on Eric Metaxas's New York radio programme

Some of you may recall an interview which I posted here recently, in which I discussed many issues with the American commentator and author Eric Metaxas, biographer of the German Protestant Pastor murdered by the Nazis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Eric was dismayed to hear of the smearing of Bishop George Bell, a close friend and collaborator of Bonhoeffer, whose international reputation is now perhaps greater than his reputation in England, and kindly offered me airtime to discuss the Bell case.

Here is the resulting programme

https://soundcloud.com/the-eric-metaxas-show/peter-hitchens

View more on Peter Hitchens's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 31, 2016 00:17

Some extracts from a debate in Oxford on Free Speech

Here is my initial contribution to a debate on free speech at universities held last November at Blackwell��s bookshop in Oxford

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03AhikGdymw

and a later one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_XfB_iNXhU

I don��t know where the complete recording is, but here are some other extracts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDVR_p_lkRI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCvTXxTiJ7E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaBXB65vp9k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE_t0t-srv0

View more on Peter Hitchens's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 31, 2016 00:17

She's done the bank scandal... maybe Margot Robbie can explain the Great Happy Pills delusion

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail On Sunday Column