[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Bishop of Southwark ] [ Bizarre Media ] [ Speed Awareness ] [ Slavery ] [ Human Rights ] [ Criminals ] [ ID Cards ] [ Christmas Cards ] [ Computer Games ] [ No-Smoking Nazis ] [ Television ] [ Driving Lobby ] [ Up Yours ] [ Misuse of Statistics ] [ Logical Fallacies ] [ Relativism ] [ About Critical Thinking ] [ Roy Interview ] [ Unit 1 ] [ Unit 2 ] [ Unit 3 ] [ Unit 4 ] [ Multiple Choice ] [ Sixth Form ] [ Reading List ] [ Discussion Forums ] [ Articles ] [ You Tube ] [ Other Sites ]

What happened to the Bishop of Southwark?

Resource Booklet:

Document 1: 
“Curious incident in the night leaves Bishop of Southwark with black eye and sore head” (Richard Alleyne, Daily Telegraph 11/12/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/11/nbishop11.xml

Document 2:
Interview on Radio 4’s “Today” programme with John Humphreys and the Bishop of Southwark (19/12/2006)
Listen:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today2_bishop_20061219.ram
Read Transcript:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/20/nbishop120.xml

Document 3:
“Partying bishop still in denial” (Kathryn Lister, The Sun 20/12/2006)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006580803,00.html

Question Paper:

1.  Consider incidents concerning allegedly drunken public figures in general.  Suggest three ways in which the context of such incidents can affect the credibility of reports that are made about them.  (3)

2.  Consider the photograph of the Bishop of Southwark in Document 1.  Suggest one way in which the photograph and/or its caption could be interpreted to defend the Bishop’s version of events and one way in which it could be used to counter his version of events.  (2)

3.  Consider the credibility of Documents 1, 2 and 3.  For each document make two points of assessment, each of which should:

• Identify a relevant credibility criterion.
• Use this credibility criterion to assess the credibility of the document.
• Support your assessment with reference to the text.  (18)

4.  Several witnesses report that the Bishop of Southwark was found inside a Mercedes that did not belong to him, throwing out children’s toys and declaring “I am the Bishop of Southwark...”  How could this behaviour be interpreted to avoid the inference of drunkenness?  (2)

5.  Following this incident, it is alleged that the police interviewed Paul Sumpter for three hours.  It was then announced that the police would not be treating the incident as a mugging but rather as a case of missing property.  Eventually The Sun newspaper gave the “Bash Bish Bag Back” but the Bishop claims that his mobile phone still has not been returned.

(a) Given this information, why might one infer that the Bishop was drunk? (2)
(b) How could this information be interpreted to avoid the inference of drunkenness? (2)

6.  Consider evidence given by Paul Sumpter (quoted in Documents 1 and 3) and the Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark. Assess the credibility of evidence relating to them. For each:

• Identify a claim that is made.
• Assess how this is strengthened or weakened by a relevant credibility criterion.
• State what you must suppose to be true in order to reach your assessment.  (16)

7.  Use one credibility criterion to demonstrate which source, Tom Butler or Paul Sumpter, is more credible than the other.  (2)

8.  Come to a reasoned judgement as to how likely it was that the Bishop of Southwark was drunk on the night in question.

(a) Identify two points of corroboration.  Support your answer with reference to the text.  (6)
(b) Identify two points of conflict.  Support your answer with reference to the text. (6)
(c) Assess the balance of the evidence.  Identify any problematic sources.  (4)
(d) Assess the weight of the evidence.  (2)
(e) Assess the quality of the evidence.  (6)
(f) Give your judgement as to how likely it was that the Bishop was drunk on the night in question.  (1)

Suggested Answers:

1.  The Context:

• Vested interest/motive to lie on the part of an alleged drunken public figure e.g. to preserve reputation or to avoid having to resign.
• Media may have a vested interest to report sensationally, to boost circulation.
• Bias/lack of neutrality, on the part of the public figure’s supporters/opponents.
• Witnesses may exaggerate the truth of events, in order to get quoted in the media or to appear on TV.  In extreme cases, the practice of “cheque book journalism” may create a vested interest to misrepresent the truth.
• Difficulty in perceiving the truth of events e.g. unless someone is breathalysed, it is impossible to prove that s/he was drunk.  Evidence of having been drinking is not evidence of drunkenness.
• Difficulty in remembering what happened if, for whatever reason, an alleged drunk wakes up with only a hazy recollection of the previous night’s events.
• Problems of corroboration, especially if witnesses to incidents of alleged drunkenness might have been drunk themselves. 

