Good morning.
I hoped to post something yesterday but therapy, travelling, tiredness and Dame Steel's damnation of me meant I didn't get anything done.
Last night I met with my friend and we went to a cafe and talked.
She told me that I will be higher up the ladder to heaven than my destroyers when I go.
I told her that as far as they are concerned I am going to hell.
What I do not understand, again, is why the Diocese of Winchester were able to force back into my life and leave me in distress while allowing Steel to destroy me, what exactly has it achieved except making living impossible and and anguished for me?
There is nothing more unforgiving and unchristian than this whole matter of launching on me and dragging up the past to damn me, if God has forgiven me my real sins, why much this cover-up that makes me out to be something terrible brand me permenantly unforgiven?
Saturday, 26 October 2013
horror
Following Dame Heather's damning one-sided report against me, which I had simply been waiting in distress for for months, I am left with utterly no hope.
During my time in Jersey, when I broke down and was suffering badly, a friend, George, sent me this song to help me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-G8IfjPAII
George was a long-time friend of my family, someone my parents 'approved of', and had been my sister's boyfriend for a number of years until all of a sudden she couldn't stand him, and no-one knew why.
When my Dad died, it became apparent that the family, apart from my mum, did not want George around, and slowly, because I had been so far distant from the family, I learned that George had been behaving badly.
Then he was arrested for child pornography and child kidnap, and last thing I heard, he was in prison.
This was all a shock to me, I had had no idea that he was a peadophile and had tried it on with my underage sister.
George had always made an effort to come round if I has been to see the family, and I just thought he was a harmless friend.
Along with the troubles in Jersey and Dad's death and the family falling apart, George being arrested was another massive shock to my system, and I could not listen to this comforting song until recently.
Although, after what DameSteel and the Jersey Deanery have done to damn me, very little can ever bring comfort, even my psychologist cannot do much, because he cannot change the terrible circumstances that I am in, there is no way I can build a life on the way I have been damned by a one-sided report, which involved witness statements from people who were not even involved, but which omits my side of things.
During my time in Jersey, when I broke down and was suffering badly, a friend, George, sent me this song to help me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-G8IfjPAII
George was a long-time friend of my family, someone my parents 'approved of', and had been my sister's boyfriend for a number of years until all of a sudden she couldn't stand him, and no-one knew why.
When my Dad died, it became apparent that the family, apart from my mum, did not want George around, and slowly, because I had been so far distant from the family, I learned that George had been behaving badly.
Then he was arrested for child pornography and child kidnap, and last thing I heard, he was in prison.
This was all a shock to me, I had had no idea that he was a peadophile and had tried it on with my underage sister.
George had always made an effort to come round if I has been to see the family, and I just thought he was a harmless friend.
Along with the troubles in Jersey and Dad's death and the family falling apart, George being arrested was another massive shock to my system, and I could not listen to this comforting song until recently.
Although, after what DameSteel and the Jersey Deanery have done to damn me, very little can ever bring comfort, even my psychologist cannot do much, because he cannot change the terrible circumstances that I am in, there is no way I can build a life on the way I have been damned by a one-sided report, which involved witness statements from people who were not even involved, but which omits my side of things.
Thursday, 24 October 2013
lack of formal complaint, the Dean's supporters claim
As Posted on Bob Hill's blog.
Back to the little subject of formal complaints. I do not understand everything that the Dean's supporters say. But I can say that with regard to the churchwarden case, firstly I gave the Dean a great amount of detail in writing, especially after he didn't handle the complaint properly at the start, he then consulted his lawyers, and told me I needed to submit a formal complaint. I discussed this with the director of Autism Jersey as I was baffled as to why my complaint so far was not considered formal, because of the Dean's handling of the complaint, we wondered if he was stalling things. I then submitted a formal letter of complaint, of which there are copies. As the Dean continued to be reluctant to handle the complaint, I contacted the Diocese of Winchester, and despite misinformation in the Korris report and by the Dean's supporters, that was my first ever contact with the Diocese and my first complaint to them. HG
Back to the little subject of formal complaints. I do not understand everything that the Dean's supporters say. But I can say that with regard to the churchwarden case, firstly I gave the Dean a great amount of detail in writing, especially after he didn't handle the complaint properly at the start, he then consulted his lawyers, and told me I needed to submit a formal complaint. I discussed this with the director of Autism Jersey as I was baffled as to why my complaint so far was not considered formal, because of the Dean's handling of the complaint, we wondered if he was stalling things. I then submitted a formal letter of complaint, of which there are copies. As the Dean continued to be reluctant to handle the complaint, I contacted the Diocese of Winchester, and despite misinformation in the Korris report and by the Dean's supporters, that was my first ever contact with the Diocese and my first complaint to them. HG
what is life on the streets like as this investigation farce continues?
Rough Sleeper:
‘Between sleeping places’ is a good way of describing me, after months of anti-social behaviour and noise leaving me living in fear and suffering emotionally at night as I felt unsafe, I stopped going back to where I was sleeping.
This left me looking for a new ‘home’ and place to store my bedding. It feels like freedom and fear, when you move sleeping places.
I decided on one of my reserve places, where I have actually never slept before, though it has been vacant for years as far as I know.
I moved my bedding up there the other evening but stayed with a friend because I was soaked in the bad weather. She could offer me one night before she went away for a few weeks. Indoors is a very hot dry place, I am not sure how people manage to live there all the time.
My remaining jumper was soaked in the thunderstorm and my friend lent me a cardigan that won't do up, not ideal for rough sleeping but better than nothing.
I have lost jumpers, a coat and blankets recently, which happens when you are a rough sleeper.
I feel very stressed, my head is full of pressure and my memory and concentration are poor, it feels like my head will burst, and it may, I have high blood pressure and four years ago yesterday, my dad died of a stroke from blood pressure and stress. I have now been under severe stress for five years and more. This Diocese of Winchester mess will kill me, one way or another, I have no doubt.
Anyway, after managing to forage enough food and tea yesterday, it was the night I was worried about, no food or hot drinks left and a cold nigh coming up with not enough blankets or clothing.
I was lucky though, when I was passing the burger bar, my friend who runs it called me over and asked if I wanted tea and a burger, I was grateful for this, though I have to be careful because he wants to go out with me and that is not what I want.
So I stayed and chatted to him and he wanted to know what was on my mind, so I told him about Dame Steel and the stress I was under, and he told me that life is too short to worry and the real, Great and Just Judge is God and no matter what Dame Steel does, she will have to face the Great and Just Judge in the End.
Anyway, my burger bar friend wanted to go for a walk on the beach with me and I said no, and told him I was very tired and would go and sleep. He accepted that, poor man.
By the time I went to the new sleeping place it was 11.30pm, which is late night for me, I like a much earlier night as I can easily sleep 12 hours and more if I am left in peace, I need a lot of sleep, because being autistic in a neurotypical world is hard work.
Sleeping in a new place, bedding down in a new place, is nerve wracking, even for an experienced rough sleeper.
I was pleased to find that my remaining bedding was fairly dry and I had a cardboard box that would do as a partial groundsheet.
The ground was damp though, so I got a bit damp as I tried to bed down, and I was alert in case anyone, especially other rough sleepers, noticed me. But no-one did.
I was so tired that I was immediately asleep, my head on my backpack.
I woke an hour later, which is unsurprising, in a new sleeping place you tend to sleep in shifts, and also when you don’t have enough bedding on a cold night.
I got up and went to the loo and redid my blankets in the hope of warming up, it worked and I slept again and woke a few hours later, briefly, before sleeping until 4.20am, which is close to morning, I was shivering but the warm parts of the blankets were too comfortable and I was reluctant to move. Surviving the night in harsh circumstances is always an achievement to mark and to thank God for.
A great big fox was standing curiously nearby when I woke, he was reluctant to move when I spoke to him, he was conflicted between fear and curiosity, probably a young dog fox, like the one who used to come and sit by my camp fire years ago. I do not mind foxes but I do not want them vandalizing my stash packs. Foxes are not vicious as portrayed sometimes, but they are vandals :) believe me they are.
Eventually I got up, stashed my bedding and headed to the cash point, where my benefit money was thankfully in, so I headed for the station for the first train down the line to the next town.
