Move to Inbox
More
3 of about 57
Web Clip
Quote of the Day - Nancy Astor - "The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything... or nothing."
|
Re: article
Judith
Here is a copy – yes I did keep one.
Tony
From: JayJay Nortyperson
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:55 PM
To: Tony Bellows
Subject: article
Hi Tony,
I hope your Egyptian thing went well, The Church Times neatly erased the
article from online that I threatened action against,
I wonder if you managed to keep a copy? If so, could you scan it to me
before the end of today as I have to get it in the post today.
Judith
0.22 GB (1%) of 15 GB used
©2014 Google - Terms & Privacy
Last account activity: 9 hours ago
Details | |||||||||||||||
Safeguards only work if used, say vulnerable adults.pdf
Page 1 of 4
10/24/2014 Safeguards onlywork if used, sayvulnerable adults
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/24-october/news/uk/safeguards-only-work-if-used,-say-vulnerable-adults 1/4
The care of abused adults is also a key concern of the Church. Madeleine Davies
investigates
Safeguards only work if used, say vulnerable
adults
IN JULY 2008, a 26-year-old woman complained to the Dean of Jersey, the Very Revd Robert
Key, that she had been subject to abusive behaviour by a churchwarden. Five years later, an
investigation into his handling of her complaint resulted in his suspension by the Bishop of
Winchester, the Rt Revd Tim Dakin. This led to claims of "constitutional crisis" in Jersey, and,
eventually, transfer of episcopal oversight for the island to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The facts of the case have been subject to extensive scrutiny and dispute. Both the Dean,
reinstated in April last year, and the woman have criticised that first investigation, carried out by
a psychotherapist, Jan Korris. In 2013, Bishop Dakin commissioned two more reviews of the
situation. The results of neither have been published after concerns about confidentiality and
legality.
What is agreed is that, three months after the 26-year-old arrived at a church in Jersey, a
churchwarden and his wife invited her to stay in their home.
"We took risks in our relationship with [the woman] but thought we were doing so under God's
calling," he later told the Dean.
According to the Korris report, within a few months, the woman had moved out and reported
"unwelcome and potentially abusive behaviour" to the Dean. Over the course of the next three
years, she also made complaints against the Dean, the safeguarding officer, and others, and
was eventually arrested for breaking a harassment order and deported from the island for
three years. She has since written a number of blog posts expressing her rage and hurt about
what she says was violation at the hands of the Church.
Whatever the conclusions of the unpublished reviews, her case raises important questions for
the Church about its care of vulnerable adults.
"In Korris, the lack of clear boundaries meant that violations could occur or be perceived to
occur," says Simon Bass, CEO of the Churches' Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS),
which now extends its concern to adults.
"There is a need to look at how we provide guidance and policies that are practical enough,
and provide safety for all concerned - not just the person who may be a vulnerable adult, but
also those wanting to reach out."
Mr Bass can cite "lots of instances" of individuals' opening up their homes. "That is seen as an
act of Christian love; but when boundaries are muddled, harm can follow."
CCPAS has collected 3000 responses to an online survey about the care of vulnerable adults
in Christian communities. The research is being conducted in recognition of the fact that
churches are increasingly involved in ministries that bring them into contact with vulnerable
adults, including street pastoring, debt counselling, and running foodbanks. CCPAS is receiving
an increasing number of calls about this area.
by Madeleine Davies
Posted: 24 Oct 2014 @ 12:37
ISTOCK
Way forward? An "authorised listener" should be appointed by each diocese.
Photo posed by models
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/24-october/news/uk/safeguards-only-work-if-used,-say-vulnerable-adults
Dear Madelaine Davies, cc Bishop Paul Butler and others
Re the nonsense in the church times this morning,
Don't think I am joking.
I
have taken Dakin and Welby to court, and your actions in maligning and
defaming me over and over to make the church look good are not even
slightly different from that.
You do not report my side of things,
including
the fact that I was never given the harassment order claimed, and the
reason I made complaints was that both the Dean and Safeguarding officer
did not deal with my complaints, nor did the Bishop, and I fought for
my complaint to be dealt with as my abuser remained unpunished and
unashamed, supported by the Dean and church.
