One thought on “Lord Carlile on the BBC”

  1. 1. Carlile was recorded to the effect that the C of E said it had accepted and would act on his report. It had done

    2. A church rep. explained that new evidence had come to light since Carlile’s report.

    3. He did not say whether this evidence lay behind Welby’s ‘cloud’ remark. but plainly encouraged us to think that
    it did.

    4. [I don’t believe it did. Else why did Welby not mention the new evidence when he made his remark ? It would have
    explained what otherwise appeared an unjustifiable refusal to exonerate Bell. ]

    5. The new evidence is being examined.

    6. Bell;s family have asked to be represented at the fresh examination by their own barrister, a Mr Brown.

    7. The C of E has refused the request and has appointed one of its care representatives to represent Bell’s interests.

    8. Why has it refused ? Because until the evidence is examined, it is not known whether it makes any difference. It
    may be too slight to take seriously or it may be important.

    9. The obvious response to this, not answered straight by the church rep., is that a barrister appointed by Bell’s family
    should be a part of the process by which the credibility of the new evidence is examined. If the church has appointed
    its own person to represent Bell’s interests, why can’t those interests be represented (as they would be in a court of
    law) by a barrister chosen by the defendant or in this case by the defendant’s family ?

    10. All the signs are that the C of E has appointed someone whom it can control and who can be counted on to follow
    the party line.

    11. The Bell family are to be kept informed. This means that no-one has told them anything about the new evidence and
    they will only know what the new inquiry ‘finds’.

    I don’t need to comment.

    ~ ‘GTP’

Comments are closed.