macsas unhelpful intervention after worse than letting me down

I gather that this bunch of directionless idiots played a part in the illegal tracing, they certainly acted illegally in trying to have me captured and illegally sharing confidential information when I was homeless, adding to the distress and damage already done, and here they are brown-nosing me and the diocese, we should just give them toilets to clean.

what a bullshit of an apology, who the hell asked them! do they make an atom of sense about walking beside me? Not to me, no.

Just to assure you that since they sent me the email below, Macsas have gone out of their way to not help me, including blocking me, but they still send their newleter to me, oh how nice of them.
Fellow survivors share their dissatisfaction in that macsas does not actually help survivors, but spend their money and energy lobbying the government, and are as useful as a chocolate fireguard in respect of helping victims.
Macsas have not helped me, but have broken the law in their nasty and subversive actions in trying to get me captured in London, for no good reason and to no avail, what they achieved was alerting the diocese to where I was, involving my unstable family and also breaching my human rights, so, not much difference between them and the church of england!
presumably the vague reference to 'walking beside me' is to do with their illegal actions that have injured me badly on top of the church's injuries to me.

It stands out that macsas blatantly harmed me and let me down until the church launched their press attack in March last year, then as if in conjunction with the  Diocese, Macsas launched on me as well. I would always see macsas as an extension of the Diocese of Winchester and their harm, and have met other survivors who have been let down by them too.

ANOTHER POINT TO NOTE IS THAT MACSAS DID EXACTLY AS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DID, NOT ASKING OR CARING ABOUT MY CIRCUMSTANCES OR WHAT SUPPORT I WAS ALREADY RECEIVING, BUT GOING ON ABOUT HOW 'PEOPLE' WANTED TO SUPPORT ME IF I WOULD LET THEM!
HOW CAN MACSAS BE ANY MORE HELPFUL THAN, OR ANY LESS PATRONIZING AND USELESS THAN, THE CHURCH, WHEN THEY HAVE BEHAVED EXACTLY THE SAME AS, THE CHURCH?!

From:	MACSAS 1 (macsas1@hotmail.com) You moved this message to its current location.
Sent:	10 March 2013 09:11:23
To:	**********************************************

Dear ******

you may not read this but if you do there is news about Winchester Diocese and Jersey and the Dean and the Church warden. They have been suspended and there is a big investigation about how badly you were treated. Everyone agrees now that you have been hurt by them. The diocese and the new Bishop are sorry, the Archbishop is sorry, and they are investigaing the the Dean for not helping you when you went to him.

****** I am sorry MACSAS could not find a way to walk beside you when you came to us. We wanted to help but we should have walked with you as you are, not as we wanted you to be. I am sorry.

If you get this you don't have to answer. People want to know you are ok. People want to offer you support if you want it.

Anne Lawrence

MACSAS article in Church Times

She is speaking to closed ears, and who in their right mind listens to MACSAS, they are as aimless at the Church are. Also what on earth is the end bit about?

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,55.msg59106.html#msg59106

Quotes:

THERE is a real lack of understanding and empathy in the Church, and in society as a whole, for those children and vulnerable adults who have been emotionally damaged by the perpetrators of abuse. Survivors of abuse are often described as the walking wounded, who are in need of an "enlightened witness" to their journey through the dark night of the soul. This is what I do, as a psychotherapist working with survivors. This is what the Church must do, if it is to help the victim to thrive, not just to survive.

This is also what the Church must do if it is to help survivors of abuse by the clergy and by other sin a religious setting to engage with the therapeutic process, a painful journey into a tunnel that, I hope, one day, will lead to healing.

Survivors will not forget, and will bear the burden of their emotional lesions for ever. Some survivors may forgive the Church and the perpetrator, while others will lose their faith. As one of them put it: "I'll never darken the doorstep of a bloody church again. They bloody hurt me and rejected me when I needed help. How can I trust them? They didn't believe me. You know, mate, the priest ****ed me and so did the bloody Church."

As the barrister Anne Lawrence has suggested, the Church is "seeking to fix a problem before they know what the problem is. . . If they want to stop breaking people, they probably want to look at the fundamental problems within the institution that enables that to happen" (News, 28 June).

So, to address questions of safeguarding and risk-assessment, the Church needs to know whom it is safeguarding, and why.

Of course, church authorities should place at the top of their to-do list the need to safeguard vulnerable people. Of course, the Church should guard the boundary and reduce unnecessary risk wherever it can - but it consistently falls short because it fails to understand the nature of abuse and how to help survivors.

Like a rabbit caught in the headlights, the Church promises to make amends, to do better, to listen, to safeguard vulnerable people; but, when push comes to shove, it does not have the pastoral structures to deal with the consequences of abuse, to put right a wrong, or to engage in the healing process. What survivors need is dedicated therapy, whether provided in-house, or through specialist agencies, or by individual counsellors who understand their needs.


AS A society, we celebrate people of power. We worship their success in politics, business, sport, show business, and church life. But we fail to recognise that, in some cases, we are celebrating people with a narcissistic personality disorder.

Such people are very much "into themselves", having no empathy or conscience, and showing no remorse. They are cunning, manipulative, aggressive people, obsessed with power and blaming others. They are to be found in many institutions, and even in the Church.

We hear on the news that yet another celebrity, or a member of the clergy, has been tried by the courts and found wanting. He or she was caught out, but not before the damage had been done; not before the denials had added to the victim's misery; not before the institution had stated that it had not seen it coming. So the Church says: "Oh, surely not him, he was such a saintly man. He could have become a bishop."