This is my life, I have enough to deal with without the Diocese of Winchester.
A song that we used as a tribute to my dad when he went into a coma and never woke four years ago while my life was being ripped apart by the church of england http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjjSAV9HZ4U
Marking the fourth anniversary of his death, on a Wednesday two weeks after he went into a coma and three days before his Birthday, I remember sitting alone with him after his life support was switched off and as he continued to breathe, my brothers and sisters had left me alone with him as they went off to get drunk, and I told him I was sorry for the utter failure my life was, because the Diocese and Deanery were destroying me and I blamed myself, and a year later, on the first anniversary of my Dad's death, I was a rough sleeper.
‘Between sleeping places’ is a good way of describing me, after months of anti-social behaviour and noise leaving me living in fear and suffering emotionally at night as I felt unsafe, I stopped going back to where I was sleeping.
This left me looking for a new ‘home’ and place to store my bedding. It feels like freedom and fear, when you move sleeping places.
I decided on one of my reserve places, where I have actually never slept before, though it has been vacant for years as far as I know.
I moved my bedding up there the other evening but stayed with a friend because I was soaked in the bad weather. She could offer me one night before she went away for a few weeks. Indoors is a very hot dry place, I am not sure how people manage to live there all the time.
My remaining jumper was soaked in the thunderstorm and my friend lent me a cardigan that won't do up, not ideal for rough sleeping but better than nothing.
I have lost jumpers, a coat and blankets recently, which happens when you are a rough sleeper.
I feel very stressed, my head is full of pressure and my memory and concentration are poor, it feels like my head will burst, and it may, I have high blood pressure and four years ago yesterday, my dad died of a stroke from blood pressure and stress. I have now been under severe stress for five years and more. This Diocese of Winchester mess will kill me, one way or another, I have no doubt.
Anyway, after managing to forage enough food and tea yesterday, it was the night I was worried about, no food or hot drinks left and a cold nigh coming up with not enough blankets or clothing.
I was lucky though, when I was passing the burger bar, my friend who runs it called me over and asked if I wanted tea and a burger, I was grateful for this, though I have to be careful because he wants to go out with me and that is not what I want.
So I stayed and chatted to him and he wanted to know what was on my mind, so I told him about Dame Steel and the stress I was under, and he told me that life is too short to worry and the real, Great and Just Judge is God and no matter what Dame Steel does, she will have to face the Great and Just Judge in the End.
Anyway, my burger bar friend wanted to go for a walk on the beach with me and I said no, and told him I was very tired and would go and sleep. He accepted that, poor man.
By the time I went to the new sleeping place it was 11.30pm, which is late night for me, I like a much earlier night as I can easily sleep 12 hours and more if I am left in peace, I need a lot of sleep, because being autistic in a neurotypical world is hard work.
Sleeping in a new place, bedding down in a new place, is nerve wracking, even for an experienced rough sleeper.
I was pleased to find that my remaining bedding was fairly dry and I had a cardboard box that would do as a partial groundsheet.
The ground was damp though, so I got a bit damp as I tried to bed down, and I was alert in case anyone, especially other rough sleepers, noticed me. But no-one did.
I was so tired that I was immediately asleep, my head on my backpack.
I woke an hour later, which is unsurprising, in a new sleeping place you tend to sleep in shifts, and also when you don’t have enough bedding on a cold night.
I got up and went to the loo and redid my blankets in the hope of warming up, it worked and I slept again and woke a few hours later, briefly, before sleeping until 4.20am, which is close to morning, I was shivering but the warm parts of the blankets were too comfortable and I was reluctant to move. Surviving the night in harsh circumstances is always an achievement to mark and to thank God for.
A great big fox was standing curiously nearby when I woke, he was reluctant to move when I spoke to him, he was conflicted between fear and curiosity, probably a young dog fox, like the one who used to come and sit by my camp fire years ago. I do not mind foxes but I do not want them vandalizing my stash packs. Foxes are not vicious as portrayed sometimes, but they are vandals :) believe me they are.
Eventually I got up, stashed my bedding and headed to the cash point, where my benefit money was thankfully in, so I headed for the station for the first train down the line to the next town.
This is my life, I have enough to deal with without the Diocese of Winchester.
A song that we used as a tribute to my dad when he went into a coma and never woke four years ago while my life was being ripped apart by the church of england http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjjSAV9HZ4U
Marking the fourth anniversary of his death, on a Wednesday two weeks after he went into a coma and three days before his Birthday, I remember sitting alone with him after his life support was switched off and as he continued to breathe, my brothers and sisters had left me alone with him as they went off to get drunk, and I told him I was sorry for the utter failure my life was, because the Diocese and Deanery were destroying me and I blamed myself, and a year later, on the first anniversary of my Dad's death, I was a rough sleeper.
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
Two sides of the Church of England, panic recruiting, lack of accountability
A deeply cynical post, written for the likes of Peter Ould who would attack an abuse victim because he is defensive of a warped church system (and he is a bit vouyeristic as well, by all accounts, hence being an ordained priest who writes on the internet about sex and interferes in abuse cases and slates the victim for what he has heard about them, without ever having met them, he represents the Church of England badly, or well, depending on how you look at it).
I know correct terminology but I can describe what I have seen of the two sides of the church.
Side one is undoubtedly the original Church of England. You see it in Cathedrals and old village and High Churches. If you watch the Vicar of Dibley, then David Houghton is a perfect example of this side of the Church of England. Holding positions in Church because he is wealthy and has status, rather than because he is ethical or a mature Christian. It is almost 'expected' for the local 'aristocracy' to hold positions in this side of the church, and I have witnessed that firsthand in my life, working for the big country house when I was younger, my employer wasn't ethical, she allowed drug use in her house and on her estate, and other things, but because she was the aristocrat with the range rover and labradors, she was the churchwarden for the local church congregation of 12 or so people.
I would say, that this side of the Church of England is still the prevailing side. But I remain without understanding as to why exactly these people are in the positions, isn't it at odds with their life and attitude?
So, in the structure of this side of Church, the leadership is a clique of rather well-to-do people and there is a Vicar or Rector wedged somewhat uncomfortably in the middle, and they can wedge in three or so ways, passive -they let the clique lead and they follow, dominant - they control the way the church is run and don't like being questioned -this doesn't work so well these days because everyone has a car and everyone can choose another church, and the third option is for the priest to be one of the clique, despite the Diocese of Winchester now desperately trying to recruit everything that looks vaguely human, a lot of priests are still from stable or well-to-do backgrounds and can be as removed from the normal world as the cliques who run the churches are.
So who goes to side one of the church of England? Mainly wealthy older people, disabled and disadvantaged people tend to stick out like a sore thumb, and their offers to help in church tend to be knocked on the head by the cliques and politics that run the church, and who are behaving at odds with Christianity despite holding their positions.
This side of the Church of England belongs in the dark ages, and such discrimination as you meet in these churches would not be allowed in any workplace or anywhere outside the church, and any other organization that was so exclusive would be slated to the world for it, but the Church of England is kind of separate from the real world, exclusive, and they daily glorify themselves on twitter despite the glaring mess they are in, and you have to wonder, how do they explain this self-glorification in the context of Christianity, it isn't Christianity, did Jesus advertise himself thus? A Christian Church should be modest, and while the Church of England refuse to be accountable for their faults and prejudice, they love to show off what they think is good about themselves.
Anyway, back to basics, the Old Church of England is exclusive, old, dry, about money in the coffers and their version of helping the poor is putting some of their wealth in envelops for appeals and patting themselves on the back.
This side of the Church of England is not a good place for vulnerable people, because these wealthy older people tend to not know or understand disability or vulnerability or the difference between different health conditions, especially not non-physical ones, and they tend to still use words like 'mental retardation', I have heard autism repeatedly described this way by these old people, and I have been described this way, in my hearing, because some of them think my condition means I cannot hear or understand them.
So with a total lack of understanding of disability on the part of the majority in these churches, and with vulnerable people being a distinct minority and misunderstood, and with the Church constantly recruiting and employing people from the older and wealthier majority, because there would be outcry and shunning otherwise, the vulnerable can be abused.
