How can Archbishop Welby leave Bishop Bell’s name under a cloud?

SIR – Thank God for Charles Moore (Comment, December 16), and for all who refused to accept the traducing of the late George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, by the Church authorities.

How can the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, condemn a man with such assurance for something alleged to have happened 63 years ago that cannot be corroborated?

Would he embrace being condemned himself on the basis of the unchallenged testimony of one person at such a distance? William Jupe

Worcester

SIR – My father served in the British sector of Germany from the dying days of the Second World War. He was said to be the first senior officer to marry a “native”.

My mother’s family, Gosewisch, ran the principal Hanover auction house together with a Jewish partner, Kohn, and they were forever grateful for Anglophone assistance such as the Kindertransport given before the war, not least by Bishop Bell.

My father knew only too well what they had escaped. His role in the Bergen-belsen relieving party so scarred him he did not mention it until his dying day over 40 years later, with the observation: “You cannot believe what man will do to man.”

But of course you can. Notwithstanding his graveside tormentors, Bishop Bell was one of the greatest humanitarian activists of his day, who stood his ground above the baying crowd. He will long be remembered as having been a true follower in Christ’s footsteps. Michael Stainer

Folkestone, Kent

SIR – In the leading case of Woolmington v DPP (1935), it was held by Viscount Sankey that “throughout the web of English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. Until Lord Carlile came on to the scene, the principle appears to have been ignored in the case of Bishop Bell. It was also ignored at a later stage by the Archbishop of Canterbury. John Drysdale

Harpenden, Hertfordshire

SIR – Bishop George Bell, Sir Edward Heath, Lord Bramall and many others are accused of a sexual assault, the allegation is published and the damage is done. They are innocent but their reputation is besmirched for ever.

Common sense and decency demand that such allegations remain confidential until the person is charged at the very least. Anyone who has been in court has seen ample examples of such cases going to court and failing through lack of evidence.

False allegations seem to be becoming the norm. Lord Carlile (the independent reviewer in the case of Bishop Bell) is right. Those accused deserve anonymity.

His Honour Lord Parmoor

High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire