Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Safeguarding investigation?

How can it be a Safeguarding investigation when:


  • The Bishop causes maximum distress and damage by forcibly and illegally  tracing the autistic survivor through the police and leaving her feeling violated.
  • An inaccurate report that omits the survivors views is published internationally, causing the survivor maximum distress and requests by the survivor to have that defamatory and incorrect report removed are ignored.
  • The Survivor is subject to a public and media hate campaign by supporters of the wrongdoers, the Bishop does nothing, preferring to hide behind a PR company who make him look all the more silly and do nothing to help the conflict, in the meantime his safeguarding officer who in the past caused severe psychological injury to the survivor, is allowed to continue to illegally liase with the police about her. The survivor is left desparate and distressed, as in previous years, allowing the church to back up their 'insane' label of her that they have worked hard with police and mental health services to try and get her.
  • The Bishop threatens the victim when she pleads for the violations of her life to stop and not re-start.
  • The Bishop launches a conflicted investigation headed by a 'volunteer' who came forward because she is close to political and judiciary supporters of the wrongdoers.
  • The Bishop re-instates the person suspended as a result of the report and says he 'acted in good faith' basically saying the investigation is over. He does not pass on the aimless and directionless forced 'apology' from the same person. He instead sends a message reading 'no unsolicited intervention-confirmed' to the victim.
  • And a few months later, the Bishop's safeguarding office, who has a formal complaint against her for repeated violations of the survivor's rights and privacy, intervenes unsolicited by illegally and without consent, referring the survivor to the NSPCC, to a colleague of hers. Bearing in mind that the survivor is now 33 and despises the NSPCC, this is absolutely appalling. 
  • The Bishop tries to personally force this referral on the survivor, ignoring the fact that he has been asked to only contact the survivor's mediator, due to the damage inflicted by the Bishop so far.
  • The survivor writes a legal letter to the Bishop, asking him to refrain.
  • The Bishop releases a statement about having had legal representation to stop the conflicted report, and refers to the victim as 'lost last and least' and he prays she will accept the 'support that his staff have been working hard across the diocese to provide' ie his bullying safeguarding officer who has a formal compaint against her by the survivor has made an illegal referral to the NSPCC.
  • The Survivor responds by a press release saying she is not interested in forced support from the Diocese who have destroyed her. The Diocese even at this stage are more interested in image and cover up than the victims's circumstances and feelings and refused at any point to acknowledge the survivor's own pastoral care and therapy situation, which their dreadful behaviour was disrupting.
  • Deathly silence reigns, with the Bishop no longer threatening the victim.
  • The Deanery and Diocese in the catastrophic investigation part company and the Deanery comes under the jurisdiction of  a Bishop who was seen to join in the abusive and damaging games in the churches in the deanery in years previous, and also the Archbishop.
  • The Archbishop causes distress to the survivor by doing an aimless interview in which he seems to have no understanding of the circumstances and praises and condones both the wrongdoer and the Bishop who has done so much damage.
  • The Survivor responds, and is ignored, as usual, disregarded by the Church as mad and bad, much as Jesus was by the Pharisees.
  • The survivor is by now, 14 months after this sick and twisted charade started, quite unwell and waiting every day to be further damaged.

No comments:

Post a Comment