And in a number of cases, including a mentions in Police Inspector Harry Keeble's books on child protection, abusers go into the church because church people are more trusting and abuse is easy.
I would like to add to that, in my experience, the Church of England refuse to, or cannot, remove abusers from church positions, even if those people are not cleared by the police, and in both abuse cases, my abusers have remained respected church figures while I have been destroyed, which glaringly pronounces the church as a safe haven for abusers.
Finally, on the subject of Side one, the Old Church of England, as I have explained before, the churches are run by these wealthy older people, mainly old ladies who have always been provided for, and aristocratic gentlemen, and not only do they not understand the vulnerable, but they have blind faith in the Church of England Hierachy, the Bishops in their palaces and those high up, who also live very comfortable lives.
So when I told an old wealthy Church lady that the former Archbishop had repeatedly turned a blind eye on me and other abuse victims, and had left me to be destroyed, she was outraged, for the Archbishop, she kept repeating to me, trying to force me to accept it 'Archbishop Rowan Williams is a Very Godly Man', and she kept repeating this mantra at me, over and over, trying to drown me out, but had no answer to the simple question 'why did this supposedly Godly man fail so many vulnerable people who appealed to him? why did he ignore them?' This was beyond her scope, because she was old, well off, and knew nothing of abuse and didn't want to, therefore me and what had happened to me was an affront to her 'Very Godly Man' image of the former archbishop.
That is Side One, the Old Church of England.
This is not a more caring or inclusive side, it can certainly give that image, as well as an image of being 'modern' and 'not like the old people' but is it better?
The 'New Version' of the Church of England, 'Side Two', is the extreme Evangelical side, it is usually characterized by young male preachers, who are all charismatic and wear tight teeshirts and play guitars, well that is a stereotype but it is a good one. The congregation is quite happy to have plastic chairs and stand up a lot, it is all noise and light and sound, it is a bit like a rock concert on a Sunday, and everyone has to join in, and smile. They usually have to have a big 18-30s group and everything has to be 'young' and 'trendy' and the young people are all professionals with all the latest stuff and gossip.
A different type of club than side 1. and they want to take over from side one and banish it as being in the dark ages. But this side is more of a club than a church, a fun young people's rock club, socials and things are very important, it all fits round work and they are all professionals, it is a desparate attempt by the Church of England to stay alive as their side one congregations are dying out.
But you don't see the side one and side two congregations together, so who is right and who is wrong?
The problem with both sides in the Church of England is that neither seem to have much by way of ethics, and neither are really inclusive of the minorities.
My initiation into the Church of England did not involve teaching me the ethics or structure of the Church of England, in fact nothing was taught to the group of us that were confirmed, and I learned nothing new about Christianity before I was confirmed, I was rushed through Baptism a week before being confirmed, with no preparation or teaching about what baptism involved, it was a last minute idea to get me confirmed, my concerns about Baptism were not allayed and I was under pressure to be Baptised, I was Baptised alone in a church with my abuser and two other rich old people who damaged me present. A week later, none the wiser, I was confirmed.
After Baptism and confirmation I attended Bible study and house group and was surprised and frustrated to find that neither of these things were named correctly, in both cases, it was a social group where people gossiped, whined, ranted and gave their opinion of the world, very little of the Bible was taken in, and basically Church of England people do not appear to learn the Bible, I have found over the years and even in the last few years, in a discussion, if we have to look up Bible passages, I find them or explain them and all these old Church people from Side 1 ask me if I went to Bible College or something! No, I was simply taught to read and understand the Bible properly, what on earth are you lot doing each week?!
I have to be cynical and consider that side 1's way of life doesn't represent the Bible too well, so they don't want to get too close to the Bible. But then, who am I to judge them? :)
The Diocese of Winchester.
The Diocese of Winchester is an interesting mess of side one and two. According to a Vicar, Bishop Scott-Joynt wanted to wipe side one out and have only side two, and that appears to be correct, having read his not-so circulated instructions about shaming people who didn't want to see the pews in church ripped out, they were to be 'instructed to move on' I gather.
I think he was defeating himself, it is the wealthy side one who are blindly paying to keep the corporation alive.
Jane Fisher is also a side two, a slapdash evilangelical, who preferred smartass textbook answers about abusers just being Christians who got things wrong, and making everything into incorrect theology rather than actually engaging with the abuse and my situation, a way of describing her and other side two's way of answering things is 'misplaced-wisdom-because-it-is-not-wisdom-but-that-person-is-wise-and-Christian-in-their-own-eyes-so-they-want-to-misquote-the-Bible-and-theology' and that description is very much the atmosphere and ethic of the Church of England Side Two.
In the Villages of the Diocese, Side One thrives, or doesn't, as the old wealthy villagers die off, and parishes and benefices merge, so that one priest has many many miles to cover in order to look after his parishes or benefice, and although this is not always sustainable or fair, it does happen, and it means that parishioners miss out. I have seen this firsthand, with one village complaining they never saw their rector, but their rector had five villages and every inch of land between those villages, miles apart, to cover, and yes, people missed out, it is not sustainable but it happens.
So what is the solution, move in 'Team rectors' and rip out pews, make the 'Side two' way prevail so that all the wealthy young commuters in the villages can fit church round their other commitments? Maybe, but where is God in all this? When pews are ripped out and older people start to feel unwelcome and are displaced after years, is that any better than the old and wealthy leading the Church?
This debate could go on forever and go off at many tangents but in half and hour I am back on the streets with no food or hot drinks, so it can't.
So, the Diocese of Winchester, side one dying, side two wrecking, no safeguarding officer preventing abuse, no inclusion of vulnerable people in either side, because we are simply not of use to either side.
What did the safeguarding officer do about me being abused? Make sure I was included and safe anywhere? make sure my abusers were supervised? No, because my abusers were older, influential, well-off, had positions and connections, so I was banished, maligned by the safeguarding queen and the abuse was covered up, while my abusers were protected.
Anyone can join the Church of England, there is no need for proper teaching and preparation to join, there is no explanation, you do not learn anything unless you as an individual decide to study the Bible or theology, there is no clear guidance or ethics, ie, you are not taught about what might be right and wrong sexually or integrity-wise, you are just kind of left to do your own thing, there is no collective ethic and no accountability to God or to others is taught, it is a church for the self-indulgent and it is a Church for froth and excuses and it is ideal for the well to do, because they can profess Christianity without any accountability.
And one of the reasons I was delighted to join the Catholic Church is that there is an intensive teaching period for those who wish to join, you do have to understand what you are joining and why, you do have to commit to a relationship with God, you do learn accountability and integrity, and as I have said in my open letter to the Jersey Deanery, that first lesson of accountability helped me profoundly, because it released me from the condemnation of the Diocese of Winchester.
The Catholic Church does teach ethics, it does teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong, in contrast to the Church of England being fearful of upsetting anyone or losing any side twos, so they daren't have ethic like that, so they 'let it all hang out' really, while the Catholics are bold, the Catholics are also still one universal church rather than having the division of sides one and two, and mass is always well attended.
The Catholic Church have many ethics, including 'do not gossip, it is a sin', while the Church of England thrives on gossip, and when confronted they attack the confronter, as I know from experience.
Priests. A ploy of the CofE is to go on about Catholics only having male priests, but the Church of England are so desparate that they are pretty much recruiting anyone, many unsuitable and not commited or ethical, notably young women fresh out of college, too young to have the wisdom that Pastoring requires, but the Church/Diocese of Winchester dress this up as 'being modern' and 'look at us! Aren't we inclusive!' No, a lot of makeup and high heels is not a great way of representing God, because we have to decrease in order to increase.
So where is God in all this? This is the Church of England, God doesn't have to be in it.
The Church of England divides into two, and both sides seem to be losing direction.
I know correct terminology but I can describe what I have seen of the two sides of the church.
The Church of England Side one:
Side one is undoubtedly the original Church of England. You see it in Cathedrals and old village and High Churches. If you watch the Vicar of Dibley, then David Houghton is a perfect example of this side of the Church of England. Holding positions in Church because he is wealthy and has status, rather than because he is ethical or a mature Christian. It is almost 'expected' for the local 'aristocracy' to hold positions in this side of the church, and I have witnessed that firsthand in my life, working for the big country house when I was younger, my employer wasn't ethical, she allowed drug use in her house and on her estate, and other things, but because she was the aristocrat with the range rover and labradors, she was the churchwarden for the local church congregation of 12 or so people.
