A Reply to Theo Hobson, in defence of George Bell, and of his Defenders.

In reply to Theo Hobson:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/in-the-case-of-bishop-bell-the-church-has-shown-real-compassion/

He defends the Church's handling of the George Bell case.

Oddly enough, I spent some time with Theo Hobson on Sunday morning (we were guests on the same TV programme) and he never mentioned this subject to me. Had he done so I could have helped him avoid some errors and misconceptions.

For instance, he says specifically that I have said compensation should not have been paid to the woman who accuses George Bell of abusing her. His actual words are : ���Christian columnists of left (Giles Fraser) and right (Charles Moore, Peter Hitchens) agree: Bishop Bell has been most sorely wronged. The Church should not have compensated the person he allegedly abused about seventy years ago.���

He includes in this a link to my original Spectator article on the subject:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/the-church-of-englands-shameful-betrayal-of-bishop-george-bell/.

If he had followed this link himself, he would have found that this article contains the words :  ���By all means comfort and assuage the accuser, and compensate him or her (we are not even allowed to know the sex of the person involved).��� This is the exact opposite of saying the church should not have compensated the accuser. I also repeatedly make it clear that I do not know, or claim to know, if the charges are true or false. I accept that it is possible that George Bell may be guilty of thrse charges. I approach this just as I would if I were a sworn member of a Jury on the case, with as open a mind as I can maintain.

This error is most significant. Defenders of the Church���s behaviour towards George Bell repeatedly suggest that its critics are being unkind to his accuser. As is clearly demonstrated in this case, we have not been. The unkindness is imaginary, and incorrectly described.

The current Bishop of Chichester, The Rt Revd Martin Warner, recently issued a statement in the same vein.

https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2016/02/bishop-of-chichester-statement-following-article-in-brighton-argus.aspx

It speaks of ���strident voices���, charging: ���The presence of strident voices in the public arena which have sought to undermine the survivor's claims has added in this case to the suffering of the survivor and her family. To that extent it is not surprising that she felt it necessary to take the courageous decision to speak out in public and reveal the personal details which the Church could not.���

He does not give any examples, and , if he is reading this, I would like to ask Dr Warner if he might now do so.

Does he not grasp that it is in the very nature of our justice system and its presumption of innocence that the defenders of any accused person must by implication challenge the accuracy of the charges? Justice would be impossible if any such defence were immediately characterized as an attack on the accuser���s integrity. The Bishop of Durham, in a bizarre statement issued yesterday (8th February) and discussed here http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/02/in-tywo-minds-the-strange-position-of-the-bishop-of-durham.html accurately and properly refers to the accuser���s charges as ���claims���. On Bishop Kemp���s logic (and Durham's own) this too could be taken as a personal assault on her. This is obviously absurd.

In fact, the defenders of Bishop Bell have concentrated their attacks on the Church authorities.

We have questioned their processes. We have questioned their motives in releasing the accusations to the media. We have pointed out that the document in which they did this did not in fact state Bishop Bell���s guilt (it could not, as no process has taken place, or is likely to take place, which could establish it). We have wondered aloud as to how, in that case, it was taken as, and reported as, a statement of his guilt by several media religious affairs correspondents, and other reporters.

The least personal and ad hominem way of dealing with accusations which you wish to challenge is surely to insist, as we have repeatedly done, upon the impersonal presumption of innocence as a principle.

Where does Mr Hobson stand on justice and the presumption of innocence? Doesn���t be believe that the thirst for justice and truth is one of the central desires of the Christian person? Yet he seems confused about what truth is, and what belief means. He writes :��� But it [the Church]chose to believe her [George Bell���s accuser]. In doing so it signalled that responding honestly and compassionately to the painful truth (or almost certain truth) is the Christian thing to do.���

I don't actually see how that follows. The accused, as well as the accuser, are owed truth and justice. But there is nothing Christian that I can see about believing an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated charge. Even Mr Hobson, by writing of ���almost certain truth��� , concedes that he does not know it is true. Of course he doesn���t. That's the whole point, and the probably irreversible destruction of a great reputation has therefore proceeded on the basis of a single unproven charge (which I do not myself think the Church has adequately investigated).

Mr Hobson is in the same position as those unwise police officers who described unproven charges, prejudicially, as ���credible and true��� or promised accusers ���you will be believed���. They have, quite rightly, had to backtrack It is not the job of investigators to believe (or disbelieve) charges. Their duty is to accept that thy may be true, and to investigate them without prejudice or preconception, fear or favour, or pursuit of self-interest, to find the truth and act accordingly. It is in these aspects of the matter that I believe the Church has acted wrongly.

No doubt all of us, including George Bell, have many secret sins to our account, known to God and to us. But that does not mean that George Bell is guilty of the particular charge levelled against him. I do not happen to think that this particular crime fits in any way with the life and actions of George Bell as I (and others who knew him when he was alive or are far more expert than me on his life and work) understand them.

I don���t at all mind Mr Hobson disagreeing with me. All debate is useful and healthy. But I do object to having my words and actions misinterpreted in this way. I think he owes me, and other campaigners for justice for George Bell, an apology.