continued response to the church times

Mr Handley,

Lets get a few things clear.

You appeared to scan my complaint and article within a few minutes this morning and replied that quickly, which is provable, and there is no way you took into account my feelings or circumstances, nor the bias or implication of what your reporter wrote.

I have a feeling that if you really do not understand the harm you have done to me by your defamation of me for no apparent reason, then you need to pass my complaint to whoever your manager is, as, hopefully he is more experienced in press impact and how your article implies I am a wrongdoer and defames and humiliates me.

Let me tell you a bit about what your reporter's dreadful incongruent and unprofessional report has done to my life today, similarly in the past.

I have had a minor collapse, which has meant that feeding and washing myself, concentration and any tasks have been impossible. 

I have been unable to complete my exercise routines that are part of my rehabilitation and have had to go to the Samaritans instead of the Disabled club.

The physical and psychological effects are as follows; minor nervous collapse, seizing up of muscles which triggers severe pain in my injuries, a migraine, sickness, more seriously an asthma attack was triggered, and on top of that, flashbacks, horror and trauma because of the one-sided nonsense that your reporter produced that has left me yet again voiceless and suffering, after six years of this continuous situation where I am abused, destroyed and voiceless while the church continue to have a voice and harm me.

You are liable for the harm to my health and wellbeing and the care I will need over the next few days, which is hard to arrange at a weekend at the beginning of half term. You are liable for harming a vulnerable adult repeatedly for 18 months and without provokation.

It astounds me that you claim to be surprised by my complaint. Surprised I finally spoke up after crying, going into shock and suffering trauma at the hands of your biased and unprofessional reporter for 18 months? There has to be an end point, it shouldn't surprise you too much, it should have been long before this and it should have never been necessary.

The cruel, unChristian and biased way you have defamed me for 18 months, never with the courtesy to ask for my side or apologize for the deep emotional wounds inflicted is inexcusable and also a serious safeguarding issue.

 I have no doubt that similar treatment inflicted on vulnerable adults by church and press can and has killed other voiceless people, and in my case it continues to take me all my strength to withstand these repeated blows which make life and rehabilitation impossible.

And my ability to write, that few vulnerable people possess, is what has kept me alive and partially heard, through letters regarding these matters and also through the blog, which your unprofessional report scornfully and completely needlessly and incongruently refers to as my 'rage' in an attempt to discredit me, while omitting the link to the blog so that people can decide for themselves, and omitting any reference to the daily blog which tells of the real me, the one the church have drowned out in rewriting me as a villian to cover up their safeguarding failures. The daily blog covers three years of my life and does not show a mad bad liar but a real human being in pain and in fear as the church continue to destroy her. Read it here: http://lifeafterthediocese.blogspot.co.uk/

Your reporter's continued actions against me in this way do indeed represent a bias on behalf of the church and defamation and derision against me.

Please explain why a report into safeguarding needed to defame and shame me by incongruently and needlessly accusing me of breaching a harassment order? Where is my side, that a harassment order was never issued come into it, or indeed the reason I was arrested being that I continued to fight for the church to deal with the complaint that they refused to deal with and was in an advanced state of trauma and collapse, when instead the safeguarding officer blamed me for the situation, condemned me for my anguish and claimed that my abuser was 'just a Christian who got things wrong' despite knowing he had a history of abuse and was supposed to be under guidelines but that those guidelines were not implemented nor was I warned about him, he was allowed to touch and kiss me in church, with witnesses, and to take me home to regress and abuse me.

 It has taken me years to get to a point in my life where I am half-rebuilt, and I will never be who I was and will always be broken from what has happened and yet, like the men in the Bible who wanted to stone a woman for perceived adultery, you are stoning me for your bias, and Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' So reconcile yourselves to God and don't keep making excuses about your attacks on my life either.

How does your unprofessional reporter descibe that safeguarding failure in Jersey? With a back to front implication that my abuser was a poor put upon man and I made allegations; And again she has not asked for or included my views.

This is how she put it, or near enough: - 'The churchwarden told the Dean he had acted in good faith and taken risks' she then adds 'but then HG made all these allegations'.