With high office comes power. And the Church of England has a problem with power, as have all Christian denominations. This is because of the power invested in its hierarchical structures. In some churches, the clergy exert a heavy-handed, authoritarian control over the congregation. While many of these leaders are well-meaning, frequently authoritarianism is rooted in a hunger for control. These clerics rationalise such behaviour under the guise of shepherding.

My experience working with perpetrators of abuse is that the personality-disordered mind seeks out the object of its desire by employing elaborate manoeuvres, a hidden grooming process that can fool most of the people, most of the time - for decades, and even beyond the grave, as in the case of Jimmy Savile.

Having seduced the victim, the perpetrator applies such psychological pressure as may be necessary to ensure that the survivor keeps their little secret for all time. It is an abuse of power, and there are those in the Church who masquerade as the trusted priest while grooming the next victim.


HISTORICALLY, the Christian Church has joined in a conspiracy of silence, and has gone out of its way to protect its own people from those who would question its professional ethics. These dynamics must change. The Church must be more transparent and more accountable, and the institutions must deal with the issue of abusive power.

Well executed apologies from church leaders convince no one, except their own brigade, and only the passage of time and the evidence of good practice will determine whether their words are to be believed.

For change to happen, bishops, clergy, safeguarding officers, and others must receive the necessary support and training that will provide them with a better understanding of all forms of abusefrom various perspectives, especially that of the victim-survivor. They also need to understand why abusers do what they do, and how their behaviour damages children and vulnerable adults.

If clergy are to be effective pastors, they must be given the right training to enable them to provide compassionate "first-contact support"; to be competent empathic listeners to narrative; and, having formed a trusting first-contact relationship, to be able to help the survivor to connect properly with the appropriate counselling and other legal and support systems.

The ability to facilitate the right onward referral is crucial to building trust and enabling survivors to feel held, and, from that secure base, to have the confidence to edge their way forward. Sadly, for many survivors, the Church is not a secure base, and legislation alone cannot change that fact.

Safeguarding is, to some extent, a policy written on the hoof, and comes after the horse has bolted. But safeguarding is too important a set of moral codes and practical measures to be left solely in the hands of those who, historically, have deliberately hidden from scrutiny the Church's shadow-self - its need to protect its own shadow, the perpetrators, those who abuse children and vulnerable adults - and, to add insult to injury, have failed in their duty of care for the survivor. We need to concentrate on the needs of the survivor.

THERE is a real lack of understanding and empathy in the Church, and in society as a whole, for those children and vulnerable adults who have been emotionally damaged by the perpetrators of abuse. Survivors of abuse are often described as the walking wounded, who are in need of an "enlightened witness" to their journey through the dark night of the soul. This is what I do, as a psychotherapist working with survivors. This is what the Church must do, if it is to help the victim to thrive, not just to survive.

This is also what the Church must do if it is to help survivors of abuse by the clergy and by othersin a religious setting to engage withthe therapeutic process, a painful journey into a tunnel that, I hope, one day, will lead to healing.

Survivors will not forget, and will bear the burden of their emotional lesions for ever. Some survivors may forgive the Church and the perpetrator, while others will lose their faith. As one of them put it: "I'll never darken the doorstep of a bloody church again. They bloody hurt me and rejected me when I needed help. How can I trust them? They didn't believe me. You know, mate, the priest ****ed me and so did the bloody Church."

As the barrister Anne Lawrence has suggested, the Church is "seeking to fix a problem before they know what the problem is. . . If they want to stop breaking people, they probably want to look at the fundamental problems within the institution that enables that to happen" (News, 28 June).

So, to address questions of safeguarding and risk-assessment, the Church needs to know whom it is safeguarding, and why.

Of course, church authorities should place at the top of their to-do list the need to safeguard vulnerable people. Of course, the Church should guard the boundary and reduce unnecessary risk wherever it can - but it consistently falls short because it fails to understand the nature of abuse and how to help survivors.

Like a rabbit caught in the headlights, the Church promises to make amends, to do better, to listen, to safeguard vulnerable people; but, when push comes to shove, it does not have the pastoral structures to deal with the consequences of abuse, to put right a wrong, or to engage in the healing process. What survivors need is dedicated therapy, whether provided in-house, or through specialist agencies, or by individual counsellors who understand their needs.


AS A society, we celebrate people of power. We worship their success in politics, business, sport, show business, and church life. But we fail to recognise that, in some cases, we are celebrating people with a narcissistic personality disorder.

Such people are very much "into themselves", having no empathy or conscience, and showing no remorse. They are cunning, manipulative, aggressive people, obsessed with power and blaming others. They are to be found in many institutions, and even in the Church.

We hear on the news that yet another celebrity, or a member of the clergy, has been tried by the courts and found wanting. He or she was caught out, but not before the damage had been done; not before the denials had added to the victim's misery; not before the institution had stated that it had not seen it coming. So the Church says: "Oh, surely not him, he was such a saintly man. He could have become a bishop."

With high office comes power. And the Church of England has a problem with power, as have all Christian denominations. This is because of the power invested in its hierarchical structures. In some churches, the clergy exert a heavy-handed, authoritarian control over the congregation. While many of these leaders are well-meaning, frequently authoritarianism is rooted in a hunger for control. These clerics rationalise such behaviour under the guise of shepherding.

My experience working with perpetrators of abuse is that the personality-disordered mind seeks out the object of its desire by employing elaborate manoeuvres, a hidden grooming process that can fool most of the people, most of the time - for decades, and even beyond the grave, as in the case of Jimmy Savile.

