Yet another indication that humanity in this Century has become so superficial and trivial that it cannot consider important decisions in depth. Is Welby good for the Church of England should be the question and probably yes, so he should not resign is the answer (if you care about organised religions, which I don't). The reality is - the changing morality of society because of media and public simplification should not affect decisions today. This ghastly man Smyth who seems no worse than my head master in the 1950s who enjoyed beating me as often as possible should indeed have been kept away from children but he's dead now - who cares? Like Al Fayad and so many others, dead celebs provoke false accusers or at least exaggerations. Media adores such "scandals". The amazing claim that Smyth was the "worst ever abuser who wore striped shirts" is just more media inflation. Is Welby a good Archbishop? I have no idea. But like Starmer and so many others - accepting claims on face value and obeying tabloid headlines is foolish.

Can I just make clear that I am not saying most accusers of Smyth or Al Fayad or Savile or Epstein or all the rest are always lying? Most are telling the absolute truth from memory - but memories do change and, most of all, acceptance of past behaviour changes. Headmasters were legally and morally allowed to cane dreadful small children like me in the 1950s. Owners of huge companies were often guilty of "trying it on". Wrongly, in my opinion, but it was acceptable way back then. "A knee in the balls" was the suggested method of choirboys avoiding randy vicars in the last Century. DJs and pop stars DID have sex with "groupies", often started by same groupies. It's society that has changed - often rightly. But judging yesterday by the morality or legality of today is stupid. Wrong. Liable to lead to such things as jailing women for chaining themselves to railings in order to get the vote.

But if Welby knew about the allegations - and it seems he did - surely they should have been followed up and action taken?
A lot of people would then not have been abused. Sorry you were, btw x

Yes times and values have changed and it was quite normal for teachers to thrash young boys often viciously.

When I told my Mum years later she said she would have torn down to the school and throttled my evil English Master had she known. She would have as well. .

Yes Cindy - of course he should have followed it up. But it is possible that Archbishops may have many more, much more urgent problems to deal with. It's also possible that one person possibly abusing pupils is not a massive problem unless, of course, covered by the media. But accepting he made a mistake, should he resign? Doesn't that let down millions needing his help - or rather, through him, the help of God? Many feel that, as with government, media is far more important than sensible, measured, deep analysis. And certainly far more important than God. But possibly God is equally simplistic. Possibly Jesus meant, when he said "Look after children", that all children are good and honest and kind - even when they grow up. That's what media believes - unless, of course, there's a BETTER STORY! I assume religion in 2024 regards forgiveness as unimportant. In which case Welby - and many others - should indeed resign and stop trying to spread the GOOD things in religions.

JK, after you yourself have departed this mortal coil are you concerned that you will have others come along and allege things that you will no longer be able to answer back about?

Three years ago I had a conversation with a well known (gay married man) national radio presenter in the evenings on this issue when we were talking about the Gambo story after he'd been seen on TV slating the BBC in a feisty Victoria Derbyshire interview. This presenter, who shall remain nameless and has not a hint of impropriety against his name was talking less than empathetic about Gambo which surprised me, so I asked him why he couldn't see why Gambo was so angry at what had happened to him and if he himself as a gay man a few years younger wasn't concerned about himself and the possibility that someone out there could simply step forward and make claims against him and attempt to destroy his career and reputation, and maybe succeed. He seemed confident it couldn't happen, but then slightly changed tack and accepted that it was always a slight worry in the background after events in recent years.

I remember working a brief casual job 30 years ago which involved a lot of public interactions. One afternoon I got called in and shown a letter making allegations against me about my behaviour. It alleged serious rudeness to someone during a short encounter lasting two minutes. I recognised who this person was who wrote the letter. It was total fabrication, nothing had happened at all, absolutely nothing, we'd had a normal encounter, no rudeness of any kind or anything to raise issue. Yet this person had gone home, sat down and put pen to paper and fired it off to my employer and very nearly got me dismissed on the spot because of what they had written, which must have been the intention. It made no sense to me, I was confused and couldn't work it out, or why it had happened or why this person had done this to me, I'd not said or done anything to them to warrant it. Maybe some people see it as sport to do such things, I've no idea.

Of course there was no definitive proof either way, just one word against another. Yet my employer put me on a final warning, depsite a clean blameless hard working record, just like that, and seemed to believe one fantasy letter from a stranger over me who they knew. It added insult to the situation, so within a month I gave them no notice and simply walked away to something else better if they allowed themselves to be that easily taken in.

It was just a rudness allegation, nothing worse compared to others, but even so, all these years later I still think about it and wonder why someone told such lies about me to try and get me fired, someone who didn't even know me and who I'd never met before that day.

I'm pretty damned sure that if Jesus did return---of course he never will--- he would be accused of something sordid within the first two years. JK is right...a salacious story trumps decency and facts every time. Dirt is craved for.

Downing Street Cat wrote:
I'm pretty damned sure that if Jesus did return---of course he never will--- he would be accused of something sordid within the first two years. JK is right...a salacious story trumps decency and facts every time. Dirt is craved for.

It's been about over 2000 years, he could have stopped both WW1 and WW2.

Not forgetting saving us all from bubblegum pop.

I think JK's point about forgiveness is the central point. If the CoE can't practice forgiveness in the face of mob rule then what is the point of it? It becomes just another politicised institution. Whether you "believe" or not, that is not a good outcome for society.

Downing Street Cat wrote:
I'm pretty damned sure that if Jesus did return---of course he never will--- he would be accused of something sordid within the first two years. JK is right...a salacious story trumps decency and facts every time. Dirt is craved for.

He'd be on charges for something being a long haired suspect bachelor preaching peace.

Note how the current Pope preaching on behalf of the Palestine people is largely ignored by the world's media.