I
am going to publicly take you to court, and am going to take the
Archbishop and tdiocese of winchester back to court as a result of the
whole matter continuing to wrongly portrayed.
Also,
if you want to be rude and derogatory about my blog, include a link to
it so people can decide for themselves. My blog is to tell my story as
the church have omitted to either take my story or include it in any of
their whitewash reports.
Don't go on using me in Bishop Butler's church glorification at the expense of victims campaign.
You
fail in your article to point out that the man who abused me was a
serial abuser, who was supposed to be under restrictions that the church
failed to implement, and as a result he took me home, regressed me to
childhood and sexually abused me, leaving me not only seriously damaged
by the regresssion as my first childhood was horrific, but also
sexually abused under such conditions and left me regressed and
childlike, abandoning me as I raised concerns, and from there I had to
deal with the Dean, who was a friend and supporter of the abuser who
attended church services and aevents with him, and then as Korris says, I
had to live through denial and blocking by the Bishop and Safeguarding
officer, which, in the state I was in, and with terrible treatment by
Jersey police, led to me collapsing in severe stress and hysterically
trying to make the church do something as my abuser continued to work in
the church with their full backing, and laugh when he saw me.
You
also fail completely to tell of the farce that occured as a result of
Bishop Dakin illegally suspending the Dean when he had no power to do so
and then allowing the powerful clique in Jersey to hijack the reports
that followed, allowing the Dean and his lawyer-judiciary-States member
friends to take control of the reports.
I
am very very tired of you cruelly and vindictively misrepresenting me
and it completely invalidates the whole vain and empty aim of the
article which is to self glorify the church by claiming they care about
vulnerable adults. The trademark of Paul butler is spin to glorify the
church at the expense of voiceless and vulnerable victims.
You
yourself are consistently and viciously harming me on behalf of the
Church of England by repeatedly misrepresenting and vilifying me, and
you are harming me further each time, and damaging my recovery and my
life. Please redact the article and apologize or I will take you to
court.
My
blog is there to tell my story, and you obviously do not wish to read
it or understand my story before you launch into attacks on me that are
read nationwide, and as you are representing the church, you are saying
that the church are happy to go on harming vulnerable adults to the
point of destroying them.
What
I have suffered as a result of the actions of Safeguarding officer Jane
Fisher can never ever be healed and I will live a broken person for the
remainder of my life, and again, you fail to report that a serious
formal complaint against her has been repeatedly ignored, which
highlights the complete lack of regard that the church has for
vulnerable adults, more so because she was allowed to illegally refer me
to her friend John Cameron of the NSPCC of all charities! In an attempt
to force help me on me so that the Bishop could do a press release
claiming he had helped me.
Now
that duplicity is the real church of england, the real way they work
and not the spin that you and Paul Butler use to portray them.
It
is to stop, and you are to apologise in your paper or I will be taking
you to court. I took the huge and corrupt corporation that is the church
of England to court, you are no better and no difference as you
continue to vilify and seriously harm me on their behalf
Please
be aware and print to counter your nonsense that the church of england
have ignored my side of things, not included my side in any report and
are therefore wasting their time self-glorifying by claiming to care
about vulnerable adults, they do not.
To
put it bluntly we are considered by the mainly wealthy and elderly
subscribers to the church of england to be an underclass, less than them
and at most, there to be used, as I repreatedly have been during
episodes of sexual abuse in the church that destroyed me, and it remains
that though you vilify me publicly to thousands, I built my life myself
out of the ashes of a horrific childhood, and I had never been in
police trouble until, while in Jersey, regressed and traumatized, the
police punished me for reporting my abuser by beating me and throwing me
in a cell the day they told me the results of the investigation, and it
went on from there, with me having no understanding of the police
action and no appropriate adult to explain.
And who was overseeing the police? Ian LeMarquand, church reader/home affairs minster/friend of the abuser.
I
think the church times need to look at and hear the facts, the ones the
Diocese and Archbishop have overlooked and omitted from all reports.