Having seduced the victim, the perpetrator applies such psychological pressure as may be necessary to ensure that the survivor keeps their little secret for all time. It is an abuse of power, and there are those in the Church who masquerade as the trusted priest while grooming the next victim.


HISTORICALLY, the Christian Church has joined in a conspiracy of silence, and has gone out of its way to protect its own people from those who would question its professional ethics. These dynamics must change. The Church must be more transparent and more accountable, and the institutions must deal with the issue of abusive power.

Well executed apologies from church leaders convince no one, except their own brigade, and only the passage of time and the evidence of good practice will determine whether their words are to be believed.

For change to happen, bishops, clergy, safeguarding officers, and others must receive the necessary support and training that will provide them with a better understanding of all forms of abusefrom various perspectives, especially that of the victim-survivor. They also need to understand why abusers do what they do, and how their behaviour damages children and vulnerable adults.

If clergy are to be effective pastors, they must be given the right training to enable them to provide compassionate "first-contact support"; to be competent empathic listeners to narrative; and, having formed a trusting first-contact relationship, to be able to help the survivor to connect properly with the appropriate counselling and other legal and support systems.

The ability to facilitate the right onward referral is crucial to building trust and enabling survivors to feel held, and, from that secure base, to have the confidence to edge their way forward. Sadly, for many survivors, the Church is not a secure base, and legislation alone cannot change that fact.

Safeguarding is, to some extent, a policy written on the hoof, and comes after the horse has bolted. But safeguarding is too important a set of moral codes and practical measures to be left solely in the hands of those who, historically, have deliberately hidden from scrutiny the Church's shadow-self - its need to protect its own shadow, the perpetrators, those who abuse children and vulnerable adults - and, to add insult to injury, have failed in their duty of care for the survivor. We need to concentrate on the needs of the survivor.


FOR TWO DECADES, I have worked in a number of prison settings, and I recognise that discipline must be balanced with the notion that prisoners can change their lives when the principles of restorative justice and psychotherapy are applied.

How else can the perpetrators, who are themselves victims of insecure attachments and maltreatment, heal personal pain, and extinguish the anger that doubtless fostered their criminal activity? This is the type of personal history that contributes to perpetrators' mental illness and, in some cases, dangerous personality disorder.

We need to exercise extreme caution when convicted sex-offenders are released back into society. In operating a rigid safeguarding policy, however, the Church is in danger of ostracising the vulnerable victim within the perpetrator. We could be creating a sub-culture of outcasts who have little chance of being integrated into society and into church life.

Difficult as it may be to talk about perpetrators, when seeking to protect survivors and potential victims, the Church must understand that it cannot avoid the victim within the perpetrator; for doing so causes many former prisoners to feel disenfranchised and abandoned, as many of them felt when they were children.

This emotive subject leaves the Church stuck between a rock and hard place - and this is exactly the place where you will find the prison chaplain, when ministering to the perpetrator, the victim-perpetrator, and the victim-survivor. The Church cannot sit on the fence.


THE Church of England's policies for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults speak with authority when using choice phrases such as"We will . . ." and "We are . . .", but get stuck in a rut when it comes to explaining what follows such well-meaning words. Safeguarding policy appears to run out of pastoral steam, efficacy, and conscience, after it has done all it can to say "sorry", and to reduce the prospect of negative publicity and litigation.

It does this by following the principles found in "legislation, guidance and recognised good practice". Following policy to the letter, however, does not negate the need for the Church to go the extra mile, which is to offer professional pastoral care and counselling to survivors of all types of abuse.

So, safeguarding policy is only half the story. The other half must be born out of a deep listening to need; of understanding the placeof survivor groups and support agencies, and of psychotherapists and psychologists, prison chaplains and other carers who work with survivors, including perpetrator-survivors.

Survivors are sometimes labelled "damaged goods". For them to embark on a therapeutic journey can be abusive, because they have to engage in a process where their personal story brings with it memories of guilt and pain. The process of personal disclosure can increase the risk of depression and anxiety, dissociation, self-harm, and suicide.

As a psychotherapist, I believe that the clergy and all who minister in churches must be trained to understand and work with survivors of abuse. They need training not only in safeguarding their parishioners, but also in understanding what is meant by being an "enlightened witness".

Here, such an enlightened witness can be a trusted therapist, pastor, social worker, teacher, friend, or family member: someone who will walk alongside the survivor; someone who is a non-judgemental, empathic witness to the survivor's experience and emotional pain.


READING this, a bishop may feel that he is watching his counselling budget disappear before his eyes. He may wonder who on earth will pay for all this specialist work. Well, the price has already been paid by those children and vulnerable adults who have been abused by the clergy and others working in the Church - those who have not been protected. The good-enough "Parent" Church has a duty of care to for all victims, and that care goes well beyond the small print in a safeguarding policy.

So, what is a bishop to do? The answer is to pray, naturally, but in practice to design, fund, and deliver a recognised training programme on working with the survivors of abuse. It needs to include local workshops on pastoral care and counselling for all clergy and lay ministers.

In addition, each diocese needs to recruit specially trained counsellors or psychotherapists who will provide survivors of abuse with the necessary counselling support. They could also offer wise advice on questions of abuse, as well as on safeguarding and pastoral matters, and they could help the bishop better inform his diocese about the needs of the survivor.

Furthermore, they could provide the clergy with all necessary pastoral support, supervision, and training. Only then can we begin, from within, to change our church culture and behaviour. Only then can we believe that survivors of abuse are valued and valuable.


