But I would like to include their survey here http://macsas.org.uk/MACSAS_SurveyReportMay2011.pdf
On page 42, a case concerning the Diocese of Winchester is mentioned.
I do not know for sure, but believe that may be the case of a woman who I will call 'M', it is not my case, definitely but very sadly I was made aware of M's case while I was in the Diocese, which shows just how little confidentiality mattered to some people.
M, made a complaint about a Vicar. Sadly the Diocese handled this really badly, really really badly, because they involved JM, the Vicar who's husband sexually abused me, and who told me that the abuse was not abuse and was my fault and that I was trying to seduce her husband etc.
JM, with her bad attitude to abuse victims generally and not just me, who always treated abuse victims with scorn and repeatedly lack of confidentiality, and who made abusers out to be 'just victims themselves' always had this attitude of scorn and lack of confidentiality to victims and attitude of support to abusers.
JM was, for some reason asked to step into the abuse claim and act as a 'mentor' to 'M', she kept nothing confidential and told me all about it, she scornfully described M as 'adoring' this Vicar and following him around and seeing him as a father figure and misconstrueing his actions, and this is how she represented M to the diocese, much as she scornfully blamed me for what FM did while I was vulnerable and she had taken me home to him.
Quote Macsas survey page 42:
1.18.1 Two other cases were also reported in the Dioceses of Winchester and Liverpool. In the first there was at last an investigation process undertaken two years after the allegations were made when the respondent contacted the Archbishop of Canterbury. The respondent has recently reported that the outcome of the investigation was to give the vicar the ‘benefit of the doubt’ and to suggest ways that the vicar could change his behaviour so that it is less open to misinterpretation. She is again writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 1.18.2 Again it is clear that Church leaders do not seem to take these cases seriously, or understand the need for resolution when complaints are made. Even when allegations are investigated through the Clergy Discipline Measures the procedures are manipulated to minimise the actions of the vicar and the subsequent penalty imposed. Women are not being protected from further abuse by these men.
1.18.3 At least one of these vicars is a reported to be a serial sexual abuser of women and has
been allowed to continue in ministry far from the diocese where he became notorious for
sexually assaulting and abusing women. Another has multiple allegations of sexual abuse
of young men during healing ministry and past allegations of child abuse and sexual
misconduct. He was not investigated by Church authorities because he chose not to renew
his license when allegations were made. In other cases women who had dedicated their
lives to working in their parishes were vilified and isolated when they raised concerns
about the conduct of the parish vicar.
1.18.4 At all times it appears as if the reputation of the priest/vicar is more important than
safeguarding members of the congregations, their colleagues and others who come to
them for spiritual/pastoral support.
Obviously nothing changed in the Diocese of Winchester, nothing at all, and my recent statements about how FM's abuse of me was deliberately made into a nothing by the Korris report have been swept under the carpet along with my filling in of the gaps about Jane Fisher's destroyal of me on my return to Winchester.
So the ongoing investigation omits my views and omits my complaints, including that against JM who crossed boundaries as my counsellor to take me home to her house where she continued to take over my life, prevent my diagnoses and thus the help I needed, breached confidences to me and about me, and let her husband abuse me despite his daughter accusing him of abuse, and then she involved herself in Jersey on the side of the abuser and his supporters.
Nothing whatsoever has been done either about J and FM or about the Diocese of Winchester's appaling safeguarding practice.
And there is no way that JM breaching safeguarding and professional boundaries blatantly and repeatedly can possibly be my fault, nor the damage over years that I suffered as a result and reacted to, for which I have been villified, especially by the Dean of Jersey who collaberated with JM, and Jane Fisher, of all people, who has followed JM's example of not taking abuse seriously and villifying me instead.