While
safeguarding officer Jane Fisher refused to act, telling me my abuser
was 'a Christian who got things wrong' despite her knowledge that he had
been accused and warned previously, which I didn't know because the
church neither told me nor implemented the controls put over the man to
stop him abusing within the church again.
How
dare you vilify me without including my side, what a dreadful example
of how self-serving and unChristian the church and the Church times are.
Please make the churchy aware that allowing the article you have produced is a breach of the legal action and will be taken up.
Please
also note that you are completely failing with regards to good
journalism because you are printing a one sided and defamatory story
against someone vulnerable.
It
is time at very least that you answer to the Press Complaints
comission, you and the rest of the church times, who have ignored my
letters but have printed defamatory and misleading rubbish from
lawyer-clergy who support the Dean, such as Gavin Ashenden who slurred
me as insane when I am proved not, you and the church both have no
understanding of vulnerable adults and the harm that ongoing persistent
defamation that omits the real story can do to them.
sincerely,
HG
|
12:31 PM (56 minutes ago)
 | | ||
Dear HG
I
am genuinely surprised by your response, except that I can’t blame you
for rolling the Church Times up in your criticism of the Church of
England. We’re independent of it, but obviously part of the
establishment in many people’s minds.
First,
just to state that the purpose of the piece was to say to our readers,
in the context of the Waddington inquiry results, that the C of E has a
great deal more work to do if it wants to have any sort of confidence
that its churches are safe places for all, adults as well as children.
Many people now know this – and I believe Paul Butler is one – but the
message is not being disseminated effectively. The Church will never be
perfect, but it could be a damn sight nearer perfect than it is now.
We
mentioned your case as an example of just how badly things can go
wrong. It was a brief reference, that simply listed the chief undisputed
facts of the case. You say, though, that you were never served with a
harassment order. It’s important that we clear that up, and correct if
necessary.
Otherwise,
I’ve reread the piece a couple of times, and I don’t see anywhere where
we malign or vilify you. We are not rude or derogatory about your blog.
Our piece is neither attacking you, nor defending the church hierarchy.
Most
of your criticism is about elements of your story that we left out. But
this was a general piece about the subject of vulnerable and abused
people in the church, and, besides, you have told us before that you
find the rehearsal of your case harmful to you.
This
was our dilemma: we think it important that the Church addresses this
issue, in all its facets. If we’d left the stone unturned, you wouldn’t
be writing angrily to me – but neither would we have brought this issue
to the attention of our readers – who, we must assume, include both
clergy and church workers who carelessly harm the people in their care,
and who we know include people such as CF, quoted in the story, who
deserve a voice.
The
vehemence of your criticism suggests to me that we’re not going to
agree, which troubles me. Both Madeleine and I are thinking that perhaps
in future the paper should leave this subject alone, because journalism
can’t do what those whom we’re attempting to represent want done. We
can expose a wound in the hope that others will work to heal it – or at
least not cause other wounds – but it’s not in our power to heal it
ourselves.
But
whether or not we agree about the article, your email to me is a clear
indication that we have caused you upset. Please accept my apologies
.This was not remotely our intention.
With best wishes
Paul
Paul Handley
editor
|
1:25 PM (3 minutes ago)
| | ||
Dear Mr Handley,
You have produced a defamatory and inaccurate article on behalf of the church of england who you represent.
You
have left me in shock, and I am surprised and horrified to see the same
excuses that the church of england roll out from you.
You
have produced an article that does not in any way represent me, my side
of things or what has happened but which defames and sickens me and
covers up for the church of england, and it is terrible to see the
excuses when I have referred the complaint to you, a manager.
You
are not independent of the church of england, that is a very silly
thing to say, seeing as week after week, year after year you do articles
about them, representing them, telling their story, you do their
announcements, you do their propaganda and have repeatedly damaged me
through articles and published letters while refusing to publish my side
of things at any point.
You have
left a vulnerable adult sick and in collapse and in tears on the
anniversary of her dad's death, you have not even attempted to get my
side of things or express it, all you have done is vilified me to the
world and are now rubbishing my complaint.
