Here are some thoughts.
Why, when it was obvious from the Korris report, that Jane Fisher had put the church's reputation first at my expense, and had got me a criminal record, although more than half of her involvement is omitted from the Korris report, what I have read, why was she allowed to 'go to Jersey and liase with the police' when the hate campaign against me was on? She didn't stop the hate campaign, neither did the police.
She refused to deal with another safeguarding complaint in Jersey at the same time, but why was she allowed to be involved at all? When, despite the Korris report omitting it, she had done a large share of the damage to me?
How can the Bishop justify that and make it a fair investigation?
And on the same note, why, when the Bishop apparently received the Steel report last year after she said she was in the closing stages of her report and thus wouldn't interview me, did he claim he couldn't publish it for legal reasons and then again claim to have received it again this year ans be claiming to try and lessen the impact on me?
Why exactly has the church run this 15 month farce, claiming it to be safeguarding, when they have destroyed me and allowed the safeguarding officer who harmed me, to protect herself at my expense?
Small snippets of blatant harm from early on, include the safeguarding officer telling me that my abusers were just Christians who got things wrong, and claiming that people weren't shunning me for my abuser but for my behaviour, but she was unable to give any example of behaviour that was not reaction to being shunned for my abuser.
She also, in the email sample posted earlier on this blog, claimed the Dean to be neutral. while it is now claimed that the Dean saw me to 'stop me harassing' my abusers.
Why then was the Dean allowed, according to the safeguarding officer, to investigate my complaint, if he was acting for the abuser and the Vicar?
That isn't safeguarding, especially not the Safeguarding officer referring my complaint back to the Dean, and trying to make me meet with him again, when I had objected to the way he handled my complaint.