Blogs > Has believing the victim policy sullied the name of a much-admired bishop?

17 February 2016 | by Clifford Longley

Has believing the victim policy sullied the name of a much-admired bishop?

Church of England compensates alleged victim despite Bishop George Bell dying in 1958

Has Bishop George Bell – the Anglican Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958, and one of the Church of England’s greatest figures - become a victim of the rule that people who complain of sexual abuse must always be believed? This principle was applied by police forces across the country in the wake of the Jimmy Savile affair, and has caused no end of problems. Now it has caused a major problem for the Church of England too, which has been accused of rubbishing the reputation of a good man and ignoring the presumption that someone accused of crime is innocent until proved guilty. Innocent may not be quite the right word, as the bishop is dead. But there is such a thing as the benefit of the doubt, and he should be given it.

On the basis of one complaint last autumn – about an alleged series of abusive episodes in the 1940s - the Church has formally apologised and paid compensation. In a statement, it implied not only that there were no reasons to disbelieve the victim, but that the allegations were actually true. It did not say why it thought so, and no further evidence has come to light.

Bishop Bell died in 1958, and has since become an iconic figure for his many brave interventions in public affairs not least for standing up to Winston Churchill to protest at the devastating bombing of German cities. He was also a key link with the plotters who tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944. If he really was a paedophile, as a headline in the Daily Telegraph branded him, then all that heroism counts for naught. He will have to be removed from the Church of England liturgical calendar of notable persons, an Anglican saint in effect, and anything named after him will have to be renamed. His name will for ever be remembered with shame. But is this fair? Many people do not think so.

The change of approach by the police was an effort to correct their previous tendency not to take complaints of sexual abuse seriously. So any victims who had had the courage to complain suffered again, and subsequently there were even more victims. That pattern has also occurred in the Church. Indeed, the same person first complained about Bishop Bell 20 years ago, but did not feel the matter had been properly dealt with at the time. There was a suspicion of a cover-up, nowadays seen as just as deplorable as the abuse that was covered up.

“Believing the victim” was brought in as the antidote to cover-up. It caused the police to open investigations into complaints against public figures such as Lord Brittan, a distinguished former Home Secretary and Vice President of the European Commission, and Lord Bramall, a Field Marshal and one of Britain’s most illustrious military leaders. Sir Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister, also came under suspicion. These cases were eventually closed with no further action, and all three famous men are now dead. There is no doubt they were handled insensitively, however, and as a result there have been calls for the resignation of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

In response, he has recently said that the “believing the victim” principle may need modification. And for doing so he has been attacked for wanting to go back to the bad old days, when, as one critic put it, “the desk sergeant closed his notebook and shooed the complainant back into the street.” There is a paradox here. Had the then Bishop of Chichester, Dr Eric Kemp, referred the original complaint to the police two decades ago – and his not doing so was part of the renewed complaint last year – who knows whether some Sussex Police desk sergeant might have been equally dismissive? The alleged perpetrator had died long before, so there was no possibility of a prosecution.

There is no way of knowing, therefore, what the outcome would have been. I strongly suspect an investigation might never have started and in any case would have gone nowhere. So George Bell’s name could have ended up alongside Leon Brittan, Edwin Bramall and Edward Heath, as cases the police had dropped for lack of sufficient evidence on which to base a prosecution.

There are important matters of principle here. There is at least a possibility that “always believing the victim” could encourage fanciful or malicious complainants to come forward. And what happens when “always believing the victim” collides with “innocent until proved guilty”? Which of them prevails? There are problems either way. If the presumption of innocence was applied by the Church to George Bell, does it logically mean that the Church doesn’t believe the victim? Would the Church in effect be accusing her (we now know her gender but not her identity) of lying, or at least of mistaking the identity of her abuser - she was small child at the time? Could it do that?

I can imagine an argument that says the victim is still with us, while George Bell is safely out of harm’s way, so the interests of the living must take precedence over the interests of the dead. But one does also have to say that that approach has made several other people – we cannot say how many – very angry indeed. They greatly admired Bishop Bell; so they too are hurt. Indeed the whole Church of England has been damaged by the discrediting of one of its greatest men.

The alleged abuse happened in the period 1944-49. At such a distance of time, there can be no certainty about anything. The Church of England surely owes it to Bishop Bell, long dead though he is, to give him the benefit of such doubt as there is bound to be.



Follow all the latest news and events from the Catholic world via The Tablet's Twitter feed @the_tablet

Or you can join in the debate at our community page on Facebook

Share this story

Article List

Post a Comment

You can post as a subscriber user ...