THE Archbishop of Canterbury has said that there needs to be "a complete change of culture and behaviour in the Church. We cannot in 20 years be finding ourselves having this same debate and saying: 'Well, we didn't quite understand then.'

"In addition, there is a profound theological point. We are not doing all this - we are not seeking to say how devastatingly, appallingly, atrociously sorry we are for the great failures there have been - for our own sakes, for our own flourishing, for the protection of the Church. We are doing this because we are called to live in the justice of God, and we will each answer to him for our failures in this area" (General Synod, 7 July 2013).

These are wise words. My sense is that the world is looking to the Church of England and her sister Churches to put their houses in order. Safeguarding vulnerable children and adults in Church and society must be balanced with a better understanding of the issues that survivors face, and a real commitment to the healing process. Only then will a doubting world believe.

The Revd Dr Peter Stell is a counsellor, group therapist, and senior BACP accredited and registered psychotherapist. Also a former Chaplain in HM Prison Service, and is now Lead Hospice Chaplain for Spiritual Care with Sue Ryder Care at Thorpe Hall in Peterborough.

Anyone who would like to contact Dr Stell: readers@churchtimes.co.uk. Material will be forwarded to him in confidence.

In context

Think about what has happened to me, in the past 14 years, past 6 years, past 14 months.

Think, what would happen to an adult who was more disabled and couldn't write, as I have for 6 years.

Is there safeguarding in the Church of England?

Their 'Head of Safeguarding' has been off sick for a year.

And the person who stands in, is there a few mornings a week.

And has not dealt with my complaint.

email September 2013

************** *********************
Bob

28/09/2013

If you think I should be part of this enquiry, does anyone else? I doubt it, because it is about closing things down and covering backs, again.

But if you think anyone in the stupid farce enquiry wants my views, then you should ask them to arrange a neutral interviewer/s and on the understanding that a few hours will not get my side of things, a few days or a week may.

I will attend interviews with an independent investigator on condition that one of my carers is allowed to be present at all times and that no forceful attempts to detain me are made.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/stinking-bishop-and-wake-up-call.html

lest we forget:

http://photopol.com/jersey/jersey_toons.html

More Masonic Musings

I was supposed to be resting, but after an enjoyable morning at the daycentre, I came home to rest and got drawn into researching Freemasonry in Jersey and in the church.
Fascinating and vast subject.

According to a number of sources and reports:

• The Bailhache Brothers are Freemasons, despite Philip Bailhache claiming to the contrary.
• The Dean of Jersey is a Freemason.
• The Churchwarden's nephew is a Freemason
• Reverend Adrian Pearce, of the Jersey Deanery, is a Freemason.

My own experiences:

• FM, who also abused me in the church, is a freemason.
• The member of the church PCC and senior church figure who supported him when I told JM about FM abusing me, was/is a senior ranking Freemason.

I have to say that the masonic involvement can be classed as guesswork or heresay, but it remains that people involved were/are Freemasons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8514169/Archbishop-allows-freemason-to-be-bishop.html

JM once told me that in her previous church, she had had trouble with the Freemasons in church ganging up on her when she complained about something one of them did, she added that FM had become a Freemason partly to upset her, and that it was one of his 'fads' like going to the Salvation Army or Probus was.

Researching freemasonry in Jersey

Well the surprising headlines today about the Bishop who spoke out against Jersey, prompted me to look into freemasonry in Jersey.

Actually, despite all the responses to the search 'freemasonry in Jersey' not many of the articles that come up appear to say much about freemasonry in Jersey.

The last link in this post is to Indymedia, and the comments and answers are essential reading.

http://www.jerseymason.org.uk/craft_lodges.html

Interesting to see that someone appears to have moved lodge and changed title.

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/page/2/

http://www.gov.je/GOVERNMENT/PLANNINGPERFORMANCE/Pages/MinisterialDecisions.aspx?showreport=yes&docid=03d395d739314d24fc3b66b010ce479f_MDs

Fascinating!

http://charliepeer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/thoughts-on-winchester-announcement.html


http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/jersey-in-grip-of-freemasonry-and.html


BBC Jersey keep looking up my blog but I need to amend the incorrect article that they are looking at.

There is a lot in the comments of this blog below:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392266.html?c=on

Rev Adrian Pearce is a freemason.
I have never understood how a clergyman can also be a Satan worshipper.

http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/access-to-justice-you-what.html

http://introducingjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/shafting-jersey.html

Those who are blaming Bishop Dakin, are you not aware that it was his 'safeguarding' director who launched all this, she is the one in charge, in order to prevent her own behaviour being questioned, while the Bishop 'does as he is told' because the reality is, he is a country rector, not in any way fit for the role of Bishop.

oh SH*T!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-27616938

Not a place for the vulnerable

If the church of England do kill me through their defamation and continued unchecked harassment, the question will remain, why did everyone stand by and allow this?

The Church of England is no place for the vulnerable, and it is time someone started speaking up and warning vulnerable people not to put their lives in jeapordy by going into a church of England church

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/jersey-historic-abuse-inquiry-guest.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/

waking from nightmares

Waking from prison nightmares.

Why, when I had complained to the Bishop about her and she had helped to have me put in prison, was Jane Fisher allowed to rape me by setting the church of england prison chaplain on me, especially as I specifically requested a non-church of england chaplain?

Why was she then allowd to slander and libel me to all clergy in Winchester and all my old church friends in Winchester so that I was shunned?

