Sunday, 24 July 2016

Jersey Safeguarding Partnership Complaint

This email is sent from Central Contact as requested by Jersey's Safeguarding Partnership, and is a letter from HG who the safeguarding partnership are bullying over a report.

STATEMENT TO JERSEY SAFEGUARDING PARTERSHIP FROM THE COMPLAINANT KNOWN AS HG:

DEAR JERSEY SAFEGUARDING PARTNERSHIP,

1. First and foremost, Senator Ian Gorst should not have shown the interest in my case that he has, as he is an evangelical church member who, with his family, have long established links to the Churchwarden who sexually abused me, and other people close to the churchwarden, including conflicted States-Church Members. 

You have been made aware of the conflicts of interest repeatedly but have failed to respond. The only times you have contacted me have been when you have been trying to force me to agree to your report. You have not even tried to address my concerns. And if your report is about my treatment, it does look odd that you have re-abused me by ignoring my concerns and pushing for your report to be published despite my concerns and other people's concerns too.

I consider your report to simply be another punishment by the conflicted circle in Jersey, and certainly the indication is that it is their consolation prize for the banned Steel report. I don't need any further media and press attention and harm. You should be listening to me, not to the conflicted circle. My wellbeing should be your priority, not a report that has been created in dubious and conflicted circumstances, and if I say to you that I do not want this report published, and explain to you why, then you should listen, you should not troll or bully me or treat me like a naughty child.


2. The next question is, you and I know that you have been proven resoundingly unfit for purpose by recent reports into your conduct, actions and inactions. Senator Gorst's second in command trotted out the usual feeble lines in the news at the time, but seeing as you have been proven to fail consistently in your duties, and considering the fact that you have received my complaints for years, and failed to communicate with me except to try to push your whitewash on me, especially since the Steel report failed, and thus you are presumably acting on behalf of the Church. Senator Gorst's inappropriate and extreme involvement would re-enforce that belief. Would it not be better to accept that the report is another of your failures, and then you can start focussing on an overhaul of your organization which removes the culprits of the failures in my case and others.

3. The safeguarding board were presumably covering the police misconduct, although they have never actually contacted me to explain what they were covering. And of course Glenys Johnstone told a member of the public that she had cleared the police of misconduct a year before she tried to contact me, and was rebuffed by me because it had been apparent that the report was a whitewash without any concern for my feelings regarding Johnstone and Gull publicly discrediting me at the time. 

Why, if the report included the police misconduct, was a member of the States of Jersey Police who had never met me, allowed to be involved and influence the report? What would the police say? Especially a force so corrupt that the IPCC were flown in to investigate them specifically? 'It's a fair cop, guv?' No, they were quite simply given an opportunity to cover up further, tamper with evidence, defame me and ensure that a fair investigation can never be carried out.

4. Why have conflicted interconnected States-Church-Judiciary members been allowed to influence this report? What kind of report hears the defendants and records their views and only considers the alleged victim as an afterthought and then you try to force her to agree to such a report?

This is not a genuine report, you have not responded to concerns about it, and you resorted to bullying and trolling when instructed by a member of the church who took legal advice because he wants his church and authorities cleared and me further defamed after three years of me being maligned and discredited by the conflicted church-states judiciary members in the press. A scenario which amounts to abuse, and which the safeguarding panel have done nothing whatsoever about, despite being asked. So why is this report of your so important? The same people who were involved in the things that you have done a serious case review, have done exactly the same again, with you looking on. No lessons have been learned, and you still appear to be protecting abusers despite the damning report against you.

Further to the Church conflict of interests, It has been suggested to me that the Diocese of Canterbury, who openly uphold the Deanery of Jersey's bad behaviour and lie about safeguarding being good while the Jersey Deanery have continued to harm me, are involved with you in this. This is very seriously inappropriate and conflicted, The people who have done wrong should not be running the show and steering investigations into their wrongdoing. That goes against the best interests of any victim of failings by authorities or the Church.

5. Don't you think that Senator Gorst's time would be better occupied controlling the behaviour of his church-states-judiciary members, who's public attacks on my character are a safeguarding failure that show both you and the church up as unable to safeguard?

 Your report is apparently designated to be a further act of defamation, discrediting and attack on my character on top of what I have suffered from the Jersey press and public with no voice in reply for over three years. For three years the slurs on me in the press and media have been brought to your and Gorst's attentions, and rather than acting on them and saying that this is a grave safeguarding concern, you have ignored complaints and continued to badger me about your report.

