A quick note to the Archbishop yesterday

Dear Justin Welby,

I was dismayed to see that you are advertising yourself and your church on the front paper of your newspaper, the Daily Mail again today.

Please would you think about the poor and consider donating the money you pay the Daily Mail to spearhead your self-glorification campaigns to organizations which help the poor, such as the Trussel Trust, who run so many foodbanks nationwide? That way, the poor Benefit, and your terrible propaganda that misleads anyone silly enough to read the Daily Mail or Church Times ends, kill two birds with one stone.

Because you have destroyed me through your million pound Winchester and Jersey cover up and condoned the actions of wrongdoers and allowed me to be extensively villified as a result of your and Dakin's self-glorifying pretence of a safeguarding investigation at my expense, I can't stand to see you making a loud empty noise about the poor from your palace. Before your church destroyed me, I was working and supporting myself, but since you permenantly destroyed and branded me, I am reliant on foodbanks and don't really want your input about them, especially as, the same as with the Jersey case, you seem entirely ignorant regarding foodbanks.

Are you aware of why Foodbanks are overloaded with destitute people now? Well, when foodbanks got established, the Government saw that this was good, and the government work in the same way as their government department, the Church of England do. The government abolished crisis loans and community care grants and started writing foodbank tickets for DWP customers who had no money due to one or other error or cruelty by the DWP, so the government send people to foodbanks to save the government money.

And who runs the foodbanks? The churches. And the churches feel that they are doing their Christian duty. So local to us, a talk was given of how the Churches were blessed (or rather gullible) to be taking such responsibilities as the government drop them.

The outcome is, no, the government wont support foodbanks, because, just as the church destroyed me and refuse to restore what they have taken from me, the government are not going to put right the Foodbank crisis that they have caused, and Nanny Welby whining and self-glorifying is a bit silly, especially as Nanny Welby should have quietly resigned after the 'Wonga' situation and then the horrific Jersey mess which remains in every way unresolved.

Putting it bluntly, deal with your own church and the problems they cause, rather than self-glorifying through the Newspapers that are on your private payroll, you have messed up so badly that it astounds me that you are even there, let alone self-glorifying through the press.

You have told the world that you doubt that there is a God, and you act as if there is no God, so please resign.

In recent news, I saw that a Vicar in the Blackburn Diocese and his daughter had been arrested. I saw no point to make in order to put that article on my blog, as it is one Priest and the church tend to trot out the line 'we are all human' as second best to the line 'Don't judge', which is usually used at a time when the church are being very judgemental.

But, the thing is, you claim to provide 'A Christian presence in every community' and as every day, other Press, not your pet Daily Mail, report on sex acts and depravity within the church, you are failing to provide that so-called Christian presence in every community and your safeguarding policy, which segregates and blames the vulnerable, is a joke.

So please, if you have time for your Pet Paper to interview you, you have time to take action both about the way you have destroyed me and also the mess your church is in. Do you think you could stop the headline self-glorification and crocodile tears until such a time as you have done so?

Or at least give me a break over Christmas from your insipid and duplicious noise?

Please note, that during the more recent destroyal of me, from March last year to the present time, you have never once found time to reply to my concerns, so please can the noise in the press stop because your priorities are wrong, deal with your church first, then show off in the paper.

I have had no apology for your destroyal of me, and there is no excuse whatsoever for the damage inflicted on me by the church of england, none whatsoever. You have showed that you are not a Christian Church and that your priorities are image, cover-up and self-glorification.

The foodbank self-glorification appears to be you marshalling your sheeple to adore you. The problem is, the church of england, a wealthy old club, have no understanding of foodbank clients, and treat them as naughty children, while your puffed up church members feel really good to be 'doing their Christian duty'. This is the real church of england, and any amount of 'working parties' about safeguarding will fail as long as you continue to equate safeguarding with looking down on, excluding and segregating vulnerable adults as you do in your policy of excluding the vulnerable from people's homes, and even boasting in the Church Times articles that 'people took vulnerable people in and thought they were doing the right thing'

Your attitude is inexcusable. I was damaged by this Church Policy where paedophiles who pay into the church coffers are allowed into the homes of clergy people, as my abuser in Jersey was, but I was excluded with no explaination from my curate friend's home as soon as Jane Fisher found out I was friends with the curate and would go round for tea, I was neither told nor had the policy explained to me, and it damaged my friendship with the curate before Jane Fisher proceeded to destroy that friendship by using the curate against me, and of course that isn't in any of the whitewash reports you have done at my expense, because you have excluded me from all reports.

