Reports

The Diocese of Winchester's reply to this may be to publish the Bailhache (Steel) report, that will be interesting. I am just predicting that they wont like me telling the truth and will offer to publish the slightly less than truth.
I guess one way or another, this waking nightmare I live in has to end somewhere and I guess the Diocese are just going to publish that report when they choose.
Basically I do not believe that anyone has stopped them, who could? who would be so affected by it? who knows what is in it to feel that they have to stop it being published? It is a puzzle, isn't it? Because it wasn't me, the Diocese have only contempt for me and my screaming at them to stop harming me as I did last year and got threatened by the Bishop in reply.

The Bailhache report, from what I have heard, a) isn't worth the paper it is written on, and b) contains defamation of me, c) it omits my side of things, and d) it was not professionally carried out, having been controversial throughout.
Why was it controversial?
Well, from the beginning, it was suspected to be conflicted, and the concerns were raised with the diocese about this, and they ignored them.
These concerns grew as Dame Steel's terms of reference were not released and the Diocese refused to address this.
Then there was further confusion around adverts in the JEP.

One advert that some people found intimidating and cold was apparently an advert for 'witnesses to inappropriate clergy behaviour'.
In Jersey, with people in powerful positions backing the smear campaign against me and with the Church in Jersey making a big impact against me and against the Diocese, I doubt that anyone would have dared to step forward on my behalf, such is the Jersey way, they would risk being ruined.
But no doubt many people could be used as 'witnesses' against me, with the smear campaign and the people of power running the Jersey campaign against me and the Diocese, such an advert was a bad idea indeed.

But then there was another advert, a full page advert, apparently done by the church laity but done anonymously.
This advert was against Bishop Tim Dakin, and because of the awful and harmful way he has behaved, I believe he should be under a formal complaint, but anyway, this advert by the Jersey church, named Dame Steel as their advocate, their contact for a complaint against Bishop Dakin.
This showed a conflict of interests because if she was investigating the Jersey church on behalf of Bishop Dakin, how could she investigate him on their behalf?

Concerns about this continued to be ignored, and Bob Hill repeatedly tried to contact Dame Steel, but got no reply.
Until she was apparently 'in the closing stages of her report', and agreed to see him, although I asked what was the point of seeing her now if she was finishing her report, having not heard our evidence.
She made it clear she didn't care about me or my evidence but had used the report to brand me and rework the story of what happened when I reported the churchwarden, completely omitting my side and making me out to be a normal non-disabled person who was violent and threatening.
This was backed up by Gavin Ashenden, former lawyer, now Jersey clergyman and supporter of the Dean and wrongdoers, telling Bob that the 'Dean's case was watertight', and that he had been interviewed about me, despite the fact that he had never met me, wasn't there when I was in Jersey and had branded me on what he had apparently heard from the Lihous and Warrens.
He was interviewed despite never meeting me, was able, just as Philip Bailhache and Senator LeMarquand were, to use his combination of legal expertise and position in the church, to damn me and ensure that the Dean was let off, all without me even being heard.

Now, does the Bishop want to publish this report in reply to me finally speaking up in exasperation? Does he want to continue to harm me?
I think the statement about the safeguarding in the diocese of Winchester is a joke. It doesn't matter how much they have changed to cover things since I started speaking up, it does not change the fact that Jane Fisher has commited misconduct and harmed me and has put the Church's reputation before my welfare, and this is even documented in the Korris report, her and the Bishop's concern over scandal and then their concern for the internal review, which is why her bullying of me and the harm done is omitted from the Korris report, cover up, not safeguarding, so no, the Diocese are not now good at safeguarding because Jane Fisher has not been held to account, and I remain suffering as a result of the lack of safeguarding and Jane Fisher's conduct.

How to help me

How to help me is a basic straightforward guide to helping me, people have consistently forgotten that I am a real human person with feelings, and have a habit, when they get involved, of going behind my back with decisions, discussions about me and deciding on and implementing what they consider to be 'help' for me.
Which tends to leave me humiliated and angry.

• Help me by including me in discussions and decisions, do not make major decisions for me or behind my back, otherwise you will frighten and embarrass me and I do not necessarily want what you want for me or see it as appropriate, this is my right as an adult.
• Help me by not forcing on me when you do discuss things with me, I am sure you mean well but what you think may help may not, for example, if you want me to go into a Christian community, you need to take into account my misgivings based on my experiences and understand that maybe as someone who craves solitude, it would be the wrong environment for me.
• Do not liase with the Church of England or anyone or any organization associated with them with regards to helping me, because they have seriously harmed me and I will react with shock and anger and distress when I find out, which I will.
• Do not trivialize what I have been through or try to tell me that what happened to me didn't or was something different or that I am not being truthful, I cannot see any way I could gain from being untruthful and I will not tell you something made up, I will only tell you what happened to me. Telling me it was not the case or that I am mentally ill and therefore not valid injures me, firstly because I am not seriously mentally ill, secondly because I know what happened to me, and thirdly because invalidating people with mental illness just because of their illness is terrible anyway, and such people are very vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and being told that it is their illness rather than the reality. (The police's attitude to me was consistently appalling in their claims that it was all just me and that I was insane).
• Talk to me. 
• Do not put me at risk of being traced by the Diocese of Winchester.

These points are made with experiences in mind  of being let down and being genuinely helped. My friends have helped me by keeping confidences completely after finding out how the diocese were continuing to harm me, and anyone who I can trust not to betray me to the diocese can potentially help me.

My experiences of being deceived and betrayed are also very real and very raw. I have to remain a fugitive until somehow the reassurance comes that I can be safe from the diocese and their police.

The ranks

I wonder how the commenter on the needle blog knows how effective the diocese of Winchester is and how they can back up their claims? INTERESTING isn't it? :)
See my previous post about how they could claim that or why.

I had an interesting conversation the other evening. Sometimes I have to explain to people why I am a fugitive who can't go to a doctor or claim housing benefit and thus live with ill health and poverty, because the Diocese managed to have me traced through the police last year and wrecked my life, and thus I daren't go on record as being anywhere in case they and the police abuse their power in order to attack and ruin me again, because I cannot withstand much more of it.
Anyway, in this conversation, these people worked out it was the church of england wrecking my life, and said they knew how the wealthy older people who form a majority of the running of the Church of england can close ranks and block justice and close someone out.
It is always refreshing to know someone understands, and always surprising how many people understand.

Those within the church cannot see themselves and see how out of touch and archaic they are, they remind me of the clergyman in Tess of the d'Urbervilles, who would not allow the dead baby a decent burial because he was illegitimate. The Church of England hasn't changed much, and that appalling cover up for the Dean in Jersey, and that appalling smear campaign against me by people like Bruce Willing, who showed no sign of knowing what Christianity or humility are, shows how little the Church of England has changed.

That desparate and unfounded claim that the Diocese of Winchester's safeguarding is good, sounds so like Jane Fisher, and sadly she, or whoever wrote it, cannot back it up because it is not the case, she has left other people suffering in the last year and that is a claim that can be substantiated, and I can back up my case that the Diocese are lacking in adequate safeguarding, I would describe the counterclaim against my comment as 'desparate'.

I am also aware though, that the more the Diocese provoke me, the more I answer, the more they go to the police with half-truths, untruths, omissions of what they did illegally and against my human rights to provoke me and the police act only for the diocese and treat me as insane even though all mental health statements say otherwise, and thus the diocese remain with a free reign to destroy me and I have no defence, am not allowed to defend myself and suffer massive psychological harm.

So, I think that because of this, the commenter on the Needle blog against my comment, has made an unfounded comment that they cannot back up, a diocese that has a traumatized abuse victim repeatedly brutalized and locked up and given a record while they continue to employ the abusers, a diocese that continues to provoke the victim by violating their human rights and being untruthful about them, slandering them and driving them from their community and repeatedly trying to have them put away as they are autistic and screaming in distress at seeing their whole life ruined for the sake of a diocese and safeguarding officer who has protected abusers for the sake of the church's reputation and yet refuses stop harming the victim, this diocese that ruined me for being disabled and abused in a church where they employed a known abuser and allowed him to 'adopt' me and take me home, this diocese is NOT A GOOD DIOCESE FOR SAFEGUARDING.

NSPCC and Diocese

Trolls, protesters or defensive diocese people may protest, or old well-off people in the church of england may protest but the fact is that the diocese of Winchester did not and have not safeguarded me properly and have behaved appallingly, and yet they are the ones with the voice, I remain unheard, hence this blog.

Funny thing about the recent events, I emailed the Diocese to remind them to leave me alone after someone played a prank to do with money, a supposed donation for me, and I wont touch anything the church of england have handled, so I reminded them that I had asked to be left alone, I included Jane Fisher and Joyce in the email and reminded them to read the blog, and got stats on the blog from Southampton, where they live, some of which stats were 'removed', then the link to the Needle (excellent) blog, and my complaint about the diocese referring me to the NSPCC, and then comments claiming that the diocese of winchester are excellent at safeguarding and my comments were unfounded appeared.
Coincidence, but that person's comment was unfounded as the glaringly incompetent and harmful actions of the diocese throughout last year show, and my comments are backed by evidence.

The NSPCC had Saville volunteering for them, Esther Rantzen, in her position with the NSPCC and Childline, knew about rumours about Jimmy Saville, and yet she did nothing, and during my childhood, the NSPCC did nothing to help me, even when I rang childline.
Can you imagine, if you are a victim and you see your abuser working for the charity that you should be able to turn to? I am horrified for Jimmy Savile's victims, who must have met blank walls when they tried to get something done about him, not just blank walls from the NSPCC, but from everyone, who would not let such a 'high profile' and 'charitable' individual be defamed, or didn't dare to take action or didn't dare to do anything. Those Victims not only had the psychological damage of abuse, but also the psychological damage of being disbelieved or silenced or denied help or justice, often they may have been branded as trouble because of their problems and the protection of the man they reported, I know a bit of how that feels, because of how the church of england treated me.

And the Church of england, without my consent, tried to refer me to that Charity, which in itself was psychologically harmful, while costing the church nothing, and they claimed in their press statement to have 'offered me help', it remains a fact that a Childrens' abuse charity with a bad name cannot help me, it also remains the fact that I was not asked by the diocese if I wanted their help or if I consented to the NSPCC or even if I had any issues that would make such a referral unethical! Which I do! 

John Gladwin and Christine Daly, representing the church of England, promised to meet with me a number of times and get the full story, never did.

Hello John and Christine,
when would you like to see me and continue those promised meetings to get my side of things?

comments on the desparate defence of the diocese of winchester on the needle blog. Accidentally duplicated the legal letter instead of linking to the BBC statement and then linked to the BBC statement

Unless the person attempting to defend the diocese has actually been on the receiving end of their so-called safeguarding procedures as I have, then I think my statements, backed up by evidence, are more valid than theirs.

Even referring me to the NSPCC without my consent constitutes a breach of safeguarding and a breach of the Church of England’s own policies about safeguarding, as the Church of ENgland did not at any point have my consent to refer me to anyone, and there are no grounds at all for them to refer me to any organization without my consent, please see this link to my legal letter and statement in reply to the Bishop’s statement

Forcing help on me without my consent and without taking into consideration the help I am already recieving in not only a breach of safeguarding but also a breach of my human rights. This is the letter that the Bishop received in reply
http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/formal-letter-of-warning-to-bishop-tim.html

And this was my statement to BBC Jersey in reply to the Bishop’s repeat breach o f safeguarding in which he labels me and again, despite having been asked to leave me alone, claims that the Diocese have arranged help for me. After what I have been through at the hands of the diocese, help from them is not just innapropriate but ludicrous, and forcing on someone is not only against safeguarding but is not ‘help’http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/formal-letter-of-warning-to-bishop-tim.html
It remains the case that the Diocese have no power over safeguarding in Jersey, and I am not the only one there who has suffered as a result, and the Diocese have not dealt with either of my abusers, who remain in church positions, nor dealt with anyone who has supported them and harmed me, nor dealt with Jane Fisher, who’s behaviour has been totally unacceptable and who has destroyed me.
I think the person who hotly defended the diocese needs to experience maltreatment at their hands before they can deride me and my experiences and claim that the diocese’s safeguarding is adequate.
Of course members of the church who are comfortable are going to claim everything is alright, at the expense of victims, that is how things are and have been for a long time.