Why was the Diocese allowed to violate my by tracing me and then not deal with my complaint or help me?
Why did they proceed to threaten me and cause me distress, deal with the Deanery's complaint not mine, and try to illegally refer me to the NSPCC?

Why did the Bishop allow an investigation influenced by Jane Fisher so that she could protect herself, and when is he going to call off this farce and run an investigation into my complaint?

Why has he allowed exactly the same as happened before, to happen again?

The diocese believe me to be the weakest link, who they can keep destroying, with the police and social services and all other authorities backing them, because the police and social services wont listen to me and hear my side and treat me as mad, basically Dakin can wriggle out of his half a million mistake of attacking the dean in the press and illegally dragging me into it, and Jane Fisher  can continue to get away with the horrific damage and illegal violations of me.

The 'Jersey Church of England Laity' a sample

The Diocese of Winchester, in their foolhardy attack on me, got the response from these people of a smear campaign against me that the Diocese did nothing about, and had these people using their power to uphold the Dean and, with states and judiciary connections, have me damned in the press.

The Jersey Laity employed Dame Heather Steel for their complaint against Tim Dakin, making it clear thus that Dame Steel was conflicted and could not also act to investigate the Jersey Deanery, as she couldn't act both for them and for the Diocese in an investigation and dispute.

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/jerseys-dean-laitys-jep-advert.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/jerseys-dean-and-silly-season.html

I shall name a few of the laity, I am sure they wont mind, if they can speak up against me, I am sure they will want their names put to their attacks. That is right in God's eyes, I am sure.

This was my letter to these so-called Christians, as they continued to act in a dreadfully unchristian way in slandering me in the press and abusing their various powers, this letter comes c/o Bob Hill but can also be found on my blog

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-hgs-guest-posting-open.html

First a very important man. He was the subject of my 'on trial quiz' and few of quiz competitors could name him, it took a long time for him to be named. Have to give him the seat of honour.

http://www.kingschamberorchestra.co.uk/gerardbio.php

Gerard LeFeuvre:

 My abuser's nephew, also, co-incidentally, Freemason, member of the Kings Chamber orchestra, music CD's published worldwide, also a member of the Church of England in Jersey.
I am guessing the Diocese of Winchester had no idea of the connection when they accused me of 'involving innocent people.
But who would Gerard use his influence to support in the Diocese and Deanery charade?

I remember Gerard from church, the churchwarden's wife absolutely adored him and his wife, she fawned on them, it was a little bit stomach churning really, it was the usual 'family pride' and 'knowing someone famous' and also her obsession with Victoria college boys and old boys, of which Gerard is one. Which in Jersey, counts for something.

Gerard LeFeuvre is not only known as a famous person, as my abuser's nephew, as a member of church and a 'Christian', or as a freemason, he is also know to be a friend of Philip Bailhache, See the Judiciary post. Philip Bailhache has led the smear campaign against me and campaign to clear the Dean.

A few years ago, when I was still in Jersey, Gerard won the competition for Jersey's National Anthem, this caused quite some upset and it was said that the competition was unfair and biased.
One of the judges was Philip Bailhache.

I had the misfortune of accidentally having to deal with Gerard some time after I had left the churchwarden's family, he responded to my advert where I was looking for piano lessons, and sadly, blunt and autistic, I told him he couldn't help me as he was my abuser's nephew.

Philip Bailhache, Ian LeMarquand, Micheal Birt, all members of the church laity and involved in smearing me and absolving the Dean through their powers and legal expertise. See:

 http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/whos-who-in-jersey-judiciary-etc.html#.U4JRy3JdXJk

Neville Brooks:

A vital key player in the defence of the churchwarden, Dean and Vicar. A church of England reader at the churchwarden and Vicar's church, also closest friend of the churchwarden and his wife, Neville Brooks and his wife were always close friends of the churchwarden and his wife, when their children were at school, and when he supported the churchwarden through his sacking from the other church where they both belonged and both left when the churchwarden was sacked.

Neville was very much into the cult, mind control and bad element of the church, praying that 'people would accept the new service pattern' ie no choice, and after I spoke about the abuse for the first time, he did a sermon about 'who's truth is the truth', ie how 'people' can 'misunderstand', appalling, he even made big hints about who it was aimed at.

There is no doubt of his continued involvement and maligning of me, which Jane Fisher strenuously denied as all in my mind, what, Jane Fisher doesn't think this man would support his best friends and thus I am insane?

This is despite the fact that Neville Brooks knew of the previous sacking and the chaperoning policy, which I didn't know about, and he did nothing, even when he saw the churchwarden touching me, even when he knew the churchwarden was taking me out alone and even when the churchwarden took me home to live.

Bruce Willing:


http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2013/05/28/%E2%80%98bishop-is-damaging-church-of-england%E2%80%99s-ministry-in-jersey%E2%80%99/

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/3rd-anniversary-of-abuse-victims.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/jerseys-dean-bob-hill-matthew-price.html

A former British Army captain, CBE, former churchwarden who sat on the Deanery Synod with my abuser.
Now when the Bishop launched on me and the Dean publicly, how exactly did he expect me to survive media attacks by people with this man's influence, and when did the Bishop actually take time to learn and state such people's position in these matters?
The Bishop showed no interest in the relationship between these people and the churchwarden or Dean and certainly never made sure, for my sake that he responded to their media attacks by stating these things!
Instead, after launching his public suspension of the Dean he showed no interest whatsoever in the harm to me, nor even the situation in Jersey, preferring to let a PR company release irrelevant press statements.

http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/jersey-blaming-everyone-but-bob-key-for.html


There are many more people involved, all well-heeled, with some influence and able to act against me for the Dean and churchwarden. Why did the Bishop launch on the Dean publicly and then not deal with the consequences, especially the consequences to me? Why has he left me suffering and ignored my concerns of a biased report and is going to basically kill me with it? Why has he done this after claiming this whole shambles to be because 'The Diocese are commited to safeguarding'?
Who have they safeguarded? Not me, they have destroyed me, and they have also ensured that no-one in their right mind or otherwise, with a legitimate complaint of abuse, will ever speak up, because in my case I am held up as 'Thus shall be done to the person who is guilty of the crime of being abused and the worse crime of speaking up'!