2.  The photograph does show the Bishop with a black eye, which could have been inflicted by a mugger.  However, the Bishop could have got his black eye in the alleged fracas with the owner of the car or by falling to the pavement.

3.  Credibility of the Documents:

 Document 1:

• Neutrality because many people are quoted, including the Bishop, his spokesperson and worshippers in his congregation.
• Ability to see.  The Telegraph quotes people who claim to have been eye-witnesses.

 Document 2:

• Lack of Neutrality because only the Bishop’s version of events is examined (although Humphreys plays Devil’s Advocate).
• Ability to See.  The Bishop had an ability to see but, apparently, not an ability to remember.  He does now have an ability to see what he has lost, where he has been and how badly he is injured.

 Document 3:

·         Neutrality.  The Sun quotes both Paul Sumpter and the Bishop.

·         Vested Interest to misrepresent the truth by sensationalist reporting e.g. “A BISHOP who denies getting sloshed and behaving outrageously after a party...”

4.  The Bishop’s strange behaviour could have been the result of him having been assaulted by a mugger and suffering concussion. 

5. (a) It could be inferred that the police have decided not to treat the incident as a mugging because they believe that no mugging took place.

 (b) Although the police interviewed Sumpter for three hours, it was eventually The Sun who returned the Bishop’s case, which suggests that, at least in this instance, the police were less effective than a tabloid newspaper in recovering lost property.  The Bishop seems to have left his case in the back of Mr Sumpter’s car but that could have been because he was dragged from the back of the car by Mr Sumpter.  It is possible that the mobile phone was taken by a mugger.

6.  Credibility of Witnesses:

 Bishop of Southwark:

• His claim that he was mugged is weakened by a vested interest to misrepresent the truth to avoid having to resign IF he was actually drunk or IF people are calling for his resignation.
• His claim that he was not drunk is strengthened by his reputation (largely self-acclaimed) for sensible drinking at similar receptions IF it is true that drunkenness would have been “out of character” for him.

Paul Sumpter:

• His claim that the Bishop was drunk is strengthened by his ability to see the behaviour of the Bishop IF he was correct in his judgement that the Bishop’s behaviour was the result of drunkenness rather than having been hit over the head by a mugger.
• His claim that the Bishop was throwing toys out of his car is weakened by a vested interest to misrepresent/exaggerate the truth IF he is motivated by vanity or attention-seeking to sensationalise his story.

7.  It could be argued that the Bishop is the more credible witness because of his reputation (although this is largely self-acclaimed).  He has risen to a senior position in the Church of England, he claims that drunkenness would have been “out of character” and he regularly attends drinks receptions.  By contrast, we know nothing of the reputation of Paul Sumpter.  Alternatively, one could conclude that Sumpter is the more credible witness because of his ability to see, his ability to remember and the corroboration of the other witnesses.  One could also conclude that Sumpter has a less obvious vested interest to misrepresent the truth.

8.  (a) Points of corroboration:

• Paul Sumpter, the bar manager and other witnesses agree that the Bishop was dragged from Mr Sumpter’s car, fell to the pavement and then staggered off under a railway bridge.
• The Bishop, Richard Alleyne and other guests at the Irish embassy reception agree that the Bishop stayed at the reception for about two hours, drinking Portuguese red wine.

 (b) Points of Conflict:

• Paul Sumpter claims that the Bishop was drunk but the Bishop claims that he was not.
• The Bishop claims that his amnesia was caused by being assaulted by a mugger but Sumpter claims that it was the result of his drinking.

 (c) Balance of evidence.

• The bishop claims that he was not drunk and Paul Sumpter claims that he was.

 Problematic Sources:

• The bar manager seems to imply that the Bishop was drunk by saying that people were laughing as he staggered away.
• The worshippers, especially the second worshipper, seem to believe that the Bishop was probably drunk.
• Spokesmen for the police, the Bishop and Lambeth Palace refused to comment on the question of whether the Bishop was drunk.
• Other guests at the reception (referred to by John Humphreys) had reported that the Bishop was “behaving oddly.”
• John Humphreys merely raises the question.