Lets move on to other press-related issues.

The Church Times is barely a newspaper, used mainly for Church of England propaganda and self-glorification. And recently they and the Church's pretence of care for the vulnerable campaign made yet another boo-boo.

An article about the disabled in Church read that 'Disabled people couldn't read the liturgy, because it was aimed at the wealthy middles classes'.

Well yes, it is aimed at the wealthy middle classes, because it is their club. But you have all forgotten something, disabled people can be both wealthy and middle class.

The other boo-boo there was that autism is mentioned over and over again and while you/the Church times claim that that the 'Old English' of the liturgy is too complex for those such as us.

The Church remain in the dark ages with no understanding of people with disabilities.

Someone with autism is generally average to high intelligence, and many, such as myself, tend to speak rather formally and understand straightforward formal, standard and BBC English and find such language easier to work with than slang and sloppy English.

The thing that makes us unwelcome in the Church is not the liturgy, the liturgy never troubled me, what makes us unwelcome is that you are judgemental, unwelcoming, exclusive, your safeguarding is a joke, and you destroy and exclude and belittle vulnerable people, from your positions of wealth and power. The Church of ENgland is a club for the wealthy, with no understanding of the poor and vulnerable, and that isn't going to change under spin doctor like Paul Butler, who has protected Jane Fisher after her serious and illegal misconduct, as you yourself are also doing, in fact nothing will change as long as you continue to shout in the press and ignore the serious damage to me and others.

The other issue is that predators who have money, and even those who do not, know that the church is the best place for easy pickings, and if it comes to it, as demonstrated in Jersey and Winchester, when it comes to it, the Church will support them, the predators, and drive the victim out if they speak up. In My Case Jane Fisher supported both of my abusers and everyone who upheld them, and went out of her way to successfully and completely destroy me and cover for them and for her own misconduct, and I remain profoundly affected.

Part of the slanderous article in the church times that defames me as a result of the cover ups and conflicted investigations is that Eli Ward's case came up, and again in other press.

I have spoken to Eli at length, and the brief sentences where he says he is glad of the outcome and hopes the church will implement the suggestions for change belies the years of harm to him by the church, not just in abuse but in cover ups, the fact that he was also wrongly labelled insane, a common church and government trick to take away a victim's credibility.

What Eli told me is that the Great Grim Church are cowards who use intimidation, which I have certainly experienced and remain in fear for my life, home and liberty due to Jane Fisher's actions against me, and when Eli came out with his story against the church, he used his real name so that you could do nothing, it certainly played a part in you setting up the self-glorification and spin about safeguarding campaign, but until you can see us as real suffering human beings, you will never know what safeguarding is, nor impliment it, and as your reports still omit Jane Fisher's horrific actions, probably the best place for them to be heard is in court, a real court, not one I am flung into, voiceless and unheard after a beating and imprisonment as has happened several times due to your 'safeguarding officer' and her cover ups at my expense.

The church use the poor, they do not do as Jesus did and minister them, Jesus loved the lost and needy, you tread on them, use them and abuse them, leaving them voiceless and violated.

I was incredulous to see, a week or so after being left in collapse by the Church Times defamation of me more recently, that you were in the paper, Mindlessly praising journalists, what, the ones who defamed me to glorify you and your church? Madeleine Davis who has been slandering me for months on end? The Daily Mail journalists who kiss your feet? Yes, it must be wonderful to be the other side of the cover ups and propaganda and praise the journalists you use for propaganda, cover-ups and self-glorifications, but I can assure you, you have repeatly nearly cost me my life and health through the same, so again I say, sort your own house out before you continue to make a fool of yourself. And if you continue to harm me, I will take you back to court.

Do the right thing in God's eyes for the first time in your rather laughable term in office, deal with the Jersey and Winchester matter through an independent investigation.

I think I need to explain to you what independent means, it means outside of the church and people associated with the matters that have occured.