And if that does not make you representative of the church of England, who have done the same, then I don't know what does.
My
letter of complaint was not me 'lumping you in with my criticism of the
church of england' what a ridiculous suggestion, it was me making a
complaint about your journalist writing about me in a defamatory way and
causing me harm and only representing the inaccurate church of england
side of the story.
No Matter what
you say. You have attcked my blog, deriding it as my 'rage about what I
consider to have happened' basically rubbishing a blog that tells my
side where the church do not and have silenced me by producing press
releases and reports that omit me, That is derogatory and as you omit
links to my blog and also omit the story of the saily blog 'Life after
the Diocese' which runs from homeless in October 2011 to the present
day, refuting day by day the criminal defamation of me by the Church,
you are basically rubbishing my blog and not allowing people to hear my
story and decide for themselves.
I
have made a complaint about Madeleine and her article, one of a number
that defames me and omits my side, and the publication of defamatory
letters about me in the Jersey Deanery, you are not addressing that by
your cop out about my vehemence, and how you feel we wont agree, you are
deliberately sidestepping the issue of the harm caused. You have a duty
to deal with my complaint, you also have a duty to publish an apology
to me, and unfortunately your claim that you will 'leave the matter
alone' does not ring true after two years of you defaming me on behalf
of the Diocese, thus I will be gathering the articles and as well as a
complaint to the press complaints commission, I will be taking you to
court.
I will not stand for any
more attacks on me and public floggings and condemnations of me, you are
to redact the article and apologize. I cannot begin to imagine how you
can claim you don't understand why this matter has upset me, nor can I
imagine how you can claim independence from the church of england, nor
can I imagine how you cannot see how wrong it is from a journalist to
behave as madeliene repeatedly has as I suffer in silence.
I
have put up with madeliene and the church times harassing me through
defamation for all this time and cried and wondered how I can keep
trying to rebuild my life on the back of the constant mis-reporting on
my case where you break the very basic journalistic codes by writing
defamation and derogatory articles that imply I am a monster and the
wrongdoers innocent, without including interview with me, as well as
refusing to publish letters sent to you by me, while publishing
defamatory and misleading letters from supporters of the Dean of Jersey
without even checking the facts nor considering the impact on me.
As
the church times, Do you consider yourselves to be Christians? Seeing
as you are writing about Church and Christianity? If so, you should be
heartily ashamed of yourself for attacking a vulnerable adult and then
rubbishing her anguish in response, after she has put up with you and
your concretely unChristian behaviour for nearly two years solid.
There
is no credibility at all in your claim to be independent of the Church
of England, that is laughable, you report on them and from them, how are
you independent in your report from Paul Butler? You aren't, how are
you independent in publishing Gavin Ashenden't letter defaming and
discrediting me as 'Mentally ill' and furthermore, why would a real
Christian ever try to excuse abuse on the grounds that the victim is
mentally ill and not credible? Where did you mention in your
'safeguarding vulnerable adults' article this morning that mentally ill
and other vulnerable groups are the most likely to be abused.
Lets
ignore your cop out that you are 'concerned we wont agree' because cop
out is all it is, you have injured a vulnerable adult by producing an
inaccurate and defamatory article based on the chuch's views, the church
you claim to be independent from. Here are points you have no right
whatsover to make as they do not tell the story:
- You talk about my abuser telling the Dean he 'took a risk and thought he was doing the right thing' basically you are making him out to be a poor wounded man, you are omitting that he was a serial abuser that the church had allowed to remain in authority and put theoretical guidelines around, but the church failed to either warn me or enforce those guidelines, and instead the Vicar and his wife supported this man as he regressed and abused me.
- You make out I criticized the Korris report, you fail to mention that the Deanery also criticized the Korris report, that it was widely criticized, not least because it was published internationally and given to the police as fact even though Korris failed to interview me or the churchwarden, and the report was garbled, not chronological and I wrote my own report as long as the Korris report on the inaccuracies, and sent it to Korris, who sent it to the Diocese who failed to amend the Korris report or acknowledge it, or even remove the Korris report until I took them to court this year. Think what happens to the vulnerable who cannot type as I can, who get destroyed this way and have no voice!
