Friday, 24 October 2014

continued response to the church times

Mr Handley,

Lets get a few things clear.

You appeared to scan my complaint and article within a few minutes this morning and replied that quickly, which is provable, and there is no way you took into account my feelings or circumstances, nor the bias or implication of what your reporter wrote.
I have a feeling that if you really do not understand the harm you have done to me by your defamation of me for no apparent reason, then you need to pass my complaint to whoever your manager is, as, hopefully he is more experienced in press impact and how your article implies I am a wrongdoer and defames and humiliates me.

Let me tell you a bit about what your reporter's dreadful incongruent and unprofessional report has done to my life today, similarly in the past.

I have had a minor collapse, which has meant that feeding and washing myself, concentration and any tasks have been impossible. 
I have been unable to complete my exercise routines that are part of my rehabilitation and have had to go to the Samaritans instead of the Disabled club.
The physical and psychological effects are as follows; minor nervous collapse, seizing up of muscles which triggers severe pain in my injuries, a migraine, sickness, more seriously an asthma attack was triggered, and on top of that, flashbacks, horror and trauma because of the one-sided nonsense that your reporter produced that has left me yet again voiceless and suffering, after six years of this continuous situation where I am abused, destroyed and voiceless while the church continue to have a voice and harm me.

You are liable for the harm to my health and wellbeing and the care I will need over the next few days, which is hard to arrange at a weekend at the beginning of half term. You are liable for harming a vulnerable adult repeatedly for 18 months and without provokation.
It astounds me that you claim to be surprised by my complaint. Surprised I finally spoke up after crying, going into shock and suffering trauma at the hands of your biased and unprofessional reporter for 18 months? There has to be an end point, it shouldn't surprise you too much, it should have been long before this and it should have never been necessary.

The cruel, unChristian and biased way you have defamed me for 18 months, never with the courtesy to ask for my side or apologize for the deep emotional wounds inflicted is inexcusable and also a serious safeguarding issue.
 I have no doubt that similar treatment inflicted on vulnerable adults by church and press can and has killed other voiceless people, and in my case it continues to take me all my strength to withstand these repeated blows which make life and rehabilitation impossible.
And my ability to write, that few vulnerable people possess, is what has kept me alive and partially heard, through letters regarding these matters and also through the blog, which your unprofessional report scornfully and completely needlessly and incongruently refers to as my 'rage' in an attempt to discredit me, while omitting the link to the blog so that people can decide for themselves, and omitting any reference to the daily blog which tells of the real me, the one the church have drowned out in rewriting me as a villian to cover up their safeguarding failures. The daily blog covers three years of my life and does not show a mad bad liar but a real human being in pain and in fear as the church continue to destroy her. Read it here:

Your reporter's continued actions against me in this way do indeed represent a bias on behalf of the church and defamation and derision against me.

Please explain why a report into safeguarding needed to defame and shame me by incongruently and needlessly accusing me of breaching a harassment order? Where is my side, that a harassment order was never issued come into it, or indeed the reason I was arrested being that I continued to fight for the church to deal with the complaint that they refused to deal with and was in an advanced state of trauma and collapse, when instead the safeguarding officer blamed me for the situation, condemned me for my anguish and claimed that my abuser was 'just a Christian who got things wrong' despite knowing he had a history of abuse and was supposed to be under guidelines but that those guidelines were not implemented nor was I warned about him, he was allowed to touch and kiss me in church, with witnesses, and to take me home to regress and abuse me.

 It has taken me years to get to a point in my life where I am half-rebuilt, and I will never be who I was and will always be broken from what has happened and yet, like the men in the Bible who wanted to stone a woman for perceived adultery, you are stoning me for your bias, and Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' So reconcile yourselves to God and don't keep making excuses about your attacks on my life either.

How does your unprofessional reporter descibe that safeguarding failure in Jersey? With a back to front implication that my abuser was a poor put upon man and I made allegations; And again she has not asked for or included my views.

This is how she put it, or near enough: - 'The churchwarden told the Dean he had acted in good faith and taken risks' she then adds 'but then HG made all these allegations'.
Now I know you only skimmed my letter and the article earlier, but even if you are not a senior and experienced member of staff, as I have to gather from your response to my complaint, (I thought you were the editor, please refer my complaint to him)  can you not see that that is an implication, even if I have worded it slightly differently.

Because it could have been put the other way round - that I made a complaint but the churchwarden claimed to have acted in good faith. which is not making a biased implication that the poor hard done by man told the dean he had acted in good faith and then I made a complaint. Do you understand? I gather from your lack of understanding this morning after you briefly read the article and my complaint, that I have to explain to you the difference between a balanced article and a biased and defamatory attack on someone.
I find it hard to believe that your reporter's article is just simply because she is poorly trained and unprofessional, the attack on me is plain.
I can write better than her though, so consider providing her with both some journalistic skills training and some safeguarding training.

Let me assure you, the report on me comes over as nothing more than a petty revenge attack by spin doctor Butler and his church for my continued request for an independent inquiry that includes my story, and my continued criticism of the Church of England's abuse of power, especially in the press.

You owe me an apology in your paper and a notice regarding my complaint. 

I think I have been through most of the complaint step by step now, but if you are unsure, get your manager to explain it to you. 

I do not think you can claim to be surprised or confused by an article which incongrently starts by randomly and unjustly attacking a vulnerable adult with no reason, or cause or link to the rest of the article, it is poor journalism in the extreme, it is the kind of thing that leads to suicides from victims, although in my case it will not, I will take you to court instead because this is only one in a long line of personal attacks and defamatory implications by your newspaper, none vetted, checked or including my side of things properly or mostly at all. As I said earlier, Christian or not, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves for bullying someone who has never offered you any harm but because you have a bias to support the loud voice of the wrongdoing church of england.

Tell me, what exactly does the attack on me before giving a supposed story from another victim and then a kind of blurred waffle by the indistinguishable Macsas and Butler really mean? Butler spin/church revenge/lets fill some space/poor macsas whining that nobody loves them? Especially as the church Times have had my email address all along and have never at any time contacted me to get my story and include it and balance things. Again this is provable.
Please be aware that Macsas have been warned today and were warned in 2011 to stop acting in violation of my privacy and human rights and will be taken to court as well if they in any way refer to my case in any media or to any agency, they are basically a branch of the church of england and have repeatedly acted for them in my case and harmed me.

You are slightly less likely to be taken to court if you kindly apologize, stop making excuses and ensure that a notice stating my concerns is issued in your newpaper next week, you have a week to make a decision on that. I have the legal forms here in full, in duplicate, ready. I have no doubt you have no fear of that, but I have let you know.


No comments:

Post a Comment