I would say, that this side of the Church of England is still the prevailing side. But I remain without understanding as to why exactly these people are in the positions, isn't it at odds with their life and attitude?
So, in the structure of this side of Church, the leadership is a clique of rather well-to-do people and there is a Vicar or Rector wedged somewhat uncomfortably in the middle, and they can wedge in three or so ways, passive -they let the clique lead and they follow, dominant - they control the way the church is run and don't like being questioned -this doesn't work so well these days because everyone has a car and everyone can choose another church, and the third option is for the priest to be one of the clique, despite the Diocese of Winchester now desperately trying to recruit everything that looks vaguely human, a lot of priests are still from stable or well-to-do backgrounds and can be as removed from the normal world as the cliques who run the churches are.
So who goes to side one of the church of England? Mainly wealthy older people, disabled and disadvantaged people tend to stick out like a sore thumb, and their offers to help in church tend to be knocked on the head by the cliques and politics that run the church, and who are behaving at odds with Christianity despite holding their positions.
This side of the Church of England belongs in the dark ages, and such discrimination as you meet in these churches would not be allowed in any workplace or anywhere outside the church, and any other organization that was so exclusive would be slated to the world for it, but the Church of England is kind of separate from the real world, exclusive, and they daily glorify themselves on twitter despite the glaring mess they are in, and you have to wonder, how do they explain this self-glorification in the context of Christianity, it isn't Christianity, did Jesus advertise himself thus? A Christian Church should be modest, and while the Church of England refuse to be accountable for their faults and prejudice, they love to show off what they think is good about themselves.
Anyway, back to basics, the Old Church of England is exclusive, old, dry, about money in the coffers and their version of helping the poor is putting some of their wealth in envelops for appeals and patting themselves on the back.
This side of the Church of England is not a good place for vulnerable people, because these wealthy older people tend to not know or understand disability or vulnerability or the difference between different health conditions, especially not non-physical ones, and they tend to still use words like 'mental retardation', I have heard autism repeatedly described this way by these old people, and I have been described this way, in my hearing, because some of them think my condition means I cannot hear or understand them.
So with a total lack of understanding of disability on the part of the majority in these churches, and with vulnerable people being a distinct minority and misunderstood, and with the Church constantly recruiting and employing people from the older and wealthier majority, because there would be outcry and shunning otherwise, the vulnerable can be abused.
And in a number of cases, including a mentions in Police Inspector Harry Keeble's books on child protection, abusers go into the church because church people are more trusting and abuse is easy.
I would like to add to that, in my experience, the Church of England refuse to, or cannot, remove abusers from church positions, even if those people are not cleared by the police, and in both abuse cases, my abusers have remained respected church figures while I have been destroyed, which glaringly pronounces the church as a safe haven for abusers.
Finally, on the subject of Side one, the Old Church of England, as I have explained before, the churches are run by these wealthy older people, mainly old ladies who have always been provided for, and aristocratic gentlemen, and not only do they not understand the vulnerable, but they have blind faith in the Church of England Hierachy, the Bishops in their palaces and those high up, who also live very comfortable lives.
So when I told an old wealthy Church lady that the former Archbishop had repeatedly turned a blind eye on me and other abuse victims, and had left me to be destroyed, she was outraged, for the Archbishop, she kept repeating to me, trying to force me to accept it 'Archbishop Rowan Williams is a Very Godly Man', and she kept repeating this mantra at me, over and over, trying to drown me out, but had no answer to the simple question 'why did this supposedly Godly man fail so many vulnerable people who appealed to him? why did he ignore them?' This was beyond her scope, because she was old, well off, and knew nothing of abuse and didn't want to, therefore me and what had happened to me was an affront to her 'Very Godly Man' image of the former archbishop.
That is Side One, the Old Church of England.
Side Two of the Church of England:
This is not a more caring or inclusive side, it can certainly give that image, as well as an image of being 'modern' and 'not like the old people' but is it better?
The 'New Version' of the Church of England, 'Side Two', is the extreme Evangelical side, it is usually characterized by young male preachers, who are all charismatic and wear tight teeshirts and play guitars, well that is a stereotype but it is a good one. The congregation is quite happy to have plastic chairs and stand up a lot, it is all noise and light and sound, it is a bit like a rock concert on a Sunday, and everyone has to join in, and smile. They usually have to have a big 18-30s group and everything has to be 'young' and 'trendy' and the young people are all professionals with all the latest stuff and gossip.
A different type of club than side 1. and they want to take over from side one and banish it as being in the dark ages. But this side is more of a club than a church, a fun young people's rock club, socials and things are very important, it all fits round work and they are all professionals, it is a desparate attempt by the Church of England to stay alive as their side one congregations are dying out.
But you don't see the side one and side two congregations together, so who is right and who is wrong?
Ethics and knowledge in the Church of England:
Basically none are necessary.The problem with both sides in the Church of England is that neither seem to have much by way of ethics, and neither are really inclusive of the minorities.
My initiation into the Church of England did not involve teaching me the ethics or structure of the Church of England, in fact nothing was taught to the group of us that were confirmed, and I learned nothing new about Christianity before I was confirmed, I was rushed through Baptism a week before being confirmed, with no preparation or teaching about what baptism involved, it was a last minute idea to get me confirmed, my concerns about Baptism were not allayed and I was under pressure to be Baptised, I was Baptised alone in a church with my abuser and two other rich old people who damaged me present. A week later, none the wiser, I was confirmed.
After Baptism and confirmation I attended Bible study and house group and was surprised and frustrated to find that neither of these things were named correctly, in both cases, it was a social group where people gossiped, whined, ranted and gave their opinion of the world, very little of the Bible was taken in, and basically Church of England people do not appear to learn the Bible, I have found over the years and even in the last few years, in a discussion, if we have to look up Bible passages, I find them or explain them and all these old Church people from Side 1 ask me if I went to Bible College or something! No, I was simply taught to read and understand the Bible properly, what on earth are you lot doing each week?!
I have to be cynical and consider that side 1's way of life doesn't represent the Bible too well, so they don't want to get too close to the Bible. But then, who am I to judge them? :)
The Diocese of Winchester.
The Diocese of Winchester is an interesting mess of side one and two. According to a Vicar, Bishop Scott-Joynt wanted to wipe side one out and have only side two, and that appears to be correct, having read his not-so circulated instructions about shaming people who didn't want to see the pews in church ripped out, they were to be 'instructed to move on' I gather.
I think he was defeating himself, it is the wealthy side one who are blindly paying to keep the corporation alive.
Jane Fisher is also a side two, a slapdash evilangelical, who preferred smartass textbook answers about abusers just being Christians who got things wrong, and making everything into incorrect theology rather than actually engaging with the abuse and my situation, a way of describing her and other side two's way of answering things is 'misplaced-wisdom-because-it-is-not-wisdom-but-that-person-is-wise-and-Christian-in-their-own-eyes-so-they-want-to-misquote-the-Bible-and-theology' and that description is very much the atmosphere and ethic of the Church of England Side Two.
In the Villages of the Diocese, Side One thrives, or doesn't, as the old wealthy villagers die off, and parishes and benefices merge, so that one priest has many many miles to cover in order to look after his parishes or benefice, and although this is not always sustainable or fair, it does happen, and it means that parishioners miss out. I have seen this firsthand, with one village complaining they never saw their rector, but their rector had five villages and every inch of land between those villages, miles apart, to cover, and yes, people missed out, it is not sustainable but it happens.
So what is the solution, move in 'Team rectors' and rip out pews, make the 'Side two' way prevail so that all the wealthy young commuters in the villages can fit church round their other commitments? Maybe, but where is God in all this? When pews are ripped out and older people start to feel unwelcome and are displaced after years, is that any better than the old and wealthy leading the Church?
This debate could go on forever and go off at many tangents but in half and hour I am back on the streets with no food or hot drinks, so it can't.
So, the Diocese of Winchester, side one dying, side two wrecking, no safeguarding officer preventing abuse, no inclusion of vulnerable people in either side, because we are simply not of use to either side.