Nor have they actually done anything to improve safeguarding in Jersey or even investigate my complaint properly, nor did they deal with the other half of things, the way Jane Fisher dealt with me and my abusers in Jersey and Winchester. Nothing has changed in Jersey and Winchester, because neither lot of wrongdoers is going to accept responsibility, instead they are going to publicly damn me in a report I have had no say in but Jane Fisher and the wrongdoers in Jersey have! And no-one, not even the police, will stop them.

And as my abuser goes on to be re-elected, he has the encouragement that he can abuse if he wishes, the church are behind him and will destroy any victim who dares to speak up.

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/jerseys-dean-true-christians-or-pontius.html

comments from Bob's blog: My advocate who didn't represent me properly was apparently the niece of a states member and staunch supporter of the Dean:

Bob Hill24 November 2013 17:00

It will be difficult for the Steel Report to record that Bob Key did "everything" right because on being reinstated at the end of April he apologised and he said "he regrets the mistakes he made in the safeguarding processes and upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if he had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review."

On 29th April I published a Blog on the Dean's reinstatement and apology which can be read by clicking onto the following site
click here

If the Steel Report is published it will be interesting to see how the point above is covered.

Anonymous24 November 2013 17:20

Oh 3 jeers for good old Tel Boy, the former fastest milk man in the East. He has not yet captured how his spell check works but at least he is still trying, yes very trying.

Yes it’s good to remind us how the Dean and his wife work behind public scrutiny, has he not read the Korris Report and how they dealt with HG’s complaint behind closed doors. Yes they have changed some people’s lives but I don’t suppose HG will thank them for changing hers.

How Christian was the levelling of charges against HG and how unfortunate it was for HG to have Terry’s niece representing her in Court and plead that she be Bound Over.

Great work Terry, Jersey still needs you to score a few own goals.

Anonymous24 November 2013 18:45

Terry's niece (mis) represented HG in court? it gets better by the day and not a wander the conflicted Dame Heather didn't want to look at the court case.

When did the Diocese actually work out the connections in this matter? Before, after or never?

There were quite a number of other biases that affected me while in Jersey, this included a number of doctors and charity representatives being in the church and thus I was not able to access help and was humiliated by doctors, as they knew my abuser and his wife, who were also involved in at least one charity I was driven away from.

On an island like Jersey, if you make enemies in high places, your life is ruined.

Does the Bishop know or care, from Winchester, who is related to who, who has been asked to write to him without stating their real connections with the matter? Does the Bishop care? Does he question the false witness being borne to him? Does he even bother to read any of it?
One thing he doesn't do is take responsibility for the fact that he launched this attack, and although the reaction was not Christian or right, he is responsible for the reaction and the harm being caused, and he is also responsible for allowing Steel to defame me and make my life unlivable and he is responsible for stopping that harm to me and letting me live, as there is no excuse for a 'safeguarding' investigation that destroys a survivor for no adequate or acceptable reason and does not actually investigate or achieve anything.

Dakin's foolhardy public campaign of harm

When Bishop Dakin publicly launched on the Dean of Jersey, he either had enough evidence to take action, which didn't licence him to inflict the public damage he did anyway, or he didn't.
Either way, he is responsible for the publicity that is and will harm me, and he is responsible for the mess and he is responsible for stopping the harm to me, which wouldn't have occurred if he had dealt with discipline in private as most Bishops do.
There is no excuse for re-traumatizing a survivor who you have already had repeatedly beaten and imprisoned and who has gone on the run from you and rebuilt her life, destroying her life again twice and leaving her with no hope is utterly inexcusable.

The Question is, why is this criminal campaign of harm to me being allowed, when will it stop, who will stop it? Why haven't the police stopped it, and by the time someone steps in, if they do, will I be alive to be redeemed?

The other question is, why did Dakin not also suspend Jane Fisher and run an investigation into her misconduct, why was my complaint against her refused, even by head office, and the police, when even the Korris report shows where some of Fisher's wrongdoing occured, although in other places it is covered up, onmitted and excluded. Why has there been no investigations into Jane Fisher's slander and libel of me in Winchester and her illegal liason with police and council and homeless services to further harm me? Why were I and the Dean publicly defamed and not Fisher?
Whatever this 14-month destroyal of me has been about, it has not been about justice, truth, recompense or even safeguarding. Jane Fisher was not only allowed to continue to negatively influence this 14-month charade, she was also allowed to illegally refer me to the NSPCC after I made a complaint about her and made my feelings clear.

How to dehumanize someone, the Diocese have spent years doing it and have got it down to an art in leaving me waiting to be destroyed by the Steel report.

And Bishop Dakin has been able to investigate what? When the tight circle that denied the Korris report also hijacked the follow-up investigation? He has been able to investigate nothing, and has done trememndous harm, for half a million pounds that could have been better spent, for example providing for the Chichester survivors.