For example, Paul Butler is not independent, he is associated with Jane Fisher and the Montagues who abused me and were allowed to defend themselves by adding their voice to the wrongdoers in Jersey. John Gladwin, who is a Church of England Bishop who played a part in the Chichester cover up, is not independent, neither is Jan Korris, neither is Butler-Sloss, neither is Dame Heather Steel, so as yet all you have done is whitewash at my expense.

And please note, this is not just about abuse, it is about criminal activities by Jane Fisher in conjunction with two Bishops of Winchester,

Please enable an independent inquiry or I will return you to court to plead with a judge for this, if there is any judge left in this country who is not corrupt, freemason, on your payroll etc. Nonetheless, even if you kill me or imprison me as incessantly attempted by Jane Fisher to silence me previously, my voice will not go away and you are responsible in God's eyes for all your deceit, cover-up and harm to me and other vulnerable people.

Wealth, power, use of the press, propaganda, whitewashes, segregation of the poor and vulnerable, cover-ups and defamation are not things that Jesus did, so you either need to call it a day and stop claiming to be a 'Christian presence in every community' and stick with the wealth and power and abuse of the press, or you need to become Christians and stop doing the harm that you are doing.

No matter how tight your collective cover-ups are, it remains you have never given me a fair hearing at all, and have lied about this too, and until you put that right, you are in the wrong with God and thus not fit to be holding the positions that you hold.

So, years and years too late, when are you going to act on this matter? Without beating and imprisoning me to silence me!

sincerely,

Who remembers Apartheide? It still applies in the Church, to vulnerable adults, who are considered worse than abusers, this article was mysteriously removed from the church times website after defaming me nationally and internationally yet again for the Church of England

Skip to content
Using Gmail with screen readers

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 Inbox x Tony Bellows Nov 19 to me 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 Attachments area Preview attachment Safeguards only work if used, say vulnerable adults.pdf Click here to Reply or Forward 0.22 GB (1%) of 15 GB used Manage ©2014 Google - Terms & Privacy Last account activity: 9 hours ago Details

What's New

Conversation opened. 1 read message.

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,

If these inaccurate and defamatory reports do not stop, I will be taking you to court.

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

Paul Handley <paul@churchtimes.co.uk>	12:31 PM (56 minutes ago)
to me, bishop.of.durh., Bob, Madeleine

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

JayJay Nortyperson <iamtherealhg@gmail.com>	1:25 PM (3 minutes ago)
to Paul, madeleine, complaints, Chris, Tony, tony.baldry.mp, Justin, bishop.of.durh.

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,

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,

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

The funny old church

The Diocese of Winchester and the Deanery of Jersey in bitter and underhand legal battles, while trying to maintain an image of respectable Christianity, at the expense of someone they collectively left homeless, destitute, branded and smeared, because they employed an abuser and gave him access to her and blamed her, grubblily trying to give her a history of wrongdoing without her side being heard.

A female member of this clique, representing the Jersey Deanery at the General synod regarding women Bishops and indignantly saying that women have no right to authority in the church.

Collectively the Church of England are very lost and directionless, it is all ego and opinion, and they don't provide a Christian presence in every community, they provide a little club for the elite in every community, and occasionally their clubs make press headlines over sexual abuse and assault, especially when the church don't cover up well enough and because their safeguarding is a joke that excludes and segregates the vulnerable and blames them if anything wrong happens to them.

Rant? Rage?

Observations.

A bit less nasty and biased than the Ould Bully's usual rants.

Funny how he retired.

And funnier how someone sadly said 'A good Christian blogger has resigned'
Because that shows the church of England for what it is, they consider Ould and his smut and sleaze and slander and abuse to be Christian.

He still vainly slanders and abuses on twitter, apparently.
That is the Church of England.

Ah, my friend Gavin is back on the blog.

Update

Good evening,

I wrote 'update' for the title like Bob Hill always did.

This blog is statting quite high, with a lot of people reading the Jane Fisher complaints for some reason.

Believe me, the only way you will ever hear the full horror of that matter and the Jersey matter and after I left Jersey, is to speak to me in person, and it still traumatizes me severely.

I will be doing updates on this blog very soon. Either today or within the next few days.