What did the safeguarding officer do about me being abused? Make sure I was included and safe anywhere? make sure my abusers were supervised? No, because my abusers were older, influential, well-off, had positions and connections, so I was banished, maligned by the safeguarding queen and the abuse was covered up, while my abusers were protected.
Anyone can join the Church of England, there is no need for proper teaching and preparation to join, there is no explanation, you do not learn anything unless you as an individual decide to study the Bible or theology, there is no clear guidance or ethics, ie, you are not taught about what might be right and wrong sexually or integrity-wise, you are just kind of left to do your own thing, there is no collective ethic and no accountability to God or to others is taught, it is a church for the self-indulgent and it is a Church for froth and excuses and it is ideal for the well to do, because they can profess Christianity without any accountability.
And one of the reasons I was delighted to join the Catholic Church is that there is an intensive teaching period for those who wish to join, you do have to understand what you are joining and why, you do have to commit to a relationship with God, you do learn accountability and integrity, and as I have said in my open letter to the Jersey Deanery, that first lesson of accountability helped me profoundly, because it released me from the condemnation of the Diocese of Winchester.
The Catholic Church does teach ethics, it does teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong, in contrast to the Church of England being fearful of upsetting anyone or losing any side twos, so they daren't have ethic like that, so they 'let it all hang out' really, while the Catholics are bold, the Catholics are also still one universal church rather than having the division of sides one and two, and mass is always well attended.
The Catholic Church have many ethics, including 'do not gossip, it is a sin', while the Church of England thrives on gossip, and when confronted they attack the confronter, as I know from experience.
Priests. A ploy of the CofE is to go on about Catholics only having male priests, but the Church of England are so desparate that they are pretty much recruiting anyone, many unsuitable and not commited or ethical, notably young women fresh out of college, too young to have the wisdom that Pastoring requires, but the Church/Diocese of Winchester dress this up as 'being modern' and 'look at us! Aren't we inclusive!' No, a lot of makeup and high heels is not a great way of representing God, because we have to decrease in order to increase.
So where is God in all this? This is the Church of England, God doesn't have to be in it.
Church of England, differences in Diocese
It is difficult to know where to start with this one, but I guess it is part of my safeguarding report.
The Diocese of Winchester and Other Church of England Diocese. This post is mainly about other Diocese in contrast to the Diocese of Winchester.
From age 19 to age 30 or 31, all I knew was the Diocese of Winchester, and I went from the damaging environment I grew up in almost directly into the damaging environment of the Diocese of Winchester's Churches, almost without a break, so the Church of England basically replaced the environment I grew up in.
The insular cult-type environment that I grew up in meant that I was dependent on other people and not knowing any boundaries, especially not my own, and because of the way I was brought into the Church of England and the people who brought me into the church of England, I did not start growing into a healthy adult, but instead became the bottom of the heap in the Church of England, with sexual and emotional abuse damaging me further and holding me back
But in the end, I am the one blamed, scapegoated, maligned and shunned for the stories of what has happened, while ordained and diocese-employed people who have done wrong and provoked reactions from me, have been absolved and exonorated, despite their positions of responsibility, the fact that they are neurotypical, and the fact they have crossed and abuse boundaries while knowing what they were doing, while I was reacting to them and am not neurotypical and am damaged and have been abused.
I am scapegoated for shortcomings that in some circumstances I am not in control of, while at all times, people who have abused me and have behaved unprofessionally have been let off at my expense.
After being driven from the Diocese of Winchester by Jane Fisher in 2011, I travelled and visited other diocese, for almost the first time ever I visited other Church of England churches and saw that they were different from the Diocese of Winchester in some ways, and in a way I saw a better side of the church of England, one I didn't know existed, but on the other hand some things remained uniform of the Church of England.
One of the Diocese I visited is Chichester, and I would like to give them an honourable mention, because they have had such bad press and my experience of them was good.
As well as great care and genuine Christianity that I witnessed in the Diocese of Chichester, I also witnessed very stringent safeguarding.
I was amazed at how caring the four priests and one secretary I met in the Diocese of Chichester were, they looked at how to help me, and during the time I was with them, they helped me effectively and as a result, again I started to try and lay the foundations for a new life, which was again destroyed by Jane Fisher and Michael Scott-Joynt.
Several things stand out about Chichester, one was that one of the curates would come to the homeless daycentre and cook breakfast for the homeless, and even the toughest of them loved him, his was an example of practicing what he preached.
An example of safeguarding that strikes me was the curate telling me that the youth leader never let any of his charges out of his sight and that he would not even let them cross the church alone to go to the toilet if there was anyone in church.
Also the priests, having heard that it was the Church of England who had harmed me and left me homeless, were very open about what had happened in the Diocese of Chichester regarding abuse.
So, for all the negative publicity, Chichester deserves a cheer.
London, I was starving and I could hardly walk, I went into a church of England church and told them that my blood sugar was very low and could they help me by sparing me a cup of tea with sugar in it so that I could get the energy to get a bit further and maybe find food.
Their reaction was as far from the principles of Christianity as it is possible to get, they told me that they 'couldn't do that because they would have the homeless queing up round the block for tea if they did', which is both untrue and completely Unchristian, they seem to have forgotten what they are there for, apart from their salaries.
I think naming and shaming them would be fine, they were most rude and unhelpful, and it is not my way to ever ask for anything of anyone except in an emergency. They are that Holy Trinity Church close the junction of Oxford Street and Regent Street.
They have forgotten Christianity and think that they are a gallery instead, whilst still named as a church. Thankfully a few hundred yards up the road, the Salavtion Army, who were technically closed, rushed into action as I collapsed on their doorstep, and saved me.
It is noticable in London that every other denomination but the Church of England is out on Soup runs and soup kitchens and outreach, apart from one Church of England group who come from miles outside London to do outreach one night a week.
Church of England churches in London have such notices on the walls as the ones that warn the homeless that the walls will be washed down regularly and if they leave anything there then those things will be hosed down, basically the Church are threatening to hose homeless people's possessions down! and if Jesus was there, they would hose his possessions down. Legend has it that the people doing the hosing also hose the homeless down if they refuse to move. Where is Christianity in this?
My gratitude goes to the Catholic and Coptic Churches in London for their wonderful compassionate work with the homeless.
Moving on to other diocese, I will call the next one 'Diocese A', and tell you about the interesting paradoxes within that Diocese.
I arrived there and within days, was told about a blatant cover up by the Diocese of abuse in the Diocese, I was told of it by people who were not in the church nor related to the church in any way, when they heard that the church of England were responsible for leaving me homeless.
So that was my first experience, followed by the noticable 'dying' of the church in that diocese, ie, the churches were emptying and closing, very sad.
My first experience of a Church of England Church in this Diocese, however, was very different, and
quite a surprise, I had mistaken an Anglo-Catholic Church for a Catholic one, and wandered in to take part in a group they ran.
I was surprised and pleased to receive a warm welcome, followed by a continued warm fellowship lasting some years until I stopped travelling back to that area.
The congregation accepted me as I was, one of the Only Church of England Churches that I have known to do that. And they said to me that they accepted me as I was, one of them, maybe a homeless one of them, but welcome and the same.
The Priest was a different matter, he tried to get rid of me, but when I spoke to my friends there about him as soon as he did, they put him in his place, and told me that priests are dispensible and the Church is the people, not the priest and that he would go eventually, as priests come and go, but that the congregation were the church and they welcomed me, and that was certainly the case. Credit to them.
Anyway, the priest, once put in his place, never troubled me again, he was not a happy man and was reputed to have an alcohol problem, and this rumour was backed up by witnesses to him staggering trhough town drunk, the witnesses included me, and he was known for hurting feelings, so it wasn't just me, I think he would have been happier if he had had a career change, but I think the free house and expenses draws and keeps many unsuitable priests.
But, credit to that church, they brought me great comfort and relief both with their fellowship and the discussions that helped me to see that not all is bad in the Church of England.
And although I was in a minority there with regards vulnerable and isolated people, I wasn't the only one, but as with all Anglican Churches, the congregation was mainly elderly, wealthy and middle class.