Unless the person attempting to defend thew diocese has actually been on the receiving end of their so-called safeguarding procedures as I have, then I think my statements, backed up by evidence, are more valid than theirs.

Even referring me to the NSPCC without my consent constitutes a breach of safeguarding and a breach of the Church of England's own policies about safeguarding, as the Church of ENgland did not at any point have my consent to refer me to anyone, and there are no grounds at all for them to refer me to any organization without my consent, please see this link to my legal letter and statement in reply to the Bishop's statement 

Forcing help on me without my consent and without taking into consideration the help I am already recieving in not only a breach of safeguarding but also a breach of my human rights. This is the letter that the Bishop received in reply 

http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/formal-letter-of-warning-to-bishop-tim.html

And this was my statement to BBC Jersey in reply to the Bishop's repeat breach o safeguarding in which he labels me and again, despite having been asked to leave me alone, claims that the Diocese have arranged help for me. After what I have been through at the hands of the diocese, help from them is not just innapropriate but ludicrous, and forcing on someone is not only against safeguarding but is not 'help' http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/formal-letter-of-warning-to-bishop-tim.html

It remains the case that the Diocese have no power over safeguarding in Jersey, and I am not the only one there who has suffered as a result, and the Diocese have not dealt with either of my abusers, who remain in church positions, nor dealt with anyone who has supported them and harmed me, nor dealt with Jane Fisher, who's behaviour has been totally unacceptable and who has destroyed me.

I think the person who hotly defended the diocese needs to experience maltreatment at their hands before they can deride me and my experiences and claim that the diocese's safeguarding is adequate.

Of course members of the church who are comfortable are going to claim everything is alright, at the expense of victims, that is how things are and have been for a long time.

very amused to see furious and unfounded defence of the diocese of winchester's inadequate safeguarding procedures on the needle blog, thought I would respond

It is funny seeing some member of the diocese furiously defending the diocese on here, after last years appalling 9 months of severe damage inflcted on me in what must be the worst planned and executed ‘investigation’ that the church of england have ever attempted, and the outcomes that were to appease the Jersey deanery and did nothing but harm me further, I do not think that the diocese of winchester have a clue about safeguarding, or what an abuse survivors suffers, and the outcome for me is that I have been left displaced, damaged and ill, while nothing effective has been done.
Anyone who believes that the diocese have any effective safeguarding in place needs to meet some of us who have suffered at Jane Fisher’s hands, because sadly I am not alone, and needs to read the blogs bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk
and
http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/

There is no evidence to back up any spin about the Diocese of Winchester being effective in any safeguarding policy, and after three years on the streets and destroyed because of Jane Fisher’s actions to cover up for the church and make me out to be insane and the recent 9 month onslaught of harm to me by the diocese , I am living evidence that their safeguarding has not improved and is not in any way sufficient.
The Korris Report, done without my side of things being included, is one example of their complete lack of safeguarding as the damaging inaccuracies that cover up for Jane Fisher’s bad practice and bad behaviour that caused me to react is very damaging to me.

A small example of what Jane Fisher, safeguarding officer of the Winchester diocese thinks is acceptable is her telling me that my abuser was a ‘Christian who got things wrong’ and that Bob Key ‘Made Mistakes’ as if the mistake of seeing my abusers first and trying to dissuade me from making a complaint against my abuser despite his history, his continued inappropriate behaviour and the church’s lack of appropriate action were ok.
Jane Fisher never at any point told me that the church intended to investigate Bob Key, but instead acted as if my concerns were insanity, and tried to make me meet with him again.
Is that good safeguarding? No, is it evidenced? yes, I have the correspondence.
Sorry Diocese, the more you rubbish me, the more I speak, trying to refer me to the NSPCC who’s attitude to Jimmy Savil’s wrongdoing is so bad, and publishing this in a press release as ‘help they have offered me’ while they have wasted half a million on upsetting me and the Jersey Deanery when they could have provided help for me and training for the Deanery does not back up that ‘defence’ of the Diocese in the comment above at all. HG

Diocese of Winchester, the Diocese without safeguarding

stalkerstat who keeps landing on the post about the nspcc, have you read the link on that page?
The Diocese of Winchester tried to send me to the nspcc, a child abuse organization which is against a single enquiry into Jimmy Saville, because the NSPCC employed him.
I am amused to see untruths about the Diocese's safeguarding have been added in the comments there after what I and other vulnerable adults have experienced from the diocese and Jane Fisher.
I wonder if Luther Pendragon advised what to write?
The Diocese of Winchester have destroyed me in a way that means I will never have quality of life again, and spent 9 months of last year ripping me to shreds again for no apparent reason at all, I do not think their safeguarding has improved since I was in Jersey and suffering at the expense of their cover-up that even the Korris report described as a cover-up.

half a million pounds spent damaging my life and other lives is not good safeguarding.

brief complaint notes - note, the church of england refuse to even address this whole complaint even though they do not face the barriers that prevented them handling the Jersey situation properly

Complaint against Jane Fisher 4.

Example of lack of integrity: In May 2011, After Scott-Joynt retired, Jane Fisher sent me a subject box saying ‘Bishop Michael won’t be getting your emails as he is retired’, in court in Sussex it was claimed he had got emails from me since he retired, as well as ?text messages, he certainly never got text messages from me but how could he have got my emails since Jane Fisher said he would not be getting my emails? If Jane Fisher can be dishonest and lack integrity with vulnerable people to the point of damaging them, why is she being allowed to work with vulnerable people? She has never dealt with R. A. or F. M. but she put great effort into destroying me and succeeding in destroying me, wouldn’t it be great if she dealt with abusers like that and not victims? She seems to have got muddled in her job description, she thinks it is ‘destroying victims and protecting abusers’ not the other way round.

If Jane Fisher had done her job properly, I would still have quality of life, as it is, she has given me a record that means I can never seek help or protection from abuse ever again. I am essentially unforgiven and branded by so-called Christians, and still unable to exlain myself to any authorities and thus unable to be housed or helped even if I could cope with it.

The Dean has been cleared with claims he ‘acted in good faith’, I have no doubt that the Bishop, if he has even bothered with my complaint against Jane Fisher, which he has not acknowledged, would hope to do the same for Jane Fisher, but I cannot allow that, because if I do, I am standing by and letting vulnerable people be abused and damaged by Jane Fisher and even driven to criminal records and suicide. I am going to keep fighting for Jane Fisher to be removed no matter what she and the Diocese do to damage me, because she is more of a danger to vulnerable people than anyone in Jersey is.

In the Korris report, unspecified ‘innocent people’ were caught up in this by me, who? Especially in the last months, who? No innocent people were involved in the last months, and my reason for sending emails round other people was that Jane Fisher was not doing her job and was nasty to me, I wanted people to know that, to see that and to make her behave herself and do something, but instead of being shamed into doing her job, she used that against me as well.

The very fact that jane Fisher has exonerated her behaviour in the Korris report and given an account that protects herself shows her complete lack of integrity and the danger she is to vulnerable people as a result, if you can behave without integrity to exonorate yourself from your behaviour with a vulnerable person, then you should not be working alone with vulnerable people.

safeguarding complaint part 3

Formal complaint against Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester’s safeguarding part 3. Specifics, written without the framework of guidelines.
Written 10/08/2013 -12/08/2013

Introduction: My name for the purposes of this complaint, is the legal name I was under during the time Jane Fisher was involved in my life. **************, This is to protect my identity.
I am classified as vulnerable due to cognitive, mental, emotional and physical disability and also due to homelessness and poverty.
The purpose of this complaint is to specifically back up points I have made in the previous two parts of my complaint against Jane Fisher, who is the Safeguarding Director for the Winchester Diocese.
This complaint does not use church safeguarding policies as guidelines but brings specific complaints to your attention and explains why they have damaged me or why they are bad practice, and what the effects have been on me.
Complaints are bullet-pointed as best as they can be as this makes them easier to read.

The Korris Report:
First and foremost, I should have been traced and my views included before this report was published, but understandably as she has done wrong, Jane Fisher would not have allowed me to be traced first, but after this report was written. No matter who omitted me from the report, Jane Fisher is responsible for my omission.

The effect of the report, with it’s inaccuracies has been deeply harmful both to me and people associated with me and my relationships with them, Jane Fisher is responsible for the inaccuracies and omissions, especially as they do indeed cover up for her.
The Diocese have had this report published internationally on the internet and their website as fact and have refused to remove it at my complaint - this shows total lack of regard to my welfare and safeguarding, and again, Jane Fisher is responsible for this.

The report completely omits Jane Fisher and Tracy liasing to try and have me sectioned, the three weeks on the run in the UK after that and the damage to my life including losing my car as it broke down in the UK and I had used the money meant for repairing it on ferry fares and looking after myself in the UK, the loss of the car meant the loss of all my freelance work, prevention of me carrying out my main job efficiently and loss of my social life and hobbies and interests and freedom and volunteer work. The way Jane Fisher traumatized me by hijacking my friendship with Tracy and removing the confidentiality between me and Tracy and using Tracy to hurt me and also giving Tracy and inaccurate view of things is unacceptable and she is responsible for the harm to me. Jane fisher loved to tell me while I was suffering that I was responsible, but she has repeatedly wriggled out of being made accountable herself, and that is most glaringly obvious in the Korris report.

During the three weeks in the UK, I attempted suicide due to the distress at the way the Diocese and the Dean had treated me. I was taken to hospital and was found to be distressed but free from mental illness, Hampshire police contacted Jersey police who came up with a story that omitted the Diocese and Dean and gave a very inaccurate picture of things, including incorrectly saying I was wanted for criminal damage, which was never verified. Inflicting police action on me because she had not dealt with my complaint and let me continue to be hurt and was suicidal is as far from safeguarding as you can get, and Jane Fisher is responsible for that three-week hell where I did not know whether I was coming or going, only that the Dean who had done such wrong and the Diocese who had refused to deal with my complaint were both setting the police on me at the same time even though I had made no contact with the Dean since he called me wicked and said I was not abused.

Following the failed suicide attempt I and probably before it, (it is a blur) I had a number of strange and conflicted contacts saying I was in trouble because of the Dean, I was in trouble because of the Diocese, interestingly at the same time, and I was also reported missing, which I was not. There was no regard for my feelings  or welfare on the part of the Diocese, I was in deep distress but the Bishop and Jane Fisher couldn’t care less - no wonder this whole thing was omitted from the Korris report! The omission itself shows just how lacking in integrity Jane Fisher is, and just why she should not be in her job unsupervised but in charge!
Jane Fisher, without contacting me, reported me missing. I want this to be a major point in this formal complaint. She didn’t try to contact me, nor did anyone else in the Diocese, nor did the police. Nor was it her business whether I was in Jersey or not, or when I was planning on going back to Jersey or due to go back to Jersey - if the Diocese had reported me for making contact with them and I wasn’t doing - why did Jane Fisher report me? This has made me angry for a long time. The attempted sectioning, the violation of my friendships including my friendship with Anne who was seriously ill in hospital, the police complaints and reporting me missing, all while I was in a breakdown and totally overwhelmed, there is no excuse for Jane Fisher reporting me missing, none. Her reporting me missing caused the police to go to my house and speak to my landlady so that she knew I had lied when the police told me to lie and say I was a witness to something when they had previously come to try and section me.  Jane Fisher is responsible for tremendous personal damage and loss in my life, which has never been recompensed and is omitted from the Korris report.