- You mention, for no apparent reason and inaccurately, me breaking a harassment order, no harassment order was issued, and again, you do not have my side of this, and the police and court records are proven inaccurate, basically, for no reason whatsoever you vilify me, for the church, because you have avoided my side, and bring up the trauma of the terrible police behaviour, the beatings, the imprisonment, all of which occured because I was abused, regressed to childhood and left in a terrible state in a small cliquey island community where the power was on the side of an abuser and a Dean who had done wrong, not in your report, so you are not credible in claiming to be independent, if you were, where is my side of things???
- You fail completely to mention the added trauma of the cover up,which is indeed actually mentioned in the Korris report to start with, and the cover up was at my expense, while I had a breakdown as a result and continued to deteriorate into severe post traumatic stress, as recorded on the full psychological report on the blog you claim to be my 'rage' against what I 'perceive' to have happened. I am sure that although you show a very unpleasant and arrogant attitude to the victim you have attacked, you will have seen news articles about what Post Traumatic Stress does to people? If not, maybe you should read up on it before you interview me to ensure you can balance out your articles that so far have been acts of harassment and harm to me.
- Oh, I forgot, you don't want to give an accurate or balanced view.
- Your article, with no warning or permission from me, on top of the many other articles and letters, without you asking for my views, are harassment, and you now are obliged to rectify the situation with an apology in the Church times and possibly even ensuring people hear some of my response, which I will publish on my 'rage' blog.
- No matter what the excuses, I am on the receiving end of your terrible journalism and have been for some years and would like to point out again that you have worded the article in a way that vilifies me and even makes my abuser look hard done by, and as a reader and a representative of your readership (I am ashamed to say), I see myself being portrayed badly, and not for the first time by your paper. I have also been receiving feedback this morning, all morning, which says the same thing. Either the way the article is worded is too subtle for you to see how derogatory it is, or as you are not on the receiving end of it and do not appear to know the full story including my side, you fail to see how damaging it is, I am on the receiving end, I know it is not my story but is slander and I have a legitimate right to object, so it you have a superior, who may understand the impact of inaccurate articles better than you do, maybe you could pass it on to him.
It is very notable that at no point have you published the
massive and questionable discrepancies that have occured without
explaination in the Diocese of Winchester inquiry:
Such as:
- The Bishop had no power to suspend the Dean, so he had to re-instate him, why was this not investigated as Dakin should have known the extent of his power.
- Why did the Bishop claim the Dean had acted in good faith BEFORE the investigations? (basically because he had no power to suspend or discipline the Dean due to Jersey canon law 2012.
- Why Were two formal complaints against Jane Fisher ignored completely? Why was she allowed to continue to be involved when even the Korris report which is written mainly under Jane Fisher's dictation and thus covers her serious misconduct shows at a few points Jane Fisher's serious misconduct at my expense?
- Why was Jane Fisher not suspended and investigated as the Dean was? She is equally guilty of misconduct.
- Why has she been allowed to jeer that she has not been called to account by illegally referring me to her friend and colleague John Cameron without my consent so the Bishop could claim to have offered me help, while the actions of the church had disrupted all my support and therapy? And further to that, Jane Fisher recently jeered by adding me on twitter, with her twitter account full of boasts because nothing was done about her, I do have proof.
- Why was it claimed before the Steel report was released that someone, not me, had put in a legal bid against it?
- Why was Steel, a colleague and friend of the wrongdoers, allowed to run a conflicted report against me to clear the Dean anyway? Why were the wrongdoers allowed to get States funding and backing for legal protection and expertise to hijack the case anyway?
This matter is not closed until you explain how your
perceived independence is vilifying me with the church's story rather
than ever looking into these matters and more? You have not interviewed
me or anyone representing me, you have told the church's story, with
Paul Butler at the helm as usual. You have tried to rubbish me and claim
that 'We wont see eye to eye so you don't want to discuss it. Well we
wont see eye to eye if you vilify me with the church's story and your
journalism is so poor that you neither include my story nor consider the
impact on me and deride my voice that speaks through my blog.