The church can readily spend money on showy investigations, but they don't provide for people damaged by their clergy, employees and systems.

when does a victim get excluded from an investigation?

The reality is, it was quite clear from the Bishop and his chaplain in the beginning that my input in the investigation was unwelcome, I had been traced and violated and left fearful and distressed just for the churches, own reasons, for show, and because concerned people were contacting the Diocese about me.

The Diocese never have cared, and it shows in the threats from the Bishop when I begged the Diocese not to do a repeat of 2010/11 where they slandered, smeared and violated me in my old home town of Winchester and I was left raging, rejected and devastated, there was nothing more unChristian than what they did then in leaving me outcast and getting me beaten and detained for my reaction, and nothing more unChristian than the Bishop threatening me last year after they illegally had me traced through the police and I begged them not to continue to harass me and drive me from my community - but they did.

I am voiceless and defenceless in a situation where the church can go on harming me, and if it wasn't for Bob Hill and this blog, it is quite obvious I would have been excluded completely from investigations, as I have been, and would go unheard, as I have.

The interconnected wrongdoers in the Deanery have had plenty of voice, in the press against me, and to Dame Steel, who has acted for them, while I have been made to suffer for 14 months.

Safeguarding investigation? No, a half-million pound waste of money and 14 months of harm to someone who has survived too much and wont survive much more.

The cover up that was covered up.

Of course there was no mention in the Korris report, and will be no mention in the Steel report, of the powerful and interconnected people in Jersey linked to the abuser and the Dean, and how they have used their power, money and legal expertise and ability to access records and influence people, against me to absolve the Dean.

The terrible thing is about the 14 month twisted charade that claims to be an investigation is that the Diocese have tried to make it look genuine by using words like 'independently led' enquiry, although there is no-one independent leading any part of the enquiry, and Korris, who was not qualified to investigate, uses Baroness Butler-Sloss's name in vain, while John Gladwin, who also led the Chichester report, is figureheaded in this too. But no genuine investigation has been carried out, only 14 months of villifying me publicly and causing me distress.

Instead of the Bishop publicly explaining that he has no power whatsoever to discipline clergy in Jersey and had no right or reason to publicly attack them and me, he is preparing to publish a report done against me to destroy me.

Just to add this as well:

 http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/churchofengland.htm


And you must laugh at the comment on this one, because it is so utterly true!

http://m.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/national/11102432.Life_ban_for_sex_abuse_priest/

Who's who in Jersey - Judiciary etc

In March 2013, Bishop Dakin, five years too late, decided he was investigating part of what happened to me in Jersey, incomprehensibly he decided to launch a public attack on me and the Dean of Jersey by publishing the incomplete Korris Report and publicly suspending the Dean.

He had no idea about Jersey or the Jersey way, which is all about politicians covering up scandal at the expense of wronged people, and so his actions caused a hate and cover-up campaign against me by key interconnected church-judiciary-political-masonic figures, who arranged for the investigation to be done against me by one of their associates, Dame Heather Steel.

On my own, my protests to this would go unheard, and I would be treated as mad, as the Diocese branded me through the Korris report, and left me silenced and excluded from the whole matter despite shaming me in the press, having me illegally traced by police and left destroyed and humilaited.

I have not been interviewed for the investigation and am silenced and unheard as I continue to beg for help and for my next public destroyal, by the Steel report, to be averted.

Brief Who's who Judiciary:

• Bridget Shaw, (see also church who's who) Jersey's magistrate, married to a Church of England clergyman who's church I was happily settled in until Jane Fisher and the Dean intervened, has a lot of power, obviously, in this matter and has played a part in ruining and imprisoning other whistleblowers such as former Senator Stuart Syvret.
• Philip Bailhache, (lawyer, church, states) This is the man who caused outrage at a liberation day speech by claiming that the slur on Jersey from Haute de la Garenne was worse than the harm done to victims. This man has a long history of preventing investigation into abuse, and being obstructive to justice for victims, as described to me by a Jersey care home abuse survivor in person. He is the former Bailiff of Jersey and also a Senator, he is the Island's 'extrenal affairs' Minister, as well as being a trained lawyer and judge. Philip Bailhache led a smear campaign against me and also ensured my name was available to the general public whilst he was on a plane to England, presumably to meet the queen or Archbishop to get the Dean cleared. Philip Bailhache was conflicted in that he was a church officer who sat on the Deanery synod with my abuser, and he interchanged his church and states roles to use his power as a Senator and legal expertise to help clear the Dean. Philip Bailhache has no interest in the poor, vulnerable and abused and treats them without exception as troublemakers who spoil the status quo, he was against an 'outside investigation' into Haute de la Garenne but may well engineer the investigation to make Jersey look squeaky clean, as he has been able to in my case, at my expense.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/senator-philip-bailhache-letter-to.html

http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/sir-philip-bailhache-data-protection.html

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/bob-key-and-jersey-way.html

• William Bailhache is Philip Bailhache's brother, the two brothers were privately educated, in England! At Harrow, as far as I know; and both went on to hold government and judiciary positions in Jersey, they have a reputation for being the 'overlords' of Jersey, and making it into a 'feudal state' and dispensing one brand of justice for the wealthy and well-connected, and another for the poor. William Bailhache has been Bailiff and judiciary and various things the same as his brother, and both have got away with some glaring injustices because they are in charge, no-one oversees them, and England wont step in and even things out.

• Michael Birt, Bailiff, (church, states, judiciary) very close to the Bailhache brothers, tends to be in agreement with them. Part of this tight inner circle.