The police went on to apparently ask my landlady if she was scared of me and if she thought I was dangerous. It did affect my relationship with her and I am lucky in a way that she did not throw me out, although if she had, I would have pre-empted the arrests and prison that traumatize me forever and gone straight to being homeless in the Uk, which may have been better but would not have stopped Jane Fisher’s continued harmful interventions and thus not have stopped her police attacks for my reactions.
It was when I finally did return to Jersey that I had to see the police, returning to Jersey having lost my car and thus most of my life. I was in a deeply distressed state and had to deal with the police. But Jane Fisher who had not dealt with my complaint, didn’t care.

The police was as confusing as usual, the policeman said it was not about Bob Key and he said something about it being swept under the carpet, and went on about the Dean being answerable to the Bishop and the Bishop being answerable to the Archbishop, but I didn’t know what he was on about. He told me that I was there because Jane Fisher had made an allegation of harrasment on behalf of the Bishop and it wasn’t for Bob key, he said that the Bishop had complained about me emailing and phoning after office hours, I protested that I was supposed to phone Lou out of office hours and she and the Bishop and Jane Fisher had phoned me out of office hours, and that emails could be sent any time, the policeman said that I had made silent phone calls to the Bishop and I said I put the phone down if the Bishop answered when I phoned Lou because the Bishop was hostile and unhelpful. And that the Bishop and Jane Fisher knew I had trouble using a phone. But my side seemed irrelevant. The policeman went on about how I wasn’t in any trouble and he was just getting both sides of things and that the form he wrote out was an allegation of harrasment form and he got the victim support worker to sign it, I never saw it, he also told us it didn’t even go on my record or file or something. I didn’t understand anything except that Jane Fisher was damaging me. She still is, because both the way she has treated me and her dishonesty have caused lasting wounds.

So I went back to a half-life which was very restricted and damaged, and I couldn’t live like that forever, there was nothing left of my life, my employers were upset with me, I was devastated and damaged, and basically, I was not going to be able to keep that damaged life going, so my deportation would have been a good thing if Jane Fisher had been restrained from wrecking my new start on the mainland for no good reason. But the living nightmare of my last six weeks or so in Jersey are omitted. That living nightmare and those three weeks homeless on the mainland are contributors to what finally happened in Jersey.

I believe that jane Fisher thinks that these omissions are not lying and therefore not dishonesty, and that in itself is one of the reasons she is not safe to work with vulnerable people, such dishonesties by omission in the Korris report have harmed me, and such omissions in any case with any vulnerable adult, would harm them. This, added to the inaccuracies and wrong implications in court, where I was powerless to give my side of things, makes Jane Fisher a danger to vulnerable people, and the wounds to me are deep and lasting. I haven’t had a fair trial in either court. And as a result of that and the criminal record and the awful way the Korris report depicts things, I am without any choice but to remain on the streets as I will never be a part of society again, the record I am given not only brands me for life, but is incorrect and also means I will never be safeguarded or able to report abuse again. So is Jane Fisher suitable to be in a safeguarding position? After she safeguarded my abusers, both in life and in the Korris report’s inaccuracies, and she had me criminalized and ruined.

Through the Korris report and being traced and the ‘investigation’ I have had to relive years of trauma that is too much for me, with no support or guidance from anyone in the investigation, the lack of clarity, especially about my part in this and what information is required of me, is astounding and shows complete disregard for my welfare and safeguarding. I should not have been traced or involved, unless I was traced to have my views included in the Korris review, which I was not.

If the Diocese apparently had a court order on me, then why did they have me traced during that? I know of no court order because court is beyond my understanding especially as I have been manhandled and in shock each time. Safeguarding in the Diocese of Winchester appears to mean doing nothing about abusers and wrongdoers and permanently branding abuse victims and ruining them.

The Korris report remaining published and on the Diocese website while it is hurting me and I am protesting is also against any safeguarding, if the report and investigation is about me and my concerns and complaint then why have the Diocese and church of England kept that report there when I have told them it is harming me? Well, because basically it is not about me at all but about them showing off about safeguarding, the new non-transparent transparency, where the needs and wishes and privacy of victims is still ignored and they are screaming and have no voice, while the church show off. The same applies to Bob Key’s ‘apology’ when he was reinstated with no warning to me and said some aimless words that the Diocese and church of England have published as an ‘apology’ to show off even though they, I and Bob key all know that that is not an apology for anything, nor did the Diocese draw my attention to this ‘apology’ or warn me that they were reinstating the Dean without investigation. Basically nothing could be further from caring for my welfare or taking my condition, views or feelings into account.

The claim by the Bishop to the press that he has personally apologized to me is another traumatic breach in any safeguarding policy, you cannot claim to the press that you have apologized, at the expense of your victim who you have not apologized to but who has no voice against your statement, it is psychologically harmful to do so and has caused me much distress and frustration, again no sign of caring for my welfare or feelings.

The Korris report inaccurately reports that I was refusing help and diagnosis in Jersey, and this is why Jane Fisher was excused her intervention, it is not the case, there was nothing new to diagnose as I was under my doctor’s care until the end, and being treated for depression, and I was awaiting seeing the new autism specialist psychologist who I had helped to campaign for, Jane Fisher never asked me or had my leave with regard to my personal medical and wellbeing situation! NEVER. And the reason my last days in Jersey were so bad was because jane fisher, the Bishop and Bob Key did not deal with my complaint but damaged me , and most of all, because of that three weeks on the run after Jane Fisher and Tracy’s sectioning attempt, which ruined me, and what I was suffering was Post-Traumatic-Stress-disorder, which I am now finally and thankfully diagnosed with and being monitored for as we attempt to get me into EMDR, which is being affected and delayed by this Diocese of Winchester nightmare. Again the Diocese are harming me and my welfare.

Back to Jane Fisher’s interference in my life, she did not have any permission from me to hold any meetings in Jersey about me with police, social services, mental health services or any services. It is not her role to act as my appropriate adult, guardian, mediator and never has been, nor did she have my permission to do so. I am furious and violated to hear that after everything she had done to hurt me and after I made it clear to the Bishop he was to withdraw her, she violated me this way. I do not understand why me choosing not to have social services involved in my life was any of Jane Fisher’s business, any adult can choose to stop meeting with social services if they are voluntarily under their care as I was. I chose to leave social services care as I was not benefiting from it, it did not bring me any form of relief or help and flashbacks to my childhood where social services were harmful was also a factor as well as my difficulty actually being able to get to meetings with social services.

The reality is that despite the Bishop’s denials later on, he and Tracy both said that jane Fisher had been making enquiries about me to psychological and psychiatric services about me, without my knowledge or consent, basically a violation by someone who had hurt me. Tracy caused me to have a meltdown in St. Matthews café when she handed me something, a card she had got me but had written on the back the details of the psychiatric worker who had messed up her interview with me and forgotten my name a long while before -as described in my evidence. Tracy handed me th card as if hoping I would ask her about the details written on it and then it would be me leading the conversation, and I was furious. This interference by Jane Fisher through Tracy, as Tracy admitted Jane Fisher had been doing the enquiring, was a violation.
The way I have been forced on and it has been covered up is criminal, and the criminal is Jane Fisher, she had no right to interfere and I asked the Bishop hundreds of times to withdraw her and he had me in police trouble for it instead of withdrawing her. The wounds of the violations, added to by the wounds of how the Korris report has excused it, are horrendous.

There is no evidence at all that I was refusing diagnosis, I was certainly frightened of the state I was in but I remember phoning my doctor while waiting for **** and ****** to come and meet me, and talking to him about psychological and psychiatric help as we waited for me to see the new autism psychologist, he said that at the time there was no need to change my referral to psychiatric but he wasn’t saying it would never happen, he was fine with me being on the waiting list for psychological help and for me to continue to see him, I am not sure but he may have talked about my anti-depressant dose at the same time, I was suffering anti-depressants until not long before I was arrested. But because Jane Fisher was making me out to be mentally ill, I was worried, hence talking to my doctor and I was looking up mental illnesses and wondering if I had psychotic depression or manic depression, I knew that I did not have schitzophrenia or paranoia, because my behaviour was only focussed on the people harming me. Whatever Jane fisher says. So her violation, especially as I had now spent months asking for her to be withdrawn, was harmful to me, with my autism and what I was suffering because of the church of England.

Having to relive this when it has been too traumatic to even address in therapy yet is a trauma in itself, and again this is due to being dragged back into it with the police and the Korris report.
During my time in prison, I was again interfered with and forced on by Jane Fisher, in the form of her being able to interfere through chaplaincy, and I am furious beyond anything to hear about this, to actually hear about is like waking up having been date-raped. I had asked Jane Fisher to be withdrawn and because she never was, she was able to have me arrested, in prison I wrote to the warders specifically asking to see the Roman Catholic or Methodist chaplain, can you imagine having to actually see one of the organization who put you in prison for pastoral help when you are in prison? Can you imagine one of your destroyers arranging that behind your back and getting her side of things across to the chaplain? Can you imagine having your request for a chaplain from another denomination ignored and your enemy who put you in prison overriding it and forcing someone she could communicate with on you? Can you imagine that chaplain being able to discuss me with Jane Fisher after everything that had happened?!?!?!??!!? Do any of you think that was acceptable??????????????????????? I do not, and it feels as if jane Fisher drugged me and date raped me, that is the equivelant, the violation!!!!!!!!

By the time Jane Fisher had been cold and rude to me in 2009, she should have been withdrawn, if she had been and someone competent had stepped in, I would still be a real person instead of branded, I would still have a home and an occupation and not be as physically and mentally damaged as I am now. Her attempts to teach me lessons, her denials of my complaints, her defence of the Keys and A’s, is all disgusting. Basically if she has done this to me, she is likely to have done similar to others, and the people she works with are vulnerable. So It is time she was stopped, as most people she works with will either not be able to stand up for themselves or will be disbelieved as ‘mentally ill’ which is what she tried to brand me while violating my life and breaking the law in doing so as well as going against all safeguarding policies and procedures in her illegal violations of my privacy and social and medical care.

It appears that some or all of people involved may be muddling my relationship with Victim Support with my relationship with social services. Be aware I left social services some time before I left victim support. I self-referred to Victim support, the police never even suggested it. Victim support were of some help but due to several breaches of my faith in them, things did not work out, the first was a long time ago and I do not remember all of it well, it was to do with the Victim support worker telling me that RA had been given a police warning for going round maligning me and claiming he had been cleared, further enquiries to the police by me about this showed that this was not the case, or so the police told me, and the police were not always accurate but at the time I believed them. So I said I did not want to see that support worker, and as a result she cancelled a counselling appointment she had made with a counsellor linked with the service, even though I still wanted the counselling. I then referred myself to the counsellor as a private client but by that time counselling was not effective, as it isn’t now, because the trauma is too severe and because I am autistic and for the most part counselling does not work with me. Anyway, I also connected Victim support with that police station trauma where an interview was run without an appropriate adult and when the victim support worker turned up they told her ‘not to bother with me’ within my earshot. I have trouble trusting and I certainly did in that case.

I was given a second Victim support worker and she was the one who was there when the ‘allegation of harrasment’ interview took place at the police station. She was trying to help me with civil legal action against RA but she was told, immediately after the policeman said that form was not on my file or record, that any solicitor would be able to look this up on my record and it could affect the civil legal action.
I stopped receiving help from Victim support because of an incident when the victim support worker was drunk.

She told me I could ring any time, because my situation was so desparate after the three weeks in England and in the time after the police interview and I was isolated with no car and half my life gone and a recent suicide attempt during the three weeks, so I did phone her one evening.
She was drunk and said so and started going on about repatriating me back to the UK, and I said no, she was not being very nice or helpful, nor was she coherent, so I said goodbye and rang off, and rang ********, who was still my friend despite everything.
***** stayed on the phone with me for some time and talked, she was fully aware of how bad things were as it was her house I had gone to after my suicide attempt.