Another Church in this diocese used to make my blood boil, it was a 'show' church, full of finery and ornaments and gilding, and yet it was deeply in debt, but this didn't change the fact that the really pompous and aristocratic people made up the congregation, and they used to pick up their handbags and posessions if I or another homeless person came in to shelter.
I do not understand why the Church of England think they are doing anything remotely honouring to God by keeping such places alive.
In the same Diocese was a church that used to kindly reach out and hand me cups of tea if I wandered past, credit to them, they were ok, if a little bit narrow, they did some basic outreach but they were also a dying church and they seemed so removed from society.
I remember how they were always trying to repair their church and I used to be so cross because, as is a church of England habit, when a Church is trying to fund-raise, they turn services and sermons into fundraising exercises, which seems very inappropriate, especially as Jesus went into the temple and turned the tables over in anger that His Father's House was being Used in this way, and as the Church of England itself is a very wealthy organization, which is also registered as a charity, but yet owns so much land and property, no church should be manipulating their congregation in order to raise extra money during a time when God and His Word should be what the teaching is about.
Further into this Diocese, another show church was really very rude indeed when I came in for shelter, unprovoked, and I made a complaint to the priest.
And then I met a safeguarding issue in another church, (bear in mind I am talking a whole diocese here, not one town), I went to a church where they were doing an evening service and I went in, it was such a lost church, like most in that diocese, it all seemed to belong in the past, not the now. Anyway, this man approached me alone, and he asked questions and asked if I was homeless and things, and invited me home, to which I said no.
He kept badgering me to go home with him and kept getting a no.
He said that he was quite honest and that I should stay with him.
I said no again, and he said he would show me he was honest and he said to one of the choir who was passing 'I am quite honest aren't I?' but didn't tell them he was inviting me home, they kind of vaguely answered, and I wondered how much attention was being paid to what this man was doing, as he continued to come after me alone in this big church, where the evening service seemed mainly to be a choir and no congregation or minister and this man was just wandering around on his own.
It makes me sad to remember how that diocese's churches seem kind of left behind and dying, and yet there was some good there that triumphed over the impression of the Church of England that the Diocese of Winchester had given me.
Diocese B.
Well this was an interesting one, the church of England had almost no presence in this diocese.
My first interaction with them was when I asked two anglican priests who were having coffee at a cafe, where the town's daycentre was, and they didn't have a clue, they were not even sure if there was one, in the end they sent me on a futile walk for miles to a place that didn't exist.
The only other place I encountered the church of England in that diocese was a cold and unwelcoming 'Christian Cafe' in the town, mainly frequented by people on the team that ran the cafe, elderly people, it was uninspiring and not the best value for money in town.
I was a Catholic by then, but that town and Diocese seemed to have a church of England minority, with other denominations better represented.
Diocese C.
This was a Diocese that presented themselves well in inclusion, compassion and safeguarding. Credit to them.
They started and continued well.
I arrived in this town and the first person I met was someone from a Church of England Church, as I had heard that that church ran a homeless outreach, so I walked up to the church and a lady was coming out of Church, she said to me 'can I help you?', she said it in a genuine and not patronizing way, and I explained to her that I had heard they did outreach there. She didn't know about outreach but she invited me to have a coffee with her in the cafe across the road. So we had a coffee, and she said I should ask at the church office about outreach when the office was open.
She and I regularly met for a coffee after that, often after we attended 8am communion in Wednesday and Sunday, she became a 'friend', someone I knew and could chat with.
She and I came up with the theory that 'denomination doesn't matter, where compassion is practiced, that is where Christianity is', and her church certainly practiced compassion.
I did ask at the church office about the outreach and was enrolled for help from them, and they were great.
The church was open every day, and the staff were very kind to the homeless, providing hot srinks and a listening ear, and sometimes providing things that people needed, on a small scale. They were always kind to me, and when I left the town I made sure that they knew that their work was appreciated, I remember the response of one of them, he said about how they had a choice to just do their job or to do their job with love, and so they did it with love. Credit to them.
That town had a group of compassionate churches and I can't fault them, I don't remember any diocese of Winchester related fears or flashbacks while I visited the churches there, apart from one thing, a man who claimed to be a homeless worker, who attended one of the churches, started getting close to boundaries by involving himself in my life and trying to steer me and taking me away from church to a garden where we were alone and trying to do his version of therapy on me, this very swiftly started to cause me deep concern and disturbance, and I told someone about it and they reported him to safeguarding, who IMMEDIATELY put a stop to his actions and said that he would not be allowed to do something like that again.
After the mess in the Diocese of Winchester, I have never seen a safeguarding action so swift and so firm, it took them days, not years like the Diocese, and this time safeguarding did nothing at all to hurt me.
The only other note about that diocese is that they had a reader who was an alcoholic, who admitted he was an alcoholic and that it affected his attitude sometimes, but neither he nor anyone did anything about it.
So I left that diocese with a good impression of their churches. The basics of good churches are there.
Diocese D.
This one is fairly simple. The Anglican churches there are kind of inconspicuous, I wouldn't have known where Church of England church in that Diocese or town were, except the show church in town, which I never went in, they did no outreach, were not involved with the homeless or anything else, the town had a Catholic lean and I will always remember the Catholics there helping me and also seeing a Catholic priest with his robes and dog collar under his coat, serving soup to the homeless.
But I had no other contact with the Church of England there, because they were hardly there.
Diocese E.
This one was an interesting cross between Diocese of Winchester lean and some good as well.
They were somewhat involved with the homeless but in a clumsy way that didn't help me. They tried to tell me where to sleep, which is simply a no for a rough sleeper, and the places they suggested were not safe.
The congregations in this diocese were a mixture of kind and accepting, and people who had no idea about the homeless and gave the message loud and clear that they didn't welcome a homeless person or see them as a real human being.
There were some well-meaning clergy, and although the one I had the most contact with was obviously very worried about me being a liability when they found out it had been the church of England who had left me homeless. I liked them.
A real see-saw diocese, very much imitating the Diocese of Winchester in things like Safeguarding and accountability and inclusion, not good, but also with a good side, a kind side, a root in Christianity.
In conclusion, these were the other Diocese, I will look at the Diocese of Winchester again next. One common theme in every church and every diocese is that the majority of people are older, usually well off and generally lacking in understanding of the problems faced by the minorities who come to their churches, and I think this blindness to the bad side of church and the faith in the hierachy that these older people have, is part of what is preventing churches from being safe places for the vulnerable.
Diocese C, mentioned above, have quite a revolutionary attitude, and if the Church of England could start steering towards that, it might significantly help, but is it worth their while? And how do you get the old and the set in their ways to change?
The Diocese of Winchester and Other Church of England Diocese. This post is mainly about other Diocese in contrast to the Diocese of Winchester.
From age 19 to age 30 or 31, all I knew was the Diocese of Winchester, and I went from the damaging environment I grew up in almost directly into the damaging environment of the Diocese of Winchester's Churches, almost without a break, so the Church of England basically replaced the environment I grew up in.
The insular cult-type environment that I grew up in meant that I was dependent on other people and not knowing any boundaries, especially not my own, and because of the way I was brought into the Church of England and the people who brought me into the church of England, I did not start growing into a healthy adult, but instead became the bottom of the heap in the Church of England, with sexual and emotional abuse damaging me further and holding me back
But in the end, I am the one blamed, scapegoated, maligned and shunned for the stories of what has happened, while ordained and diocese-employed people who have done wrong and provoked reactions from me, have been absolved and exonorated, despite their positions of responsibility, the fact that they are neurotypical, and the fact they have crossed and abuse boundaries while knowing what they were doing, while I was reacting to them and am not neurotypical and am damaged and have been abused.
I am scapegoated for shortcomings that in some circumstances I am not in control of, while at all times, people who have abused me and have behaved unprofessionally have been let off at my expense.
After being driven from the Diocese of Winchester by Jane Fisher in 2011, I travelled and visited other diocese, for almost the first time ever I visited other Church of England churches and saw that they were different from the Diocese of Winchester in some ways, and in a way I saw a better side of the church of England, one I didn't know existed, but on the other hand some things remained uniform of the Church of England.
