'The Guardian' concedes my point without meaning to

I can now reveal that ���The Guardian��� has quietly and unintentionally conceded the main point of my months-old complaint against its coverage of the George Bell case.

 

It has formally rejected the complaint.

The case is summed up in today's Guardian newspaper here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/reporting-on-historical-sexual-abuse-allegations-requires-great-care

BUT....

 Its Review Panel  (the paper does not belong to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, but maintains its own complaints system which it maintains fiercely is wholly independent) has said

���Where someone has not been convicted of a criminal charge as in the instant [present] complaint, it might have been clearer to put the allegation in quotation marks���.

(this is at the end of paragraph 9 of the judgement by the Guardian���s Review Panel, which can now be viewed here.

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/298969565?access_key=key-cpAPYj5GJgQkCgmEhBZp&allow_share=false&escape=false&show_recommendations=false&view_mode=slideshow )

Indeed it might have been 'clearer' . This is an understatement the size of a Blue Whale.  I have for some months been trying to get ���The Guardian��� to concede an error in its newspaper and website stories of October 22nd and 23rd, in which it proclaimed, without qualification,  that the late Bishop George Bell was a child abuser. Putting the allegation in quotation marks would in fact have taken most of the force and point out of my complaint,

I remain surprised by this, as The Guardian would normally value the reputation of George Bell, a man who defended the powerless from the powerful at some cost to himself. He is surely the sort of person this venerable liberal newspaper should champion.

Yet, on the basis of a single, ancient and uncorroborated allegation, it has done so. The basis for this is the out-of-court settlement of a civil case brought against the Church of England and/or the Diocese of Chichester ( we have never been told), in which George Bell (being deceased) could not have been and was not the defendant, and in which he and his interests were not represented. It is surely absurd to presume guilt on the basis of such things. An out-of-court settlement can be reached for many reasons, the main one usually being cost. It cannot be used to impute guilt of a terrible crime to a third party who was not represented in the reaching of the settlement.

Church statements, principally one issued on 22nd October, are also cited by The Guardian for their presumption of guilt. This is unwise.

The Bishop of Durham has said, while clad in episcopal robes and speaking under the strict rules of truthfulness of that House:

 ���In fact, if noble Lords read very carefully the statements that have been put out, they will see that (my emphasis)  there has been no declaration that we are convinced that this [the abuse] took place.���

 

 I drew this January 28th statement to the attention of the Guardian Review panel before they formally published their decision, but they chose not to take it into account. So, when I was shown a letter (dated January 11th) from another senior churchman, much involved in the George Bell case, saying ���At no point have I stated that Bishop Bell was guilty��� , I did not pass this to them.  It remains relevant.  Personally, I am amazed that nobody at ���the Guardian��� stood up for George Bell, for the presumption of innocence, or for the long-established rule that allegations are not treated as proven facts.