Was the reason that the Steel report wasn't published because the Steel report was to stop me going back to Jersey, and I made it quite clear that apart from visits to Jersey -which are too traumatic for me really, I am not going back to live in Jersey.
I can't afford to live in Jersey, I am not fit for work, I need the therapy that I can get in the UK and not in Jersey, and life would be miserable in that small island for me, it would not go back to being a full and happy life. I would go back to being shunned and worse, and having to work out who was connected to who, and basically, with enemies in the Masonic-Judiciary-States-Church clique, I am safer staying here.
Although I am grateful for the offers I have had from Jersey of homes and the invites I have had.
Some people do not understand why I turned these down, but honestly, I am safer here even though it is a tough and painful life here.
Unrelated, but I remember that meeting with Bishop Scott-Joynt and how afterwards, I was exhausted and Jane Fisher kept on and on badgering me for details of the meeting.
I asked her why she couldn't ask the Bishop.
And she said because it was a private meeting.
Basically that meeting was used against me in the Korris report, as if I hasd done something wrong by answering Bishop Scott-joyn't questions, I did not lead that meeting and the witness was conflicted and could be used by the Scott-Joynts and Fisher in any way they liked, but the Bishop led the meeting by asking me questions, he excused the behaviour of the churches in Jersey towards me, claiming it was because they didn't know how to respond to me, which, considering they were shunning me because I reported the churchwarden, was rubbish,
and my anger was in response to the shunning.
However, the Bishop didn't excuse Phil Warren's verbal attack on me entirely, but he did try to change Phil Warren's motives,
but this was too late, after the damage had been done by Jane Fisher excusing Phil Warren,
none of this is mentioned in the Korris report.
I went for prayer and Phil Warren said he had 'heard about what had happened in St. A's'
He turned nasty and aggressive and trapped me in the prayer room and started shouting at me.
When I told him the abuse case was a serious matter and he should not get involved he leaned into my face and accuaed me of 'Threatening him in front of witnesses'.
Which I wasn't.
He implied banning me from his church.
Now this is an example of how the smear campaign are spreading a wrong perception, because I had never done anything to Phil Warren, at all, but he had 'heard' about ST. A's, and thus, along with my past quarrel with his parents' in law, he decided he had ammunition to attack me when I peacefully went for prayer for a friend who was ill.
As you will see in the email that I wrote to him in reply - not abusive, I was horrified by his behaviour. And not only emailed him, but also contacted Jane Fisher.
Jane Fisher rubbished me.
Which contributed to me going mad with distress.
Jane Fisher then claimed that Warren had apologized to me and thus my distress at him 'hearing things about me' and using that to attack me just as others used it to shun me, was irrelevant and not valid.
I had not had a problem with going to the Warrens churches even though I kept my distance from them, for 2 years up until that incident, and had said and done nothing wrong, as my email states.
But then there was not only the problem of Phil Warren 'hearing things' there was also the problem of Jane Fisher attacking me and denying things.
Jane Fisher went on claiming that Warren had not attacked me, he had, he trapped me and was aggressive, with his own 'witnesses'.
Anyway, Philip LeClaire came with me to the church a few times after that and Phil Warren was 'all nice'. He didn't openly attack me again, but undoubtedly continued to be involved negatively.
This was the time when Fisher was spouting on about things 'being in the past' and only hurting me by me dragging them up, and it remains that as with most of her messagages, she didn't make sense or tell me what was in the past but she did injure me by implying that anything was being dragged up by me.
But anyway, Bishop Scott-Joynt, the only good thing he said at that meeting, was that Phil Warren shouldn't have done that and would a personal apology help?
H ealso added that Phil Warren may not have known that what he was doing by trapping me and acting as he did he came accross as aggressive.
I never got a personal apology.
But the point is, ignorant people have accused me of being violent and abusive and making death threats to clergy for years, now this incident was in 2009, and I had never done anything to the Warrens except fall out with the Lihous, which was two-sided and as far as I was concerned was forgiven, forgotten and in the past.
Which the Bishop agreed with.
I did not provoke that clash with the Warrens, Phil Warren did, in 2009, a year before I left Jersey, and although it was not satisfactorily resolved, and me involving Jane Fisher, with all her denials and 'teaching of lessons' made Warren belt up, but also injured me because of Jane Fisher's words and attitude, that caused me to continue to break down.
So, 2009, no provokation, attacked on 'What he heard' and I am the one accused of years of abusive emails etc. 2010, I left Jersey.
The only emails and letters I sent were to people who didn't handle my complaint properly, allowed me to be abused and supported the abuser after the complaint was made and villified me and shunned me, as St. A's villified me to Warren, to get his and his parent's-in-law's support against me.
So who was being unchristian, just me in breaking down into anger and distress and sending bad letters? which did NOT contain death threats!
Or them in villifying me and upholding an abuser, both bad, but the abuse situation should not have been allowed to happen, and should not have been furthered by the villification, or Jane Fisher's denials of it.