User Comments (6)

Comment by: Mark godswin
Posted: 07/09/2016 04:59:34
Me and my ex-wife at all times have always tried to stay friendly over again after our divorce which occurred in early September. But Dr alexzander you are not going to believe this. she is back!!! Yes, she really came back in 24 hours just as you guaranteed Sir. Now I'm fully persuaded that you are a legit and authentic spell caster and your web site is the best I have ever come across. This is so mind-boggling for me. Emily is back!!! I haven't by any means experienced something like this before. Thank you so much Dr alexzander. I never expected such a result. dream come true. wow! You were so kind with me. “And may your kindness float back to you like ripples that float back to sea shore”. Thank you Sir for your precious help. I have never been so happy in my life like the way I am today. You are a genuine spirit and you will never be forgotten for making me a fulfilled man once again.. You are my hero.. The kids are overjoyed to have their mother come back home for good. so i promise to use this outreach to share his good news to the world and let them know of Dr alexzander the great spell caster that saved my marriage. you can get in contact with him through his email address or web site below. or
Comment by: SUE
Posted: 17/07/2016 10:13:18
OMG! Thank you so much Dr. Trust for restoring back my Broken marriage for 4 years of total separation with my lovely husband cos of her mistress who use a spell on him to abandoned me and our kids. i have contacted so many casters online several times but be scammed. i saw a testimony on the internet of one Juliana testifying of your good work, i contacted you which you assured me just 48 hours for an instant result. Sir just same 48 hours as you promise my husband came back home begging for forgiveness to love and cherish i and the kids forever, am so happy and thankful to you Dr. Trust,,,I am So Happy and Excited because as i am writing this Testimony, My husband is madly in love with me again. If there is any body Out there who is in Difficulties and need help should kindly Contact Dr. Trust on His Email ID and he is Ready to Help you no matter the Situation, ( or call +2348156885231) Web
Comment by: Denis
Posted: 05/03/2016 09:25:35
I agree with "spotlight." Why and of what relevance is it to describe the accused in these cases as "distinguished"? It appears that Clifford Longley has learnt nothing from decades of abuse where the abusers were often "distinguished" people. I wonder would the Tablet be willing to extend the title "distinguished" to a senior Catholic cleric facing these accusations. I suspect the answer would be certainly not, in particular with regard to its current hate figure Cardinal Pell.
Comment by: olliolollum
Posted: 26/02/2016 16:53:35
"There is at least a possibility that “always believing the victim” could encourage fanciful or malicious complainants to come forward."
There is another possibility. Richard Beck, in his book "We Believe the Children: A moral panic in the 1980s" (New York 2015) gives detailed accounts from documentary evidence of cases where police and counsellors believed allegations. They interviewed children so intensively that eventually children said what the interviewers wanted them to say, despite having denied it strony at first. How an allegation is investigated is of vital importance, for the sake of justice for both victims and accused.
Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is not akin to asking forgiveness. It is a recognition that we do not have sufficient evidence to make a judgment in the case.
Comment by: spotlight
Posted: 19/02/2016 20:05:08
couple of wobblies in this article----use of the label "distinguished" to refer to prominent figures who might have been guilty of impropriety. Just remember that in all child abuse cases the victims are never referred to as "distinguished". Then there is the term "discredited" applied to Bell's reputation. We seem to lack a metric for evaluating the harm done to distinguished men by those who discredit them for past misdeeds. How do we measure the harm done to the child victim vs the harm done to the accomplished politician or entertainer.? In the first case the psychic effects can be long lasting, while in the latter case a reputation can get tarnished by accusations. I am less concerned about Bell's legacy than I am about justice and truth.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is akin to asking forgiveness, and only the alleged victim can do that.
Obviously in the past 20 years the pendulum has swung in favor of victims to compensate for the arrogant dismissal of abuse cases by very "distinguished" men that has gone on for a century. Is Bell a victim of that pendulum swing? Probably.
How about doing away with financial settlements for abuses cases so that false witnesses do not profit from their accusations. Then real victims might might appear more credible.
The RCC could set a great precedent by turning all cases over to the law, and never arranging secret financial settlements like Cardinal Law did on Boston for years
Comment by: RichardWSymonds
Posted: 19/02/2016 16:46:05
In considering our silence, or otherwise, regarding Bishop George Bell, we would all do well - not just the Prelates - to prayerfully consider the ninth (respectively the eighth according to the Catholic and Lutheran count) of the Ten Commandments : "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Sign up for our newsletter

Sign Up

Latest Issue
Digital/PDF Version

PDF version (iPad-friendly)

Previous Issues
Tablet Subscription

Manage my subcription here