After I rang off from talking to *****, which I remember clearly as it was evening but I was at work, catching up some of my lost hours from the three weeks on the run, I found many missed calls and voicemails and texts from the drunk victim support worker who was going on about me having my phone switched off and she thought I had commited suicide and she was going to call the police.
I rang her and said my phone had not been off but that I had been on the phone to my friend.

I did not want to see the victim support worker after that, I was highly stressed and did not need more stress.
I spoke to victim support and said I did not want to see her after that and could I see someone else, but they went on about how their support workers had been so kind and I was ungrateful and the victim support worker had been entitled to be drunk in her own time, which was not the point, and told me to go to the mental health advocacy, what for? They couldn’t explain, and I suspected interference from Jane Fisher again, this attempt to force mental illness on me and drive me from any real support or help.

So the Korris report and other people are unclear as to what is meant by ‘social worker’ but I was not simply ‘refusing help’ I was under my doctor and awaiting psychological help and also receiving Pastoral care from ***** and *******- with Jane fisher and the Dean interfering again!  I also still had faint hope of going to hospital in the UK for treatment for trauma and breakdown and also hope of behavioural help, but my life conditions were absolutely dire since I returned from that three weeks on the run. I was living on my overdraft.
It was the most terrible time of my life, that last bit of time in Jersey, I was utterly traumatized and invalidated.

And if the Diocese had had any care whatsoever for my welfare, or Jane Fisher was not covering up for herself by ensuring my side was omitted, then this side of things would be in the Korris report, and the Korris report would not be damaging me as it is.


Very basically, Jane Fisher did not deal with RA adequately or in a way that would either stop him offending again or stop him being in positions to offend or even in positions of authority in the church or for the church, he has since been noted a number of times to be in positions where he could abuse again.
Jane Fisher, as far as I know, never dealt with my complaint against the M’s at all, not F for abusing me, nor J for her crossing of boundaries and defence of the abuse. J. angrily told me she had had to defend F., presumably against Jane Fisher or the Bishop, and that I was a serial liar and malicious troublemaker. In the Korris report this safeguarding breach continued with the abuse by F. being played down and blame put on me for presumably ‘abusing god nature or hospitality’ basically a cover up again, and again the responsibility of Jane Fisher, who instead of dealing with the M.s, left them to it and used their side of villification of me against me.

 Never asking for or getting my full story. Never doing anything about J.’s repeated, repeated crossing of professional boundaries, especially the way she took me home when she was supposed to be my counsellor. Jane Fisher’s handling of this to blame me and let the M.s off and cover it up in the Korris report is an utter disgrace! Jane Fisher should not be in her position, if she has done this to me, she has done it to others who have no voice. The Korris report claims it was all settled, and appears to blur it with other relationships, avoids making it known it was a church matter and claims it was apologized for and sorted out, when basically nothing was apologized for or settled, I lived with the wound of what F. and J. did and remained friends with J. even though it hurt me. And as those of you who view my evidence will see, I was still going to stay with J. and the Lihous while I was in Jersey, and I asked the Lihous to meet with me to conclude after they upset me. So it is interesting that Jane Fisher has damned me to other people over those matters instead of investigating properly.

Another note is, if I was so much trouble to the Lihous when I ‘lodged with them’ as they claim, why was Jill brokenhearted that I had left to go to college in Dorset while they were away in Jersey when she had wanted me to stay until her family from Jersey came over at half term in October and why did she insist on me coming home every weekend to stay with them until another conversation with the Warrens behind my back meant it changed to fortnightly, my anger was not the change but the way it was done behind my back and not even explained to me. Which was how my whole friendship with the Lihous was! But as I said, my side was not investigated before I was vilified, mainly by Jane Fisher.

‘Stalking’. In court in Sussex, Jane Fisher and the Bishop tried to make my behaviour out to be stalking, and the police asked me if I loved them, I made it very clear that I hated Jane Fisher, I had very little by way of any feeling for Scott-Joynt but was disgusted with the way he hadn’t dealt with the complaints. I told the court I liked his wife for trying to help me. But if Jane Fisher thinks I am a stalker for trying to get her and the Bishop to handle my complaint, I wonder if she realises that her persistent violation of my privacy in every way possible when she knew very well I was angry and unhappy about made me feel I was being stalked, and not only was I being stalked but the police refused to protect me against Jane Fisher or believe me when I made complaints, it was the all-powerful diocese against someone who was treated as if she was mentally ill, and that stalking and oppression are unacceptable. Especially as Jane Fisher could see very well that her interventions were not only not helping me, but that they were making me angry and ashamed and frustrated. Basically she was allowed to malign me and violate my personal life and prevent me from getting help by her interventions, but I was not allowed or able to seek any help to prevent this ongoing violation.

And Jane Fisher knew very well, because I told her, that she had got me into police trouble and that thus she was disqualified from involvement in my life, what kind of person gets someone a record and then ‘helps’ them, against their wishes and to their shame and pain? There was nothing she could do to help me and nothing she could do that I would trust after what happened in Jersey, and believe me, the emails she sent about it not being her and the Bishop’s doing, and some further emails, were for show, for the investigation which she was not going to be able to stop, and again, she has managed to protect herself to a certain extent in the Korris report but not completely. But why has she been allowed to ‘stalk’ me and get me into trouble for reacting, and my overreaction is because I did not believe she would ever go away but would continue her wrecking wherever I went, and to a certain extent she did, both personally and in the way I am excluded from society and most forms of help because of the record she got me for reacting to her.

I did not authorize Jane Fisher to contact or liase with any services in Winchester about me, I referred myself to the housing office due to the ‘support workers’ at the nightshelter being slow about doing anything, but the shame of the criminal record and knowing I would not survive in Winchester’s ‘criminals’ hostels where people have been murdered, and knowing that housing me on a council estate with the other ‘criminals’ would not do me any good meant that I saw no point even in my own referral before I knew that Jane Fisher was interfering and getting the diocese’s side across. I specifically told the nightshelter staff that no information about me was to be shared with anyone from the church of England and that was ignored completely, the Bishop was the patron of the nightshelter and basically I was open to any interference that Jane Fisher wanted to do to cover the Diocese’s back and malign me, so I was treated like dirt, still in shock and distress from prison and being bullied in the nightshelter.

 I did not give Jane Fisher permission to be at any meeting about me with the authorities and police and homeless services and basically, despite it being my right both to have privacy and to turn to sleeping rough after the nasty experience of the nightshelter, repeated interventions by Jane Fisher and the Bishop that led to me being shouted at, shamed, trapped and threatened and left very distressed were not dealt with by the police, who treated me as if I was mad and the problem, even though I was reacting to things that should not have been happening. And yet, Jane Fisher is still working with vulnerable people.

In court in sussex, Jane Fisher claimed I had been harassing her since September 2010, even though I had been in prison in September 2010 and I had been told to plead not guilty to her and the Bishop’s charges in Jersey, it was also in Sussex in court that it was claimed I was convicted in Jersey for Jane Fisher and the Bishop. I did not return to the UK until October 2010 and made no contact with the Diocese at all until intervention and maligning of me and harm to me by Jane Fisher and the Bishop and his wife had become unbearable and I was desparate after fleeing Romsey after interference from Jane Fisher meant that Tim Sledge flung J. and F.’s side of things at me saying I had ‘caused trouble’ but he was unaware of F. abusing me and was nasty and hostile and attacking and tried to tell me to ‘go back to the nightshelter and Trinity centre’ all of which was none of his business but he told me he had been ‘speaking to Jane Fisher about me’, he was very accusing and nasty and when I asked him if he knew about me being abused or my side of things he tried to turn away and block me and say that his curate, J** had not offered to use her psychotherapy skills and experience of autism to help me.

That is when I first made contact in despair, with Wolvsley and Jane Fisher and sent the email round a number of people in Winchester and those at Romsey Abbey who rejected me and treated me badly for Jane Fisher. So, Jane Fisher’s case in Sussex was not right, and yet I had no voice. All the wrongdoing of both the Bishop and Jane Fisher was omitted from court, both times, so tell me, was it a fair trial? Was my record correct? No, and Jane Fisher is still working with vulnerable people after destroying one, is that right? She shouldn’t be, and I object, and if the Diocese refuse my objections and complaint then they are deliberately putting vulnerable people at risk.

Jane Fisher and the Bishop claimed that they had ‘tried to help me to be housed in Winchester, but omitted that they interfered with my housing, leaving me permanently homeless, and that I would have been housed if they had not interfered, firstly I would have been housed in Winchester, then Romsey and then Sussex, if it had not been for the Bishop and Jane Fisher. At no time did their interference do anything but drive me out, I did not ask for their help and objected to their help and did not give them consent at any time to interfere in my housing or any area of my life. The only good thing I remember about that court case was that someone read out that I had been driven from Winchester by Jane Fisher and the Bishop.
Be aware that it was Jane Fisher and the Bishop, who brought complaints against me for themselves, not Wolvsley or the Diocese, and I had not been in any contact with Wolvsley or the Diocese for some time then, because it was Jane Fisher and the Bishop who had hurt me and who had refused to deal with my complaint and that and the fact that I could not get over what had happened or feel safe again was why I continued to make contact with Jane Fisher and the Bishop.

Jane Fisher said in court that she wanted to ‘go on helping me’, does she really not understand that you cannot go on treating someone as she treated me and credibly claim to be helping them? You cannot wreck someone’s life and give them a long and inaccurate police record and ‘help them’!!! And the very thought despite my pleas that I was responding to her unwelcome interventions and harm to me, I was ignored and she was intending to go on violating me, which she really seems to think is ‘help’ and go on getting me into trouble. Basically, when you get someone done, especially if it is unjust, they are very very very unlikely to want you to help them, once someone has a police record, they are reduced to unemployment forever, and council housing or homelessness, they lose choice of where they can go, what they can do and they carry shame like a millstone round their neck, as I do, and in my case trauma as an even heavier millstone, so how could the person who had done this to me, ‘help me’? when what all this was about, from Jersey in 2009, was me wanting to be free from Jane Fisher and her condemnation and refusal to take my complaints seriously.
If the Bishop and Jane Fisher had put even as much effort that they put into destroying me into my complaints instead of denying my complaints, then things might be very different now.
My complaints being dealt with now is ridiculous, the damage is done and the church of England are using me as a pawn in their ‘look at us caring so much’ game, to my detriment, which is a continuation of bad safeguarding practice, because behind the scenes, here I am screaming with pain while they ‘care’ in the press, and publish damaging reports and apologies and look good for themselves while further damaging me.
The korris report makes F. and J. and other problems into a blur, as if that was nothing to do with the church or even relevant, and puts the blame on me, even though, those of you reading the information transfer blog will see that that is not the case, why was Jane Fisher allowed to make it look as if it was the case? And make me look bad to boot? There are a number of emails and my statements that make it clear that J.’s interference in Jersey is what brought that F. and J. matter into things and that jane Fisher was made aware of the matter -having not apparently been before and there are emails from her saying that what F. did is wrong. And on the night that Bob Key called me wicked and said I wasn’t abused, J. said that I maliciously reported people when I didn’t get what I wanted, which does not add up or connect to anything but it damned me, she added that she had had to work really hard to ‘clear F.’s name’, this indicates that the Diocese did some sort of attempt at investigation, but F. remained in church positions as R. did. If J. thought F. was innocent, why did she tell me that Sally had complained of him abusing her and why did she explain his impotence to me when I told her he had told me he was impotent? He told me he he lost his erection when he penetrated a woman, and when I told J. that, she said he became impotent when she started to refuse him sex because of his temper. So, why did the Korris report, obviously checked or advised by Jane Fisher, make this out to be an irrelevant part of the past and my fault? When in reality the M.s and their liason with the Keys and A’s was an important part of the Jersey nightmare, because they made it much worse for me, ganging up on me to make me out just to be a troublemaker.
The way jane Fisher has vilified me for the M.s and Lihous without interviewing me about them, or arranging a competent and reasonable person to do so, is disgusting.
The way Jane Fisher sent an email round behind my back on my return from Jersey and didn’t tell me that I was ‘known about’ and shunned, while I was shunned, is disgusting.
The way Jane Fisher apparently sent that email or another to J., who, having no professional boundaries at all, would have shared it with F. and her family, and who forwarded that email to Anne, who started on about how ‘Jane Fisher hadn’t thought I would be back so soon’, this was a horrifying way to have my friendship with Anne, which had been 10 years, to end just before she died, with Jane Fisher and J.’s intervention. There is no safeguarding or inclusion in what was done to me. F. M. laughed at me in the street with the ********‘s, ******* ****** having been one of the people who I told about F. abusing me not long after it had happened, and ******* ***** also being someone who, not trained in counselling, had tried to counsel me, and had restricted my friendship with her and ***** into sessions where I sat there and she pried and tried to give her opinion, including telling me that as a woman I should not be doing the heavy gardening work I did. But Jane Fisher didn’t vilify the ******’s or F., she tried to tell me that being laughed at in the street was ‘not humiliating’, believe me, it was, and everything I suffered because of Jane Fisher’s cover-ups and vilification of me was humiliating.
Jane Fisher did not handle my complaints about F., J., the A’s any of my side of things competently, and she harmed my life relentlessly and ignored my feelings and the damage she was doing to me.
I just published on the information transferral one of a number of Jane Fisher’s empty or inane emails that she sent me. She makes me out to be harassing her, but not only did she repeatedly send empty or meaningless email, perhaps while drinking, but she also made my life a misery through emails and texts and got me into trouble for my response, and I was not given adequate time or facilities to provide my defence and my side of things, which would have involved me using a computer and even being in a fit state to speak, which I wasn’t after police brutality and shock and asthma attacks and being locked in when I suffer claustrophobia.
The letter that prevented anyone providing me with pastoral care on my return from jersey to Winchester was not only grossly wrong and defamatory but was also Jane Fisher’s way of ensuring that hers and the Bishop’s side of things was the side that was heard.