One of the Diocese I visited is Chichester, and I would like to give them an honourable mention, because they have had such bad press and my experience of them was good.
As well as great care and genuine Christianity that I witnessed in the Diocese of Chichester, I also witnessed very stringent safeguarding.
I was amazed at how caring the four priests and one secretary I met in the Diocese of Chichester were, they looked at how to help me, and during the time I was with them, they helped me effectively and as a result, again I started to try and lay the foundations for a new life, which was again destroyed by Jane Fisher and Michael Scott-Joynt.
Several things stand out about Chichester, one was that one of the curates would come to the homeless daycentre and cook breakfast for the homeless, and even the toughest of them loved him, his was an example of practicing what he preached.
An example of safeguarding that strikes me was the curate telling me that the youth leader never let any of his charges out of his sight and that he would not even let them cross the church alone to go to the toilet if there was anyone in church.
Also the priests, having heard that it was the Church of England who had harmed me and left me homeless, were very open about what had happened in the Diocese of Chichester regarding abuse.
So, for all the negative publicity, Chichester deserves a cheer.
London, I was starving and I could hardly walk, I went into a church of England church and told them that my blood sugar was very low and could they help me by sparing me a cup of tea with sugar in it so that I could get the energy to get a bit further and maybe find food.
Their reaction was as far from the principles of Christianity as it is possible to get, they told me that they 'couldn't do that because they would have the homeless queing up round the block for tea if they did', which is both untrue and completely Unchristian, they seem to have forgotten what they are there for, apart from their salaries.
I think naming and shaming them would be fine, they were most rude and unhelpful, and it is not my way to ever ask for anything of anyone except in an emergency. They are that Holy Trinity Church close the junction of Oxford Street and Regent Street.
They have forgotten Christianity and think that they are a gallery instead, whilst still named as a church. Thankfully a few hundred yards up the road, the Salavtion Army, who were technically closed, rushed into action as I collapsed on their doorstep, and saved me.
It is noticable in London that every other denomination but the Church of England is out on Soup runs and soup kitchens and outreach, apart from one Church of England group who come from miles outside London to do outreach one night a week.
Church of England churches in London have such notices on the walls as the ones that warn the homeless that the walls will be washed down regularly and if they leave anything there then those things will be hosed down, basically the Church are threatening to hose homeless people's possessions down! and if Jesus was there, they would hose his possessions down. Legend has it that the people doing the hosing also hose the homeless down if they refuse to move. Where is Christianity in this?
My gratitude goes to the Catholic and Coptic Churches in London for their wonderful compassionate work with the homeless.
Moving on to other diocese, I will call the next one 'Diocese A', and tell you about the interesting paradoxes within that Diocese.
I arrived there and within days, was told about a blatant cover up by the Diocese of abuse in the Diocese, I was told of it by people who were not in the church nor related to the church in any way, when they heard that the church of England were responsible for leaving me homeless.
So that was my first experience, followed by the noticable 'dying' of the church in that diocese, ie, the churches were emptying and closing, very sad.
My first experience of a Church of England Church in this Diocese, however, was very different, and
quite a surprise, I had mistaken an Anglo-Catholic Church for a Catholic one, and wandered in to take part in a group they ran.
I was surprised and pleased to receive a warm welcome, followed by a continued warm fellowship lasting some years until I stopped travelling back to that area.
The congregation accepted me as I was, one of the Only Church of England Churches that I have known to do that. And they said to me that they accepted me as I was, one of them, maybe a homeless one of them, but welcome and the same.
The Priest was a different matter, he tried to get rid of me, but when I spoke to my friends there about him as soon as he did, they put him in his place, and told me that priests are dispensible and the Church is the people, not the priest and that he would go eventually, as priests come and go, but that the congregation were the church and they welcomed me, and that was certainly the case. Credit to them.
Anyway, the priest, once put in his place, never troubled me again, he was not a happy man and was reputed to have an alcohol problem, and this rumour was backed up by witnesses to him staggering trhough town drunk, the witnesses included me, and he was known for hurting feelings, so it wasn't just me, I think he would have been happier if he had had a career change, but I think the free house and expenses draws and keeps many unsuitable priests.
But, credit to that church, they brought me great comfort and relief both with their fellowship and the discussions that helped me to see that not all is bad in the Church of England.
And although I was in a minority there with regards vulnerable and isolated people, I wasn't the only one, but as with all Anglican Churches, the congregation was mainly elderly, wealthy and middle class.
Another Church in this diocese used to make my blood boil, it was a 'show' church, full of finery and ornaments and gilding, and yet it was deeply in debt, but this didn't change the fact that the really pompous and aristocratic people made up the congregation, and they used to pick up their handbags and posessions if I or another homeless person came in to shelter.
I do not understand why the Church of England think they are doing anything remotely honouring to God by keeping such places alive.
In the same Diocese was a church that used to kindly reach out and hand me cups of tea if I wandered past, credit to them, they were ok, if a little bit narrow, they did some basic outreach but they were also a dying church and they seemed so removed from society.
I remember how they were always trying to repair their church and I used to be so cross because, as is a church of England habit, when a Church is trying to fund-raise, they turn services and sermons into fundraising exercises, which seems very inappropriate, especially as Jesus went into the temple and turned the tables over in anger that His Father's House was being Used in this way, and as the Church of England itself is a very wealthy organization, which is also registered as a charity, but yet owns so much land and property, no church should be manipulating their congregation in order to raise extra money during a time when God and His Word should be what the teaching is about.
Further into this Diocese, another show church was really very rude indeed when I came in for shelter, unprovoked, and I made a complaint to the priest.
And then I met a safeguarding issue in another church, (bear in mind I am talking a whole diocese here, not one town), I went to a church where they were doing an evening service and I went in, it was such a lost church, like most in that diocese, it all seemed to belong in the past, not the now. Anyway, this man approached me alone, and he asked questions and asked if I was homeless and things, and invited me home, to which I said no.
He kept badgering me to go home with him and kept getting a no.
He said that he was quite honest and that I should stay with him.
I said no again, and he said he would show me he was honest and he said to one of the choir who was passing 'I am quite honest aren't I?' but didn't tell them he was inviting me home, they kind of vaguely answered, and I wondered how much attention was being paid to what this man was doing, as he continued to come after me alone in this big church, where the evening service seemed mainly to be a choir and no congregation or minister and this man was just wandering around on his own.
It makes me sad to remember how that diocese's churches seem kind of left behind and dying, and yet there was some good there that triumphed over the impression of the Church of England that the Diocese of Winchester had given me.
Diocese B.
Well this was an interesting one, the church of England had almost no presence in this diocese.
My first interaction with them was when I asked two anglican priests who were having coffee at a cafe, where the town's daycentre was, and they didn't have a clue, they were not even sure if there was one, in the end they sent me on a futile walk for miles to a place that didn't exist.
The only other place I encountered the church of England in that diocese was a cold and unwelcoming 'Christian Cafe' in the town, mainly frequented by people on the team that ran the cafe, elderly people, it was uninspiring and not the best value for money in town.
I was a Catholic by then, but that town and Diocese seemed to have a church of England minority, with other denominations better represented.
Diocese C.
This was a Diocese that presented themselves well in inclusion, compassion and safeguarding. Credit to them.
They started and continued well.
I arrived in this town and the first person I met was someone from a Church of England Church, as I had heard that that church ran a homeless outreach, so I walked up to the church and a lady was coming out of Church, she said to me 'can I help you?', she said it in a genuine and not patronizing way, and I explained to her that I had heard they did outreach there. She didn't know about outreach but she invited me to have a coffee with her in the cafe across the road. So we had a coffee, and she said I should ask at the church office about outreach when the office was open.
She and I regularly met for a coffee after that, often after we attended 8am communion in Wednesday and Sunday, she became a 'friend', someone I knew and could chat with.
She and I came up with the theory that 'denomination doesn't matter, where compassion is practiced, that is where Christianity is', and her church certainly practiced compassion.
I did ask at the church office about the outreach and was enrolled for help from them, and they were great.
The church was open every day, and the staff were very kind to the homeless, providing hot srinks and a listening ear, and sometimes providing things that people needed, on a small scale. They were always kind to me, and when I left the town I made sure that they knew that their work was appreciated, I remember the response of one of them, he said about how they had a choice to just do their job or to do their job with love, and so they did it with love. Credit to them.