(d) Weighting:  Numerically, one person claims that the Bishop was drunk and one believes that he was not.  However, there are a number of problematic sources who seem to be leaning towards the view that he probably was.

(e) Quality of the evidence:

• Paul Sumpter’s ability to see is better than the Bishop’s, since he can remember what he saw.
• The Bishop has a reputation (although largely self-acclaimed) for honesty and sobriety but his accusers do not.  On the other hand, people do sometimes do things that are out of character.
• It could be argued that the Bishop has a more obvious vested interest to misrepresent the truth than Paul Sumpter.
• There are a number of unanswered questions about the incident with car such as why the police have not charged the Bishop with breaking into the car, what happened to the Bishop’s mobile phone, why the case was returned by The Sun newspaper rather than the police and why the police interviewed Sumpter for three hours.  The strange behaviour of the Bishop could have been the result of his being assaulted by a mugger and at least some of his injuries could have resulted from the “fracas” that ensued after he was dragged from the car by Sumpter.
• The Bishop claims that a drunken man could not possibly have made such a complex journey across London by public transport.  His Oyster Card record confirmed that his journey was fairly complex but The Sun eventually demonstrated that such a journey was possible under the influence of alcohol by sending a drunken journalist to retrace the Bishop’s movements.  (See “My unholy night out on the bish”: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006590221,00.html).  A cynic might argue that what is not possible under the influence of a large quantity of alcohol (or at least very difficult) would be an incident-free journey home and the Bishop’s journey home was clearly not incident-free.

 (f) A mark can only be awarded if the candidate forms a view about whether or not the Bishop was drunk. 

Unit One – Understanding the Structure of the Paper

N.B. The most important questions on the paper are questions 3, 6 and 8.  It is a really good idea to answer these questions first and then fill in the blanks in the time remaining.

Question 1 (Context):

• The golden rule here is to consider the context of reports in general and not the specific case in the resource booklet.  You should be able to answer this question without having looked at the resource booklet. 

Question 3 (Documents):

• You need to consider the credibility of the documents rather than individual witnesses. 
• Look at the small print for clues. 
• Does the document rely on expert witnesses or on an author with relevant expertise?
• Does the document quote from only one side of the dispute (bias) or from both sides (neutrality)?
• Does the author have an ability to see?  If not, do the witnesses quoted have an ability to see (were they eye-witnesses)?
• Does the document have a vested interest to misrepresent the truth or, alternatively, does it have a vested interest to preserve its reputation for accuracy?
   

 Question 6 (Witnesses):

• The first mark is for identifying a claim made by each witness.  You can use the same claim twice.
• The second mark is for using a credibility (RAVEN) criterion to say whether the claim is strengthened or weakened by this criterion and saying why.
• There are two further marks for an IF statement i.e. what you must suppose to be true in order to reach your assessment.
   

Question 7:

• Use one credibility criterion to compare the two witnesses considered in Question 6.
• Make sure you consider both witnesses and compare them.
   

Question 8:

Start by reading the question!  You are asked to consider a specific question in the dispute.

(a) Give points of corroboration.  Make sure you give both sides i.e. who is agreeing and exactly what do they agree on?  Support each point of corroboration with 2 references to the text. (2 x 3 = 6 marks)

(b) Give points of conflict.  Make sure you give both sides i.e. who is disagreeing and exactly what do they disagree on?  Support each point of conflict with 2 references to the text. (2 x 3 = 6 marks)

(c) List the participants on each side of the dispute (2 marks).  Identify problematic sources and say why they are problematic (2 marks).

(d) Numerically the weight of the evidence lays with the claim that  . . . (1 mark).  There are x sources leading to this conclusion and y sources opposing it (1 mark).

(e) When considering the quality of the evidence, aim to make three comparisons, using credibility criteria, very much as you did with Question 7, i.e. use a credibility criterion and then compare the two sides of the dispute.  For example, does one side have a better ability to see or better expertise or a more obvious vested interest?

(f) Give your judgement but make sure you relate it to the issue in the question.