The prevention of a perfectly safe and workable pastoral relationship with J** at Romsey Abbey was not only grossly wrong and harmful but also broke my heart. I had done no wrong there when Tim Sledge came shouting and accusing because he told me he had ‘heard from Jane Fisher’, the church are supposed to support and provide pastoral care for abuse victims, and Jane Fisher once again prevented pastoral care, in a very nasty way, worse than in Jersey where her opinion and her interference had caused me to be rejected and then her interference in my friendship with Tracy and then her failed attempts to influence **** and ********. Jane Fisher has treated me as if I was an abuser, because of her personal grudge because I stood up to her, and has done nothing about the real abusers, and this side of a criminal record, I see no point in this new ‘just-for-show’ investigation which is once again exonerating Jane Fisher.

The lack of correct safeguarding information and knowledge in the Diocese all along is one of the reasons I have had problems over the years, not just my own disabilities. Jane Fisher has a discriminatory policy banning vulnerable people from clergy houses, but J. crossed that boundary and even got money from the council for keeping me, she also crossed boundaries by going from being my counsellor to taking me home as I reminded her of the step-daughter she had lost, taking me to church, home and allowing F. to abuse me and blaming me, Jane Fisher didn’t come onto the scene until Jersey and damned me for J.’s side of things, even though Jane Fisher is responsible for not providing safeguarding training or awareness and not doing anything even though a number of church people knew I had said F. had abused me, and everyone knew I was living at the Rectory.

The same with the Lihous, everyone knew Jill was mentally ill and had a history of some quite concerning behaviours, including wishing and hoping her own daughter, Heather (Warren) would have an accident or die. But Jill and George took me in and people are claiming I was their lodger, but Jill wanted me to stay and was ‘heartbroken’ (her words) when I left and wanted me ‘home every weekend’ which disrupted my new life and other friendships until she changed it without consulting me, to every other weekend, and wanted to phone me on Fridays which was not convenient to me, instead of phoning me every day as she had done. I am damned for this without Jane Fisher even asking. And in every troubled relationship I have had in the Winchester Diocese, the other people have been severely troubled themselves. But jane Fisher has done nothing about my side of things and the fact that all these breaches of safeguarding occurred with these people with their own troubled histories, but has damned me and had me treated like an abuser with secret policies about me in churches and with people who have hurt me.

Jane Fisher is responsible for the lack of uniformity of safeguarding in the Winchester Diocese, and is responsible for all harm I have suffered as a result of lack of knowledge of safeguarding and lack of information so that no concerns were ever raised until I raised concerns to the Bishop when Bob Key tried to close my complaint down in Jersey.

Jane Fisher has hurt and damaged me, to the point of no recovery, there is no coming back from the one-sided criminal record that she has got me, she did bring charges against me in Sussex, not for the church or the Diocese, but because she liased with Bishop Scott-Joynt and they were apparently trying to have me put away as insane, again, as if the last beating and detention that failed to have me put away was not enough and as if the last assesment of me that said I was not mentally ill could be incorrect. I cannot recover my life after the depth and severity of damage to me by Jane Fisher. I cannot go on writing about it indefinitely and it has traumatized me to write this, but she did in every way fail me, fail to safeguard me and subject me to tremendous damage through negligence, failure in promoting safeguarding in the Diocese, deliberate harm to me in order to protect herself, the Bishop and the Diocese, untruths, maligning me and allowing me to be maligned, promoting practices that were not good safeguarding - ie trying to get me to sit with Anne ‘s remains in an empty church at night so that F. M. could go to Anne’s funeral in peace; and meeting with me alone when she knew how severe my dislike for her was, protecting wrongdoers and excusing them and damning me for my anger, and her total and utter lack of understanding of how abuse victims react and how church communites treat abuse victims, and her lack of understanding of learning difficulties and disabilities. Basically an exhaustive list, just as this complaint is exhaustive and should be treated as a snapshot of the whole picture of the terrible way Jane Fisher has behaved and treated me.

This is a formal complaint about safeguarding and should be responded to promptly and correctly, if Jane Fisher is left working unsupervised with vulnerable people after this complaint, then the Bishop is liable.
A final note, Jane Fisher told me she gets hundreds of complaints a month about abuse and misconduct. Considering how many churches those hundreds of complaints are coming from, that is unacceptable, why is the Diocese not promoting proper safeguarding or employing a competent safeguarding team? Jane Fisher’s comments were made to me in 2009, how many more people have been ruined by Jane Fisher being in sole charge and no proper safeguarding promoted within the Diocese? The church of England is a government department, if even one government department had hundreds of complaints of abuse every month something would be very wrong, I can only hope that other diocese are doing better, and in my experience they seem to, once I left Winchester I crossed many diocese and experienced the church of England elsewhere for the first time in my life and realised just how much the problem lay with the Diocese of Winchester. I saw excellent safeguarding in Chichester and several other diocese, one other diocese with a bit of a problem like the Diocese of Winchester but even there they were better orientated to disabled and isolated people.

12/08/2013

Formal complaint against Jane Fisher, part 2.

Dear Church of England , while you/your police etc are viewing this constantly at the moment remember, no amount of viewing will allow you to use this to whitewash and cover up more, as this isn't the full story, and no investigation that omits me is valid.
Every day that you have employed an abuser or kept me living in fear is your liability, is there any end in sight, apart from you having me beaten and detained to cover up for yourselves? And if not, why do you breach the trade descriptions act by claiming to be a Christian organization?

Comprehensive formal complaint against Jane Fisher of the Winchester Diocese, her supervising Bishop and Diocesan Safeguarding failures:

This is not the same statement as the one you will have received previously but is supplementary to it.

My name for the purposes of this complaint is ***********, this is the name that my parents gave me, although they interchanged our surnames so my family sometimes went by the surname ‘******’, which confused me because I am on the autistic spectrum. I changed my name in the last few years to protect me from Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester and the bad record that they gave me which prevented me from seeking help or rehabilitating, as, when the bad and one-sided record I was given was looked up,   I was treated like dirt, forced upon and left very hurt and thus unable to heal.
So although I am no longer legally ‘*********’, I am using my own name because the longer Jane Fisher does not know my new name, which I hope that she doesn’t, the longer I will feel safe. And everyone involved in the church and Diocese matter know me as **************

I am:
Homeless and destitute
On the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum
Mildly physically disabled
Said to have learning difficulties
Psychologically damaged by my upbringing
Diagnosed as having Post Traumatic Stress

These classifications mean that I am said to be a ‘vulnerable adult’.

I am writing this letter to continue my formal complaint that you received recently.
This complaint has been constructed using the ‘promoting a safe church’ documents produced by the church of England as a guideline to all members of the church of England and particularly those who work in pastoral care, to raise awareness of the needs and inclusion of vulnerable adults in the church and prevent abuse.

I am writing as a result of having suffered and still suffering every kind of damage at the hands of the Diocese of Winchester and Jane Fisher, the director for safeguarding and inclusion. I understand that this document is long and is heavy weather, but the level and depth of wrong in the safeguarding or lack of it in the Diocese is severe.

The introduction to this document is a good place to start and contains very relevant information to my complaint.

From the Introduction: There is a particular responsibility for members of the Church to ensure that all people are treated with respect and that any complaints against church workers are dealt with promptly and fairly. Safeguarding adults within the Church is based
on sound pastoral care and good practice.

Jane Fisher certainly didn’t treat me with respect, she spent her time trying to teach me lessons and she never did deal with my complaints. She is a safeguarding and inclusion director, and her intervention behind the scenes as if I was the abuser, left me alienated over and over again, while she did not do the same to RA and FM, who were left laughing and included in churches while I was left on the streets, being spoken about and to in a horrible way, again as if I was the abuser, Jane Fisher knew that R had been saying he was cleared, and yet she set the police on me and refused to give evidence for me to take civil legal action about R. saying he was cleared, she said it was all ‘third-party’ and told me she would speak to him about what he was saying in six weeks time!
Jane Fisher ruined me in front of my unpunished abusers who have kept positions in the church. She has never treated me with respect or dignity but has repeatedly violated me in a way I will never recover from, I cannot trust anyone because whichever way I turned and no matter where I tried to settle and belong, especially after my return from Jersey, Jane Fisher intervened.

And example being of how Juli Wills took me to her home and invited me to stay, not telling me that she was friends with the Scott-Joynts and knew Jane Fisher, and when I found out she said that Jane had said I would react like that, and she trapped me in her house as I tried to escape, I forced my way free from her and ran without shoes on through the snow on the road, it was Christmas eve night, and in her statement to the court in West Sussex, Jane Fisher claimed I contacted her 40 times that night but omitted that she had set up a situation that caused me huge distress and broke my heart at Christmas.
She also claimed that that night I contacted her at a time when I was actually asleep in a church that had been left unlocked after midnight mass.
That Christmas was hell for me because of Jane Fisher, it is one of many wounds. And she made it so much worse by going to the homeless centre about me just after Christmas even though I did not go there because of her and the Bishop, and leaving things there that I had left at Juli’s house, while my homeless friend who was at the homeless centre was used to pass messages to me about Jane going there with my things, which broke my trust for him instantly.

Such shocking and constant breaches of my privacy make Jane Fisher an abuser, no matter what her excuses, I had made it very clear after the verbal attack from the Vicar at Romsey Abbey not long before Christmas when Jane Fisher made contact with him, that I was furious at the Diocese’s continued involvement and that they had destroyed me and had no further part to play in my life.