Your
harm to me and your poor response are unacceptable in the extreme and
you are to take further action to rectify this harm to me and I don't
want any more unhelpful excuses, you have a duty of care to the
vulnerable adult you have attacked in your paper with no warning.
Yes,
I agree you should not report on this matter again after two years of
playing a part in publicly flogging me, because it will impact on my
legal action against you if you do.
sincerely,
To put it bluntly Mr Handley,
To put it bluntly Mr Handley,
I don't accept
your apology because it comes at the end of a letter no better than the
article your paper has further harmed me with today.
What
I want from you is for you to fulfil your duty of care by rectifying
the situation with a correction and apology in your paper, bearing in
mind you have defamed and misrepresented me for 18 months to a year, and
you are obliged to apologize in the paper and rectify your mistakes
with a notice/article, although reality is you should not have done the
harm you have done.
Which,
if you are genuinely independent, I am sure you will have no qualms
about doing. But reality is, Paul Butler and the church wont be too
pleased with a correction and you are not independent, your very title
states that.
In
the meantime I have published your letter and my responses on my blog
that you innacurately refer to being about my 'rage' when in reality,
there is consistently no rage whatsoever on the blog, again your
reporter's journalism and omission of checking facts is apalling.
I
am sure you can imagine now, or hope you can, that my blog is my way of
telling my story when journalists such as yours distort it in favour of
the church of england's story, and do not try to get my side of things.
My
blog has wide and high readership, not as high as your newspaper, which
calls itself the 'World's leading Anglican Newspaper' And with your
paper thus titled, tell me again how you are independent of the church
of england???
You have left me ill on the anniversary of my dad's death, and your excuses are very poor indeed, I will see you in court.
Please
remind the church of england on my behalf that a million pounds later,
they have still completely failed to record and investigate the abuse
and cover ups I have suffered in the church of england, leading to
poverty, ruin and a criminal record after 28 years of clean record
against the background of the worst possible upbringing.
The
whitewashes that have failed to include me and which you have
repeatedly used and based your articles on are nothing to do with
genuine investigation.
Dear Bishop Butler,
Dear Theresa May,
Dear Bishop Butler,
As you continue to self-glorify at the expense of victims, I have to wonder what has happened to my complaint.
Please
be assured that the only way the Church of England can ever safeguard
without inquiries being conflicted self-glorifying whitewashes that harm
the voiceless is when an independent body investigates you, properly.
Sincerely,
Dear Theresa May,
I am sorry to see you accidentally appointed another conflicted chair for the national CSA Inquiry.
That
is not the only reason I am writing but I would also like to point out
that twice in a row you have chosen unsuitable chairs for the CSA
Inquiry, not just because of the named conflicts but also because both
have been position holders in the church of england, the abusive
government department who have destroyed and are still destroying me.
You
must be aware when you appointed them both that they were church of
england position holders and that that is a conflict due to the fact
that so much abuse has taken place within the church of england and
institutions run and overseen by them.
A member of the
church of england cannot investigate the church of england, and the
reason the church are getting away with abusing and destroying lives is
because they are the only people who investigate abuse within the
church, and they do so poorly and cover up and whitewash for year after
year. It has taken a very long time for Eli Ward's case to actually be
looked at properly after years of the church harming him, and my case
still hasn't been looked into properly, it has been whitewashed and I
have been vilified and am still being harmed to this day.
When
Fiona Woolf resigns, please ensure you choose someone neutral, not
someone chosen by Paul Butler to cover up for the church. I would not
have found out that Fiona Woolf was a church of england position holder
if Butler had not started making his usual loud spin and cover up noise
that alerted me to something being amiss.
Most
of all, please choose a neutral head of inquiry soon, as it is costing
the government their election and harming victims as the charade drags
on.
Please could you make sure there is an INDEPENDENT investigation into the Diocese of Winchester now as well, thank you.
sincerely
1 of 4
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.