 No more material that can harm or distress me should be released, and confidential records violated, tampered with and turned into a report that you feel that you need to release despite my feelings, is not safeguarding, it is an attack and a violation, one that should not have been instigated and which should have been terminated upon my request in 2013.

What happens to other vulnerable people who are made to suffer this? Why do authorities who have done wrong still have this ability to breach human rights and put people under threat of harm like this?

6. No report into anything at all excuses you badgering someone with autism who is at breaking point because of your safeguarding failures over the past three years of allowing her to be publicly defamed and discredited by you, the police and the conflicted States-Church-Judiciary circle.

Especially not when you have been told to leave her alone and stop badgering her and annul your conflicted report and also stop the attack on her. Your 'central contact' email whimpers about you receiving hurtful emails, which is very self-interested indeed, especially considering the hurt you have allowed and inflicted, but you fail to mention that the hurtful correspondence you have received is in reply to the much more serious hurt that you have allowed and inflicted. You are not vulnerable, not abused and destroyed, have not spent three years sleeping rough due to failures and have not spent a further three years being publicly smeared in press and media while the safeguarding partnership and authorities look on, join in and deny any hope of justice or resolution.

7. The fact that HG contacted the serious case review panel and numerous other organizations to ask you to be stopped from continuing to push the whitewash on her should have been a good indicator to you, if you are genuine safeguarding professionals, that it was time for you to stop forcing your report and apologize. Evidence will be made available to court and enquiry of the pleas to the Serious Case Review Panel and the subsequent efforts of the conflicted John Cameron to try to close that down. Cameron's repeat interferences in the case need to be investigated.

8. The fact that your repeat demands came as the care inquiry withdrew from Jersey and the Steel report was banned, should be investigated, and because it is extremely likely that Senator Gorst was egged on in his interference, his involvement and other conflicted people's involvement should go before an investigation and disciplinary panel, as it is pure abuse of power, and the conduct of his colleagues in the three year petty war between the Diocese and Deanery, has already been presented to the States Complaints Department, but not properly responded to. As you need something to occupy you and have nothing better to do than bully the vulnerable, maybe you could make it your project to ensure this is arranged. No-one can carry out an investigation impartially unless they are independent, and you are not.

9. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that more public attention and media attention would harm me? it is very simple. The media and press have been very biased and very hurtful and discredited me without being challenged, even when they published blatant lies, and as your report was not instigated or carried out correctly, impartially or for the right reasons, I see it as a threat to my wellbeing, and you have not at any point tried to reassure me, which increases my concern.

This point is a very simple comprehensive explanation of my objection to your report. My wellbeing is more important than your need to make distorted confidential information and tampered-with evidence public to meet anyone else's demands or any target or legislation, and you have a duty of care to me, and you have resoundingly failed in your duty of care thus far and are still failing as you continue to push for your report.
 Sentors Gorst, Bailhache and LeMarquand are known to have abused their positions to handle and mis-use evidence and inaccurate police records in order to discredit me and protect the Church, of which they are members and dignitaries, and your time would be better spent investigating this rather than pushing for your report that they have been involved with.

Point 9 concludes my points due to being a perfectly good reason on it's own for you to stop bullying me and threatening my welfare with your report. I will say conclusively that you are not to release your report or any part of it, and you are not to bully, intimidate, threaten, harass or annoy me regarding this matter any more. I know that you won't like that and you may feel upset, but that is that. No more. You  need to take a step back and a long hard look at yourselves, because you have failed children in Jersey and you have failed me. Worse still, the damage to me and to those children can never be undone.

Any child abused will be changed for life by the abuse, and I have been abused and mistreated all my life, I don't need you to continue the abuse me. I will suffer for the rest of my life what I suffered in Jersey, in flashbacks and nightmares and trauma and sadness, why do you need to drag this up and keep pushing it onto me? I have moved on as best I can, why can't the dignitaries who are sponsoring your misconduct do the same?

Something needs to change about these 'Safeguarding Partnerships' and 'serious case reviews' because all they appear to be is an open invitation to wrongdoers in power to abuse power and cover wrongdoing by themselves and others in authorities. Being cynical I would ask if that was what they were set up for, especially considering the damning reports of the last few years.

I hope that the safeguarding partnership have actually read this document, as they appear to have ignored the previous ones and continued to try to bully me into agreeing to their whitewash.

The university are trying to encourage me to write more concisely...That'll be the day!
sincerely,

HG

Further Reading: 



No comments:

Post a Comment