So jane Fisher herself has abused me by these constant violations, I should have been made aware when Juli Wills took me home that she was liasing with Jane Fisher. I am sure jane Fisher can come up with excuses and denials but when I confronted Juli after my conversation with Lou scott-Joynt she made it quite clear that she was in contact with the Scott-Joynts and Jane Fisher and was in agreement with them about me.
The psychological damage from that was huge and is one of the reasons I will not live indoors or trust anyone who tries to help me.
At Romsey Abbey I was receiving perfectly safe, helpful and legitimate pastoral support and Jane Fisher wiped that out in the most shameful and horrible way, telling the Vicar I had ‘caused trouble’ at *******, and I replied did he also know about F. .abusing me and  crossing boundaries? No, he decided to shout at me for Jane Fisher because his curate used to work for  and she ‘knew about me’ even though she was not there when I was in the ******* community and J. used to malign her to me behind her back, saying she was emotionally incompetent and ‘had problems’, basically when J. once again involved herself in my personal life without leave, talking to the A‘s, and it came out that F. had abused me, because R. knew that from questioning me, J. branded me trouble, before that she was maligning me as she maligned everyone and sharing personal details as she did with everyone’s.
But who was branded trouble to Romsey Abbey? Me, and I had done nothing, and the way I was shouted at and shamed was shocking.

The Vicar tried to claim that his curate, J**, had not offered pastoral care because of her psychotherapy skills, he tried to withdraw it then and there when he shouted at me, again I was treated like an abuser, worse than an abuser, because my abusers remained in the church community, supported, not maligned, unpunished. Basically what Jane Fisher has done to me for five years is a reinforcement of what J. did to me, told me I am worse than a sexual abuser. And it does not matter what Jane Fisher comes out with and says this is rubbish, I am the one on the receiving end, I am the one who has been tricked, trapped, shouted at, accused, openly called someone who causes trouble and this has been done by people who have done wrong, and safeguarding and inclusion director, Jane Fisher!

Jane Fisher is responsible for:

Allowing J. M. to cross counselling boundaries and take me from college and leaving me with a church couple who I do not know if they were CRB checked
She is responsible for allowing J.’s crossing counselling boundaries to take over my college course and put me in a dangerous and isolated placement working only with strange men who were not CRB checked
Allowing J. M. to take over my housing situation and engineer my termination of my college placement, swapping her counselling role for her Vicar role
Allowing J. to take me to her own home to live, knowing that her husband had been accused by his daughter of sexual abuse and that the daughter had been abandoned, disabled and alone in Lincoln due to F. M.s temper and making J. choose between him and his daughter.
Allowing J. to claim benefits from the council or social services while I was in her home and presumably not letting church house know this.
Allowing me to be sexually abused by F. M. and be told it was my fault/had not happened, as happened to F.’s daughter, who’s former name was Sally (Sally-Anne) but who changed her name, according to J., just as I have.
Allowing this because F. and J. worked for Lincoln Cathedral and when Sally accused F. of abuse it was not investigated. J. said Sally told lies and she had followed them at the Psychiatric hospital and nothing had happened. So J. told me I was to blame for the abuse and it wasn’t abuse, and where was Jane Fisher, where was she when I had told maybe four members of the congregation about F. abusing me? Waiting in the wings to brand me a troublemaker and condemn me as causing trouble in J.’s church and parish where I did hundreds of hours of voluntary work for J., the church and community and had friends, until Jane Fisher wiped those friends out later when I returned from Jersey.
Jane Fisher is responsible for no-one even knowing what safeguarding was in the D. Benefice, and so four people did not do anything, well if you include J., F. and her parents and sister as well nine people did not do anything about me being abused by F., and so, why did Jane Fisher make me out to be trouble? Has anyone seen the emails of evidence that I was still friends with J. and stayed over with her while I was in Jersey? if not, get those emails from Bob or Christine.
So, Jane Fisher labelled me trouble rather than ever deal with F. abusing me, which she still hasn’t and there is a ludicrous cover-up in the Korris report about this. Jane Fisher labelled me trouble because of J., rather than hear about how I helped in that benefice in the churches and community, but no-one in the Winchester Deanery or Romsey Abbey or Jersey were given my side of things or told that F. was an abuser, the Vicar at Romsey Abbey did not know about that when I told him when he was shouting about me causing trouble in the D benefice.
J. not only took me home, let me be abused and told me I was to blame, she did not ‘respond well’ as the guidelines state, she blamed me, she also did not report the matter to Jane fisher. I did but not until J. was working hard with the Keys and the A.s in Jersey to absolve them, and I reported R. first and then F., to jane Fisher, who was all nicey-nice but fobbed me off about the way the Keys and the A.s had behaved and made excuses for them and would not deal with my complaint, Jane Fisher is responsible for damage by neglect for not dealing with my complaint and damage by bullying me for making excuses for wrongdoers, blaming me, excusing herself eventually by claiming she didn’t understand autism, and never doing anything about my complaint but to this day the A.s and M.s remain unrestricted while I am ruined. Good safeguarding of a vulnerable person? No. no matter what excuses she makes, Jane Fisher has never safeguarded or included me, she has driven me out, blamed me and absolved the wrongdoers.

The ‘promoting a safe church’ document states:
A definition of mistreatment, abuse and harm:

Mistreatment is defined in No Secrets as ‘a violation of an individual’s human
and civil rights by any other person or persons’. In a church context it could be
any misuse of a pastoral or managerial relationship, from the most serious to less
severe behaviour, which lies at its root. The term covers abuse, bullying and
harassment. These categories are not watertight and can merge into one another.
Harm is what results from mistreatment or abuse

Jane Fisher has violated my human rights, those rights to live a life free from abuse and neglect, because her treatment of me through maligning me and hurting me in so many ways and her refusal to deal with my complaints and her concerted efforts to have me incarcerated despite her knowing I suffered claustrophobia, amount to abuse and neglect. She was also fully aware of how much her interference behind my back on my return from Jersey to Winchester was hurting me.
Jane fisher’s constant interference in my life, friendships, church attendance (treating me as if I was an abuser and having a secret email sent round so that I was shamed and not allowed to engage fully with church people again after I left Jersey), her meetings about me with authorities without my permision that hampered my own applications for housing and my self-referral to the night shelter and day centre, her use of the fact that the Bishop was patron of the night shelter and her continued interference that humiliated me, for example I left night shelter and homeless centre due to the interference and I had the Vicar at Romsey Abbey shouting at me that I was to go back there, because he had been ‘told I had left’ by Jane Fisher, basically the way Jane Fisher violated me is a disgrace, I was freed from prison and my life from then on should have been mine to rebuild, and Jane Fisher violated my privacy and humiliated me in an irreparable way, prevented me from engaging with services and had no right to have any meetings about me or contact with the homeless services and other services about me, she prevented me from getting help or settling and had me brutalized and locked up for responding, that is harrasment and abuse of me, and yet I am the one who has been punished for it.
Jane Fisher’s aim in her forceful and slanderous intervention is unclear, her achievement was to have me re-destroyed and devastated and to add to the criminal record she had already got me for fighting for her to be withdrawn and fighting for my complaint to be dealt with.

The ‘promoting safe churches’ guide says:
Everyone needs the sustaining reassurance that they are treated with the respect
that is due to all human beings made in the image of God and precious to God.
Those who have challenging personal situations must receive the resources they
need to live independent lives with dignity. Everyone needs to know that they
can live safely in a non-threatening environment.

There is nothing remotely Christian or respectful in what Micheal Scott-Joynt and Jane Fisher between them did to me, nothing remotely caring. And Michael Scott-Joynt claimed in court that they had ‘been trying to help me get housed’ even though I did not at any point permit them to do so and my attempts at being housed, in Winchester and in Romsey were disrupted by their forceful interventions so that I aborted those efforts, as I would not be housed with any imput from the church, and the record that they got me is and has been the greatest barrier to being housed that I have had. If you tell the council that you are bad on record, which broke my heart with shame to do, they permanently record you as bad and put you in the offenders place with real bad people, which is dangerous like the night shelter was, especially because when I reported being bullied by the real bad people at the night shelter, Jane Fisher and the Bishop had already got their intervention in and I was treated like dirt and so was my complaint. I was terrified in the night shelter and because Fisher had given me a bad name to the manager, my fear and distress were treated with contempt. I have never been able to explain to anyone why I am bad, or that I am bad, because the shame and distress is overwhelming, and yet the people who destroyed me have been allowed to go on hurting me and violating me and getting me done for reacting. I have not and probably never will believe in Christians, church or pastoral help again.

The promoting a safe church policy states:

Christian communities should be places where all people feel welcomed,
respected and safe from abuse. The Church is particularly called by God to
support those at the margins, those less powerful and those without a voice in our
society. The Church can work towards creating a safe and non-discriminatory
environment by being aware of some of the particular situations that create
vulnerability. Issues which need to be considered include both the physical
environment and the attitudes of workers. A person who might be considered
vulnerable has the right to:

● be treated with respect and dignity;
● have their privacy respected;
● be able to lead as independent a life as possible;
● be able to choose how to lead their life;
● have the protection of the law;
● have their rights upheld regardless of their ethnicity, gender, sexuality,
impairment or disability, age, religion or cultural background;
● be able to use their chosen language or method of communication;
● be heard

My responses:

I have not been treated with respect and dignity, from the M.s to the Lihous to the A.s and Keys and Jane Fisher, especially Jane Fisher, I have had no privacy, especially not in my personal and work life, and especially what Jane Fisher did to me on my return from Jersey to the UK, basically everyone in Winchester knew Jane Fisher and the Bishop’s side of my business, and that spread to Romsey, I was ashamed to be alive, to walk down the street, I was treated as if I was an abuser, I was spoken about in a horrifying way, notably at St. Peters, where the unrepentant woman said she did not even know that I was autistic or abused, when I confronted her about what she was saying to someone else about me behind my back but unluckily in my earshot, about how nasty and abusive I had been to the Bishop.
My privacy has not been respected, I have already been through that in detail, my privacy was ripped up and thrown away and I am a private person, I remain deeply ashamed and I do not know where my human rights went in the way I was slandered and violated by Jane Fisher in Jersey and Winchester.
To be able to live as independent a life as possible. Jane Fisher’s violations meant that there were attempts to shove me into a psychiatric hospital and residential homes, neither of which would benefit me, I am autistic and very solitary and like to be alone outdoors, my brief stay in a community home when I was young showed that I do not benefit from such an environment but get dragged down and depressed by it and it does not help me, I have only ever been traumatized and autistic and attempts by Jane Fisher to take my independence from me have left me scared. Even now I fear for my freedom and always will, which is why I stay out here where I am not trapped.
Being able to choose how to live, Jane Fisher and the former Bishop tried to force me off the streets and tried to intervene over and over in my life, causing huge damage, and they have violated that right to choose how to live.
Having the protection of the law? Well, because the former Bishop and Jane Fisher have repeatedly had me brutalized and locked up, I will always live in fear of the police and if I am assaulted I cannot report it as I would not be taken seriously, I could be detained and I will be treated badly because of the record they got me, which included lies.
My rights have not been upheld, I have been shown that I have no rights, I am a non-human because of the severity of the way Jane Fisher and the Bishop wrecked my life and got me a record.
In the police cells when I was too frightened to speak, I used sign language and they could not be bothered to get an enterpreter. In all police detentions my side of things could not be communicated effectively because I am autistic, have communication problems, was shocked by the brutality and did not have a paper and pen and time to tell my side of the story.
To be heard? Plain and simple, I never have been, I have been living in fear and my side of things is not on any record.

Comments on the paragraph 2.2, no sensitive or informed pastoral care was ever offered to me. Jane Fisher treated me like dirt. Tracy was being an extremely effective support without being elected to be so, until Jane Fisher intervened.
The only offer of support was ‘counselling’ which was not acceptable or appropriate, and the offer was made by Jane Fisher through the police who she had just used against me and scarred me for life. That was sickening and remains sickening.

My complaints were not responded to without delay.

St.Andrews did not manage the risk of R. A., nor was it managed after I made a complaint and Jane Fisher was aware of the situation and was verbally battering me and not responding appropriately to me.