That town had a group of compassionate churches and I can't fault them, I don't remember any diocese of Winchester related fears or flashbacks while I visited the churches there, apart from one thing, a man who claimed to be a homeless worker, who attended one of the churches, started getting close to boundaries by involving himself in my life and trying to steer me and taking me away from church to a garden where we were alone and trying to do his version of therapy on me, this very swiftly started to cause me deep concern and disturbance, and I told someone about it and they reported him to safeguarding, who IMMEDIATELY put a stop to his actions and said that he would not be allowed to do something like that again.
After the mess in the Diocese of Winchester, I have never seen a safeguarding action so swift and so firm, it took them days, not years like the Diocese, and this time safeguarding did nothing at all to hurt me.
The only other note about that diocese is that they had a reader who was an alcoholic, who admitted he was an alcoholic and that it affected his attitude sometimes, but neither he nor anyone did anything about it.
So I left that diocese with a good impression of their churches. The basics of good churches are there.
Diocese D.
This one is fairly simple. The Anglican churches there are kind of inconspicuous, I wouldn't have known where Church of England church in that Diocese or town were, except the show church in town, which I never went in, they did no outreach, were not involved with the homeless or anything else, the town had a Catholic lean and I will always remember the Catholics there helping me and also seeing a Catholic priest with his robes and dog collar under his coat, serving soup to the homeless.
But I had no other contact with the Church of England there, because they were hardly there.
Diocese E.
This one was an interesting cross between Diocese of Winchester lean and some good as well.
They were somewhat involved with the homeless but in a clumsy way that didn't help me. They tried to tell me where to sleep, which is simply a no for a rough sleeper, and the places they suggested were not safe.
The congregations in this diocese were a mixture of kind and accepting, and people who had no idea about the homeless and gave the message loud and clear that they didn't welcome a homeless person or see them as a real human being.
There were some well-meaning clergy, and although the one I had the most contact with was obviously very worried about me being a liability when they found out it had been the church of England who had left me homeless. I liked them.
A real see-saw diocese, very much imitating the Diocese of Winchester in things like Safeguarding and accountability and inclusion, not good, but also with a good side, a kind side, a root in Christianity.
In conclusion, these were the other Diocese, I will look at the Diocese of Winchester again next. One common theme in every church and every diocese is that the majority of people are older, usually well off and generally lacking in understanding of the problems faced by the minorities who come to their churches, and I think this blindness to the bad side of church and the faith in the hierachy that these older people have, is part of what is preventing churches from being safe places for the vulnerable.
Diocese C, mentioned above, have quite a revolutionary attitude, and if the Church of England could start steering towards that, it might significantly help, but is it worth their while? And how do you get the old and the set in their ways to change?
Monday, 21 October 2013
cover ups and smears
Good morning,
I guess I had better make a start on some blogwork today, mainly because of the trauma and exhaustion this whole matter has brought on, it is hard to work with it.
I gather that my letter has caused certainly people to turn purple and snort and huff, as is the way of a certain class of people when their 'dignity is affronted' (that is such a cool phrase).
Basically it remains the case that this whole matter is too much of a burden to me and shouldn't have been placed on me at all, it was in the past, unresolved as it was, but it isn't going to be better resolved the way it is being handled.
So, apart from starting to bring you full postings of my experience, I guess I should start telling you some of the myths I have been hearing and setting them, and the Korris report straight again.
I guess I had also better say that the JEP is not known as Jersey's Evening Propaganda for nothing, if it is in their interests or the interests of anyone connected to them, then they can distort a story beyond recognition, they are also famous for refusing to allow comments about some subjects or only publishing comments that bias to one side of things, for example, in my case, they only go against me and allow comments and letters against me. Although, they have published some of Bob Hill's letters, but have 'clipped' his letters and refused to allow his mention of my arrest and 'deportation'.
Is it surprising? The JEP is overseen by the brother of the churchwarden who abused me.
He also seems to have his share of problems.
I think it was Bruce Willing who claimed that I was going for compensation from the Diocese of Winchester.
This is completely unfounded, the last thing I would do, mainly because the Diocese are a business, a vicious, callous corporation, and I am very tired, I would not be able to go up against them.
When this whole wretched story broke and turned my life upside down, several people approached me to offer to assist me in getting compensation and arranging the help I needed to do so, but I said no thank you, because all the money in the world would not undo what has been done, and all the money in the world would not restore my health that would be further harmed by the attempt to sue the diocese, and I can muster no interest in sueing them, because it would not change them or restore me.
So let's bust the sueing myth now.
Bruce Willing claims I have made numerous previous complaints in Hampshire and Guernsey, but actually the diocese of Winchester can't lie and say that there were any complaints made previous to my complaint about the churchwarden in Jersey, any subsequent complaints that are considered to exist would be because people who have previously harmed me have involved themselves in the Jersey complaint.
I guess I had better make a start on some blogwork today, mainly because of the trauma and exhaustion this whole matter has brought on, it is hard to work with it.
I gather that my letter has caused certainly people to turn purple and snort and huff, as is the way of a certain class of people when their 'dignity is affronted' (that is such a cool phrase).
Basically it remains the case that this whole matter is too much of a burden to me and shouldn't have been placed on me at all, it was in the past, unresolved as it was, but it isn't going to be better resolved the way it is being handled.
So, apart from starting to bring you full postings of my experience, I guess I should start telling you some of the myths I have been hearing and setting them, and the Korris report straight again.
I guess I had also better say that the JEP is not known as Jersey's Evening Propaganda for nothing, if it is in their interests or the interests of anyone connected to them, then they can distort a story beyond recognition, they are also famous for refusing to allow comments about some subjects or only publishing comments that bias to one side of things, for example, in my case, they only go against me and allow comments and letters against me. Although, they have published some of Bob Hill's letters, but have 'clipped' his letters and refused to allow his mention of my arrest and 'deportation'.
Is it surprising? The JEP is overseen by the brother of the churchwarden who abused me.
He also seems to have his share of problems.
I think it was Bruce Willing who claimed that I was going for compensation from the Diocese of Winchester.
This is completely unfounded, the last thing I would do, mainly because the Diocese are a business, a vicious, callous corporation, and I am very tired, I would not be able to go up against them.
When this whole wretched story broke and turned my life upside down, several people approached me to offer to assist me in getting compensation and arranging the help I needed to do so, but I said no thank you, because all the money in the world would not undo what has been done, and all the money in the world would not restore my health that would be further harmed by the attempt to sue the diocese, and I can muster no interest in sueing them, because it would not change them or restore me.
So let's bust the sueing myth now.
Bruce Willing claims I have made numerous previous complaints in Hampshire and Guernsey, but actually the diocese of Winchester can't lie and say that there were any complaints made previous to my complaint about the churchwarden in Jersey, any subsequent complaints that are considered to exist would be because people who have previously harmed me have involved themselves in the Jersey complaint.
letter to Bishop Dakin 2
Dear Bishop Tim,
You are responsible both for the smear campaign in Jersey where people representing the Jersey Deanery which you oversee have repeatedly slandered and libelled me to the press and public and have drowned out my side of things by doing so, and also the fact that the investigations which you launched are omitting my side of things and basically, in these two things, even though I am already destroyed you are setting me up to be completely and iirepparably publicly ruined, even though there is no way I can recover from what your diocese has already done.
If you believe yourself to have any honest and right reasons in this whole terrible mess, you need to respond immediately in stopping the hate campaign and ensuring either that I get a fair hearing now, or that another enquiry is done to counter the current mess, and this time include my views, I have no choice but to proceed with my own public reporting to counter the harm you have done to me by allowing the smear campaign and the conflicted enquiry.
It is ludicrous that Dame Steel is allowed to proceed when she was advertised as representing the Jersey churches and also the way she has behaved in trying to illegally get my records, snubbing me and then in response to my concerns, deciding to walk away instead of giving the assurance that she is neutral.
You have severely psychologically harmed me, and despite my concerns since March, you have done nothing to resolve things, despite knowing that Bob Hill is there for you to communicate with and resolve things,
sincerely,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)