• Philip Falle, (church, states, judiciary)the same, part of the tight circle, was the one that 'disposed of me' for the Dean and church. Connected with the town church where the dean presides.

• Ian LeMarquand.(church, states, judiciary, police) Absolutely famous for dodging issues. This is Jersey's Home Affairs Minister. He is also a Church of England Reader in the Jersey Deanery, he is also a friend of my abuser, and a supporter of the Dean. He also oversees the States of Jersey police.  These are all things that the Korris report, and definitely the Steel Report do not tell you, that Ian LeMarquand, and the other people on this page who have been involved against me and used their power and legal expertise to clear the Dean and damn me, are blatantly conflicted.

Notable memories of Ian LeMarquand for me include, him recounting to a meeting I was at, how, as magistrate, he had 'been merciful' and let off a man who followed a young girl into a toilet and 'had a look'.

Remembering that men do not do such things as one-offs, letting such a person off, and not registering that, means he can simply do that and worse, again.

Ian LeMarquand is also famous for putting a young man in prison after being asked to give this youngster a chance and a fresh start 'because God told him to' Now if anything is an example of the dangerous cult behaviour in the Jersey churches, that is. And it is a typical example.

On the subject, the rector who was helping me in the end of my time in Jersey, made it quite clear that wrongdoing was occuring and that he had conflicts with Ian LeMarquand about 'The Boys in LaMoye who shouldn't be there' - LaMoye being the prison where I was dumped for convenience too.

My abuser described Ian LeMarquand as his 'friend', and Ian LeMarquand's daughter, my former housegroup leader, told me that her father described it as a 'sad day' when my abuser was sacked from the church they worked at together, where Ian LeMarquand has remained as a church leader and reader licenced by the Diocese of Winchester.

Ian LeMarquand, along with Senator Bailhache, in their positions, have access to my police record and others, and my record was not an accurate view of things in the first place, as Jersey police have been very incompetent and damaging, but also these supporters of the Dean are free to access my records and to alos change and use them. It is thought that this was what Senator Bailhache had with him on the plane to England when he exposed my name and the  name of the churchwarden to fellow passengers.

Senator LeMarquand and Philip Bailhache are both also deeply entrenched in the issues around the Haute de la Garenne Children's home.

http://therightofreply.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/top-jersey-government-crook-patsy-ian.html

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/has-le-marquand-gone-native-in-states.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/28/jersey-secrecy-culture

http://ricosorda.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/operation-end-game-5-senator-le.html

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3077.5;wap2

The Jersey Way:

Jersey isn't all good while people who speak up are made into criminals, Jersey is very corrupt and the fact that a billion pound finance industry is sitting on it is not a coincidence, people who 'rock the boat' for any member of the masons-money-church-judiciary-states circle, do get arrested and beaten and called mad and imprisoned, I am one of a few who have been discredited and destroyed and I know of one suicide from it and also there is St.uart, who has been ruined for speaking up, but he keeps speaking up.

Interestingly enough during my time in Jersey, the media smears of Stuart were such that I believed he was causing trouble, I was still quite naive of the Jersey way, but I was in conversation with a man called John, from St. Brelade, who explained to me, that Stuart was a good man, who spoke about things that needed to be spoken about, and that is why the government and their press were ruining him, to discredit him, to get people like me to believe he was mad and bad-which is exactly the same treatment I have suffered in the past 14 months.

http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/

There are quite a number of conflicted lawyers in my case, including the one who was sent to see me in the cells of the magistrates court, who started off by telling me I was in the wrong and that my side of things was irrelevant, I ended up with three different lawyers during that week, including one who was trained in English law and not allowed to represent me, no-one ever explained any of this to me, but the woman who represented me finally allowed me to be ruined and deported and then last year she caused me shock by contacting me and telling me that Heather Steel wanted access to my records, this was ludicrous and shocking, this woman who let me down contacting me in this way, asking to let the conflicted Dame Heather Steel access my records!

 I said NO, Steel hadn't bothered to contact me herself and was known to be conflicted by her connection to Philip Bailhache and the Jersey Judiciary, this was a violation and I refused, of course, but no doubt as the Bishop 'appointed' a member of the conflicted and biased Jersey police who had treated me so shockingly, to work with Steel, my records were undoubtedly accessed and used to damn me while I had no voice and no defence, yet another violation like rape from the Diocese of Winchester, and they claimed this was a safeguarding matter and to be investigating my complaint?!

The woman representing me in court is also reported to be the niece of a States member/former states member who attended, probably as dignitary, a Church of England church, possibly also as churchwarden.

Back to Judiciary - States - Church-etc, Most of those named are associated with the Town Church and the Dean. Most associate with a tight little club called CHOW, in church house, that my abuser also attends, and this same CHOW were allowed to gather the candidates of the St. Helier by-election together recently and blatantly ask each candidate why 'a bunch of christians' should vote for them?

Well I don't know about Christians, but this meeting led by the Dean and asking political candidates such a question is surely wrong, and in the past, one of the clergy involved in shunning and harming me for the Dean, was in trouble for supposedly biasing people as to what candidates to vote for.

The town church also hopes to re-elect my abuser as churchwarden there soon.

Finally  http://treasureislands.org/top-ex-cop-blasts-jersey-corruption/

and

   http://freespeechoffshore.nl/stuartsyvretblog/the-peasants-revolt/

Here is an outsider's view of what goes on in Jersey, including my story:
http://introducingjersey.blogspot.co.uk/