Paragraph 2.3 of promoting safe churches:

The church should;Seek to work in a non-abusive way that respects the rights of individuals to enjoy privacy, dignity, independence and choice. See Good practice
recommendations.
● The way the Diocese don’t manage safeguarding, the way that I was treated in church and the way Jane Fisher treated me do not agree with this

Actively promote the empowerment and well-being of vulnerable people
through the services we provide. See Good practice recommendations.
Definitely not the case in Jersey, as described in my blog post about safeguarding in Jersey, the one written and posted last night. And remember who’s responsibility it is to ensure that safeguarding and inclusion are in place? Jane Fisher, she is responsible for the state of the churches in Jersey with regards to safeguarding and she is responsible for the mental abuse I suffered as well as the sexual abuse from R., who had a history of misconduct and was not under proper supervision.

Ensure rigorous recruitment practices to deter those who actively seek
vulnerable people to exploit or abuse, including taking up references and
using CRB checks. See Procedure 1.

R. gained his church positions at St. Andrews despite his history. F. and J. also had history, so did the Lihous.

Actively promote an organizational culture within which all those who
express concern will be treated seriously and will receive a positive response
from management. See Procedure 2.

I wasn’t taken seriously about F., or about R. when I went to the Dean.

Ensure that staff and volunteers understand that vulnerable people can be
abused and that they know what to do if they think that someone is being
abused. See Procedure 2 and Appendix 2.

St. Andrews do not appear to have had any safeguarding training prior to Jane Fisher’s usual ‘shut the stable door after the horse has bolted’ talk about abuse.

Ensure that all staff and volunteers receive appropriate training and support

See above, no-one in any church I have been in appeared to have any knowledge of safeguarding or who to contact. One person had the idea of writing to the Bishop about F. and instead went to see J. and never did write to the Bishop, because no doubt, she told them I made it up. Anne Wiggle was appointed as safeguarding person in  L. church after Malcolm Eastlake was arrested and it was hushed up, this was despite J. sacking Anne as benefice administrator because was not putting in the correct comittment as she was too busy, incidentally Anne was replaced as benifice administrator by Roger Parsons, who ran off with a young woman who worked at the Diocese headquarters and left his wife to die of cancer. J. never slated him like she has slated me.


Have an internal policy, procedure and guidance on how managers, staff and
volunteers will deal with allegations of abuse, including allegations against
their own organization’s staff and volunteers. Ensure that the procedure
links to the local inter-agency procedure. See Procedure 2

The Diocese and churches do not seem to know anything about safeguarding policy, but that is because Jane Fisher is in charge and she is not competent. My complaints were not dealt with correctly, not dealt with at all.

Work in cooperation with the local Adult Services9
and the police when they
are investigating an allegation of abuse. See Procedure 2

Get the abuse victim beaten and locked up, Jane Fisher’s unique diocesan policy.

Identify a ‘lead officer’ who takes responsibility for training staff and
volunteers and updating procedures. See Section 2.4 Implementing a policy
in a diocese and Section 2.5 Implementing a policy in a parish.

That’ll be the day, if a rich diocese like Winchester can’t then does anywhere?

Confidentiality?
There has never been appropriate confidentiality, the only confidentiality was when people kept quiet about Malcolm Eastlake and F., my business was strewed the length and breadth of the Diocese, not by me as Jane Fisher tries to say, but by her and others.

It is recommended that each diocese appoint someone to act in respect of adults.
The duties of such a person would include helping people to understand the
nature of vulnerability, being the person to whom people in parishes can bring
their concerns, and promoting the training of those working in this area. It is
likely that there is already in post someone who has the interests of adults with
particular vulnerabilities as part of their remit. They could liaise with the child
protection adviser, especially in regard to referrals and recruitment decisions. In
some dioceses it may be appropriate, possible and cost-effective for the child
protection adviser to take on a role in the safeguarding of adults. Such a lead
person in the diocese should discuss this policy with the member of staff with
responsibility for safeguarding adults in the adult services department of the local
authority (county, borough or unitary) in order that they understand local
procedures and are clear about the best route for reporting concerns. The
implementation of this policy will need to be monitored by the diocese from
time to time.

The Diocese do not have anyone who acts for vulnerable adults. Jane Fisher does not have a clue about vulnerable adults.

Paragraph 25. Implementing policy in the parish.

I have never seen in  any church  the Diocese of Winchester a proper implementation of safeguarding rules or policies.
J. crossing boundaries from being my counsellor to being the local vicar who intervened and put me on an unsuitable and dangerous farm placement and took me home when she knew about allegations against her husband previously and what he had done to his daughter with his temper, Malcolm Eastlake had already received reprimands for tactility with children and remained working with children and youth at church, no safeguarding policy or rules in any church I have known in the diocese, I worked with children in the churches when the churches themselves didn’t have CRB for me, the school did, no sign of any implementation of safeguarding in J. and F.’s actions or in Jersey at all.
No records kept in the D Benefice
It is clear that J. either did not know or did not care about safeguarding, an example is how she got F. to drive me to events even when she knew about the abuse.

Good Practice Recommendations 1.

 Helping in such a way as to maximize a person’s independence. People with
additional needs can and do lead active and fulfilled lives but some may need
support and resources to do so.
A lot of what I went through encouraged dependence and especially in the case of the A.s, disability.

Always respecting the person and all their abilities.
In St. A’s I was made to feel disabled and useless.

● Recognizing the choices people make even if they may appear risky.
My choice to leave the night shelter and sleep rough rather than go on being hurt and in flashbacks to the horror of prison, was not accepted by Jane Fisher, and her forcing on me since has done lasting damage.

● Giving people the highest level of privacy and confidentiality possible in the
circumstances.
The opposite has been my experience throughout my time in the Diocese of Winchester. And I am a private person, but do the wrongdoers get reprimanded? No, I do for getting angry about repeated breaches of my privacy.
● Including everyone in decisions affecting their life.
Did Jane Fisher include me in any decisions and meetings she had about my life? No, the first I heard of anything was from the police brutalizing me or other people. I died of shame.
● Creating an environment within the Church that can include everyone.
Despite Jane Fisher claiming she would be happy for me to attend any church in Winchester when I returned from Jersey, her interference behind my back meant both that I was isolated and shunned and that I did not trust anyone, especially when I found out about her interference through shunnings, gossip or phonecalls about me or attempts to force me back towards housing.

Privacy and
confidentiality are important to everyone and especially people who are
dependent on others for aspects of their everyday living.

Say no more.

All church workers have a duty of care towards those to whom they minister.
National and diocesan good practice guidelines and the procedures in this
document should be followed to ensure that insurance cover is maintained. The
insurers should be contacted as soon as it is clear that a claim may be made
against a diocese or parish

Worldly things like insurance get in the way of Christianity, I guess St. ********, L. invalidated their insurance in 2001 or 2002 didn’t they?

Prevention of abuse:
Prevention is best achieved by both the careful training of workers and the
provision of supervision or mentoring for all those working with vulnerable
people. Church workers need to understand that they hold a position of power
and influence even if they do not feel that that is the case.
Prevention can be particularly difficult with those who may be vulnerable,
because of the range of people who are in contact with them and the variety of
ways in which churches and others try to be of help or befriend people who
otherwise would be isolated. The desire to provide a safe environment should
not get in the way of allowing people to develop their own friendships and
contacts – some of which may be felt to be risky. If people are working together
in groups this can be one way in which harmful behaviours can be prevented.
This is not, however. always the case and there have been many instances of a
culture of abusive behaviour or attitudes developing in organizations or amongst
groups of workers. Risks are increased when people have individual contact with
those who are vulnerable.

The Diocese of Winchester appears to have a very discriminatory policy that has been repeated back to me a few times and is never any less hurtful and snubbing - vulnerable, homeless, disabled or in any way marginalized people are not allowed in the homes of clergy. Again, this policy has repeatedly not been known to clergy I have been in contact with until jane Fisher has told them about it, apart from one clergy who explained it to me without knowing about me from jane Fisher and told me it was a blanket policy and she only knew I was homeless and thus she could not take me home.
This policy may well be part of why the Harkins turned their backs on the pastoral care they previously offered, without explanation, but not necessarily, they were friends with the Dean. This policy is why Tracy turned me away after inviting me home so many times, and that wounded me as no explanation was made at the time. Damaging to vulnerable people to protect clergy and the Diocese. There are other incidences of this policy possibly causing problems and not being explained to me.
The policy was explained to me by someone who did not know me well but had been told by the diocese that as clergy they were not allowed to invite vulnerable people home. Contrast this hurtful discriminatory policy that is not known by all clergy but is implemented suddenly with no word to the vulnerable person when it becomes known, with R. A. and his wife going to tea with the Vicar throughout my complaint and my time in Jersey and R.A. working in the vicar’s garden with children while the Vicar was away.  Also, if this secret exclusion of vulnerable but welcome mainstream abusers policy was always there and often not known about, did J. M. know of it when she took me home to her husband’s temper and sexual behaviour?
Jane Fisher is ultimately responsible for the emotional damage that this policy has caused me, in the cases of me being suddenly shunned when it was made known to clergy, or because of the damage done by it not being made known to clergy. I do not know what Jane Fisher does all day but she doesn’t seem to have a uniform and properly known and implemented safeguarding policy in the Diocese. And that is to the detriment of vulnerable people, including me and I personally am complaining, but you need to register the fact that so few vulnerable people have a voice, no other vulnerable adult would stand up to Jane Fisher as I am doing, so I speak for us all, Jane Fisher is not fit to be in charge, her behaviour, actions, attitude, lack of consistency, words, everything, are damaging to vulnerable people and she should not be in her position. They have no voice so I speak for them, anyone who has silently endured direct or indirect harm as a result of Jane Fisher.
The Diocese of Winchester does not prevent abuse.



Guidelines for those in positions of Trust with vulnerable people:




GP2.1 Pastoral relationships

Exercising any kind of ministry involves workers developing an understanding of
themselves and how they relate to others, how they increase the well-being of
others and how they ensure their own well-being and safety. People in positions
of trust necessarily have power, although this may not be apparent to them,
therefore respecting professional boundaries is particularly important. Many
pastoral relationships can become intertwined with friendships and social
contacts, making this guidance even more necessary.

● Church workers should exercise particular care when ministering to persons
with whom they have a close personal friendship or family relationship.
J. M. was originally my consellor but made a decision that she was my friend, then described herself a ‘surrogate mother’ to me while telling me of her step-daughter, Sally, she was happy for me to call her ‘mammy’ although I grew out of it, she continued to be a friend and ‘like a mum, but also interfered a lot in my personal and work life, she crossed boundaries many times by telling people things about me and things I had told her, despite her being my former counsellor and also my vicar as well as my friend, during the Jersey matter, she breached confidences to F. and her family, making them treat me badly as they got her usual spiel about me being seductive and R. being taken in etc, and she then referred to me as ‘part of her work’.
R. A. called himself Daddy and said I was his little daughter, he also said in the end about ‘talking to Vicar **** about if he could still work with me’.
Jill Lihou called herself my carer, even though the Lihous were my friends and they had arranged with me to live with them.
Where was Jane Fisher? Waiting to condemn me for it all from their side of things.
● Church workers should be aware of the dangers of dependency in pastoral
and professional relationships and seek advice or supervision when these
concerns arise.
Did anyone seek advice when I became dependent? I have a tendency to dependence and so it is better for me to be as I am now, completely independent because if someone takes over my life as all mentioned above apart from Jane, did, I let them take the lead and I become dependent and wait to be told what to do. All of these people took me over and took me into their homes. Jane Fisher’s discriminatory policy did not seem to be known or upheld.
It is to be noted that my more healthy relationships were with people who were not in it to meet their own needs, (names here redacted, most of these friends were turned against me by diocesan intervention).

● Church workers who exercise a healing ministry should be trained in the
theology and non-intrusive practice of that work.11
Was R. trained, he did not act as if he was or he ignored his training, he did claim that what he was doing to me was healing, even the sexual bits. Did he really not know that that could never be right?

● Church workers should recognize their limits and not undertake any
ministry that is beyond their competence or role (e.g. therapeutic
counselling, deliverance ministry, counselling victims of abuse and domestic
violence, or their perpetrators, or giving legal advice). In such instances the
person should be referred to another person or agency with appropriate
expertise.
Jill being my ‘carer’ when she herself was ill? R. trying to heal my abuse by abusing me? Jane Fisher made me out to be bad but she runs a Diocese as a safeguarding officer and she has not safeguarded me against these things! And I have ended up damaged and she has attacked me further instead of taking responsibility for herself.
● Church workers should avoid behaviour that could give the impression of
inappropriate favouritism or the encouragement of inappropriate special
relationships.
R., J.?
● Church workers should treat those with whom they minister or visit with
respect, encouraging self-determination, independence and choice.
Sadly I was not treated like that by R. or Jill.
● Care should be taken when helping with physical needs, washing and
toileting, always respecting the choices of the individual concerned.
Not necessarily relevant.
● Pastoral relationships may develop into romantic attachments and such
situations should be handled sensitively. Workers need to recognize such a
development and make it clear to both the person concerned and a
supervisor or colleague. Alternative arrangements should be made for the
ongoing pastoral care of the person concerned.
Not necessarily relevant.







Pastoral conversations and interviews and record keeping in brief:

The Dean of Jersey and his wife did not conduct their interview of me correctly but that is known to the investigation and the Dean has been cleared by Tim dakin.
Did R. or J. or anyone keep any records? Did J. note or explain to Jane Fisher why she changed from counsellor into friend/surrogate mum/minister/me being work, and where the boundaries were? Because I never knew.
Who was mentoring or supervising J.’s relationship with me? Why have I been made to blame for wrong that came not just from my conditions but from lack of safeguarding or appropriate ministerial conduct?

GP 2.5 Sexual contact:

Church workers must not sexually abuse an adult or a child.

But they did, and I have been scapegoat for it.

Church workers must be responsible for their actions and understand how they can be misunderstood.

R. A. ‘took advice’ rather than explain to me that I had misunderstood. He never felt responsible for his actions to me or others, nor did F..

Responding to abuse disclosures:

What can I say? Both in the case of F. M. and the Case of R. A., the response has been appalling!
Again, no one has followed any proper procedures and Jane Fisher has accepted the attacks that have been made on my character in defence of such wrongdoing!


Care of adult abuse survivors in church:

The Diocese of Winchester does not care about adult abuse survivors.
The Diocese shuns abuse survivors
I am an abuse survivor and I have been treated like dirt by the Diocese of Winchester
The ‘promoting a safe church’ guide gives descritions of some behaviours expressed by abuse survivors, I show a lot of those behaviours and have been vilified for them by people who have done such wrong around safeguarding and abuse themselves!
I haven’t just lost trust due to abuse but due to the way the clergy and diocese have treated me, especially Jane fisher vilifying me and launching police attacks when I cried out because the distress and her ongoing hurt of me was so much.



GP4.4 Why didn’t you say so at the time?

Many survivors say nothing about the abuse for many years. Some have buried
their memories so deeply within themselves that they have ‘forgotten’ what
happened – especially if the abuse happened when they were very young.
Memories may be ‘triggered’ in a range of ways, for example:
● hearing about abuse on television;
● being in another abusive situation such as finding difficulties with a
domineering employer;
● being in a situation where they feel powerless;
● feeling vulnerable, ill, under stress, or suffering from burnout;
● the death of their abuser or of one of their carers;
● the birth of their own child.
Few victims can report their abuse close to the event and so often reported abuse
is about events of years ago, leading to difficulties with finding any proof of what
happened. It is often one person’s word against another, and the likelihood of the
survivor getting justice is slim. However, some cases do go to court, but the
experience can be devastating for both children and adults and they are likely to
need considerable support.

I do not feel understood about why I only told Jane Fisher about F. when I was in Jersey - J. makes it out to be because I am malicious etc, but she originally discouraged me from reporting him because she said it was my word against his and that nothing would be done and that I was to blame for it as well and I was ‘seductive’.
I reported F. in Jersey because I had not been able to or known how to before, because before I had also wanted to protect J. as I loved her (still do), and because The M.s were now involved with the A.s and Keys and J. was defending R. and his wife against me, as she always has had the attitude that victims are whiners and abusers are just victims themselves. I knew that if I did not report F., then he would be used against me to make out that I make false accusations against everyone. Which I do not.
R. knew about F. abusing me as he had made me talk about being abused.
So I knew I had to speak up.





GP4.5 Pastoral care of survivors
An adult (or indeed a child) disclosing abuse is in a vulnerable state. Above all
they need someone to listen to them – and also to believe them. They
may need to be ‘heard’ in different contexts and over several years.
If there is a complex pastoral situation when an adult discloses abuse (e.g. a
young person in their twenties accusing a church worker of sexually abusing
them), it would be appropriate to find some support for the different parties
involved, such as another survivor to support the person making the allegations.
There is no quick fix for healing from abuse and it is crucial that survivors:
● Are not pushed into forgiving too early. Forgiving their abuser/s is acomplex process, and considerable damage can be done by treating
forgiveness as something that they must do unreservedly and now.
My complaint was handled terribly by the Keys and Vicar and the damage is lasting.
St. Pauls tried to make me ‘instantly forgive, and Jane Fisher commented on that that forgiveness is a good way of healing, but I needed time and with everything going on, all the bad stuff, actual healing and forgiveness never really came about. I just blank the memories.

● Are not put in a position of feeling even more guilty than they already do.
Survivors tend to feel that the abuse was all their fault, particularly when
there was more than one abuser.
Yes, every church, person, the Keys and jane Fisher made me feel more guilty.
● Are accepted as they are, however full of anger they may be. Anger can be
seen as one step along the road to forgiveness – at least if they are angry they
are starting to accept that the abuse seriously affected them and this can be a
good starting point to move towards healing.
Oh, God how Jane Fisher slated me and smashed me down! And how she condoned other people for how they treated me when I could not be anything other than angry!
● Are given a sense that those within the church community who know about
the abuse are ‘with them’ along the road to recovery. The journey can be
very long and supporters are essential.
NOPE! The church community were as one against me! And still are! My abuser is loved and respected and reads lessons at the town church, I am slandered and spat on, homeless and a criminal for the safeguarding director who ruined me!
Survivors can benefit from professional counselling if that is available, but also
joining a self-help group can provide the kind of long-term support needed.
Survivors helping other survivors can be powerful and effective.
Counselling not being an option due to the depth of damage and because I am autistic, I benefit at last from psychology and yes I have benefited from survivors groups in the past. Only since I escaped Jane Fisher and changed my name though.


4.6 survivors and the church:



I suffer a lot of the problems listed in this paragraph, church will always be traumatic for me, not just because of abuse but because of the way Jane Fisher and other wrongdoers and supporters of the abusers have treated me.
I go to church and struggle and feel ashamed and to blame which causes a problem in itself and compounds everything, there is so much that causes flashbacks and reminds me, and no-one at all who can undo the way Jane Fisher and the Diocese have utterly invalidated me.

4.7 Responding well to survivors:

Destroying me was not a good response!
Lets get through this statement before this evening, it is dragging.

Handling a complaint against a church worker:

The Diocese of Winchester does not know how, they kept saying, for a year or so ‘we will do something soon’ while my abuser was laughing and remained in church positions while claiming he was cleared, and so I was shunned, the Korris report denies that because Jane Fisher made me out to be Paranoid, because she was not there and did not see my suffering.

Listening carefully and taking the complainant’s wishes into account, did anyone do that? No. Nothing was done about F. and in the case of the A.s, Key tried to close the complaint.
Jersey does not come under clergy discipline measures, so when, after all that time, Martyn Sanders said I had to put in a complaint under that measure, about the Keys and he said I had no evidence, I was furious, and then Joyce said I could not make a complaint under that measure in Jersey.
Talk about lack of clarity!

Human rights:

Jane Fisher has breached my human rights by her interference for so long, I am amazed she is still allowed near vulnerable people, let alone still failing to maintain safeguarding in Jersey.






Complaint against Jane Fisher under the ‘psychological abuse’ list, my complaints are the ones I have put in bold:

Emotional or psychological abuse
The use of threats or fear or the power of the carer’s or other adult’s position to
negate the vulnerable person’s independent wishes. Such behaviour can create
very real emotional or psychological stress. Bullying, sexual and racial harassment
would also come into this category if physical harm were not used. It includes
lack of privacy or choice, denial of dignity, deprivation of social contact or
deliberate isolation, making someone feel worthless, lack of love or affection,
threats, verbal abuse, humiliation, blaming, controlling, pressurizing, coercion,
fear, ignoring the person.

Other behaviours which may take place within a working relationship include
public or unreasonable criticism, insults and shouting, ignoring a person’s wishes
or point of view, setting unreasonable work targets, removing areas of
responsibility, undervaluing a person’s efforts.
Harassment may include name calling, victimization and ostracism, unwanted
sexual attention, stalking, compromising invitations or gifts, the display of images
that are racially or sexually offensive, the suggestion that sexual favours might
further promotion prospects.

Reactions to abuse:
feelings of helplessness;
● hesitation in talking openly;
● implausible stories;
● confusion or disorientation;
● anger without an apparent cause;
● sudden changes in behaviour;
● the person becoming emotionally upset or agitated;
● unusual behaviour (sucking, biting or rocking);
● unexplained fear;
● denial of a situation;
● the person becoming extremely withdrawn and non-communicative or nonresponsive;
● the adult telling you they are being verbally or emotionally abused.




Spiritual abuse in the Deanery of Jersey copied from the Spiritual aspects of abuse section in promoting a safe church:


Spiritual aspects of abuse
Churches need to be sensitive so that they do not, in their pastoral care, attempt
to ‘force’ religious values or ideas onto people, particularly those who may be
vulnerable to such practices. Within faith communities harm can be caused by
the inappropriate use of religious belief or practice; this can include the misuse of
the authority of leadership or penitential discipline, oppressive teaching, or
intrusive healing and deliverance ministries, which may result in vulnerable
people experiencing physical, emotional or sexual harm. If such inappropriate
behaviour becomes harmful it should be referred for investigation in the usual
way. Careful supervision and mentoring of those entrusted with the pastoral care
of adults should help to prevent harm occurring in this way. Other forms of
spiritual abuse include the denial to vulnerable people of the right to faith or the
opportunity to grow in the knowledge and love of God.

Changing the subject, some time back I read on the safeguarding section of the Diocese of Winchester’s website an article about autism, it was incongruent and incorrect and appeared to be there for show since Jane Fisher’s destroyal of me in Jersey.
Among other things it read ‘People with Asperger Syndrome need a lot of fuss And attention’ I was seething. Fuss and attention is the most distressing thing in the world!
Jane Fisher has links with Hampshire Autistic Society, which is why I would have nothing to do with them, she has done work in autism schools, she has helped to raise her friend’s autistic son, and yet she puts things like that on the website for show, she also claimed to me in jersey, after treating me like dirt, that she got it wrong because she didn’t understand autism. Do you think that is a good excuse for a senior safeguarding officer to make to someone they have damaged?
It is like Bob Key, in his position, not knowing correct safeguarding procedure.

Summary: this has been a very long and hefty complaint, drawing heavily on the church of England’s ‘promoting a safe church’ guidelines. Sometimes it has been hard to know what to put in or leave out. But the aim is to bring a full formal complaint against Jane Fisher, not just because she has personally treated me like dirt while working really hard to cover that up and make it look like she was only nice and I was all mad. But also to bring to your attention her incompetence in promoting and ensuring safeguarding throughout the Diocese, which has now been a problem to me for a very long time, and the combined effects of one lot of abuse and denial on top of another and being vilified by wrongdoers and not being properly looked after by safeguarding and has damaged me considerably.

This is a formal complaint.


09/08/13