Now I know you only skimmed my letter and the article earlier, but even if you are not a senior and experienced member of staff, as I have to gather from your response to my complaint, (I thought you were the editor, please refer my complaint to him)  can you not see that that is an implication, even if I have worded it slightly differently.

Because it could have been put the other way round - that I made a complaint but the churchwarden claimed to have acted in good faith. which is not making a biased implication that the poor hard done by man told the dean he had acted in good faith and then I made a complaint. Do you understand? I gather from your lack of understanding this morning after you briefly read the article and my complaint, that I have to explain to you the difference between a balanced article and a biased and defamatory attack on someone.

I find it hard to believe that your reporter's article is just simply because she is poorly trained and unprofessional, the attack on me is plain.

I can write better than her though, so consider providing her with both some journalistic skills training and some safeguarding training.

Let me assure you, the report on me comes over as nothing more than a petty revenge attack by spin doctor Butler and his church for my continued request for an independent inquiry that includes my story, and my continued criticism of the Church of England's abuse of power, especially in the press.

You owe me an apology in your paper and a notice regarding my complaint. 

I think I have been through most of the complaint step by step now, but if you are unsure, get your manager to explain it to you. 

I do not think you can claim to be surprised or confused by an article which incongrently starts by randomly and unjustly attacking a vulnerable adult with no reason, or cause or link to the rest of the article, it is poor journalism in the extreme, it is the kind of thing that leads to suicides from victims, although in my case it will not, I will take you to court instead because this is only one in a long line of personal attacks and defamatory implications by your newspaper, none vetted, checked or including my side of things properly or mostly at all. As I said earlier, Christian or not, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves for bullying someone who has never offered you any harm but because you have a bias to support the loud voice of the wrongdoing church of england.

Tell me, what exactly does the attack on me before giving a supposed story from another victim and then a kind of blurred waffle by the indistinguishable Macsas and Butler really mean? Butler spin/church revenge/lets fill some space/poor macsas whining that nobody loves them? Especially as the church Times have had my email address all along and have never at any time contacted me to get my story and include it and balance things. Again this is provable.

Please be aware that Macsas have been warned today and were warned in 2011 to stop acting in violation of my privacy and human rights and will be taken to court as well if they in any way refer to my case in any media or to any agency, they are basically a branch of the church of england and have repeatedly acted for them in my case and harmed me.

You are slightly less likely to be taken to court if you kindly apologize, stop making excuses and ensure that a notice stating my concerns is issued in your newpaper next week, you have a week to make a decision on that. I have the legal forms here in full, in duplicate, ready. I have no doubt you have no fear of that, but I have let you know.

sincerely

The only good thing about that pathetic disgusting abuse of me through the church times this morning is that it is increasing my blog stats and has made me more determined to smash the disgusting government department, the church of england for the ongoing harm they are inflicting on me.
It is time that government department closed down, no other department gets away with not just massive amounts of abuse but also cover ups and lies and whitewashes.

I think it's time I took the church times to court as well - what nonsense

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/24-october/news/uk/safeguards-only-work-if-used,-say-vulnerable-adults

Dear Madelaine Davies, cc Bishop Paul Butler and others

Re the nonsense in the church times this morning,

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

Don't think I am joking.

I have taken Dakin and Welby to court, and your actions in maligning and defaming me over and over to make the church look good are not even slightly different from that.

You do not report my side of things, 

including the fact that I was never given the  harassment order claimed, and the reason I made complaints was that both the Dean and Safeguarding officer did not deal with my complaints, nor did the Bishop, and I fought for my complaint to be dealt with as my abuser remained unpunished and unashamed, supported by the Dean and church.

I am going to publicly take you to court, and am going to take the Archbishop and tdiocese of winchester back to court as a result of the whole matter continuing to wrongly portrayed.

Also, if you want to be rude and derogatory about my blog, include a link to it so people can decide for themselves. My blog is to tell my story as the church have omitted to either take my story or include it in any of their whitewash reports.

Don't go on using me in Bishop Butler's church glorification at the expense of victims campaign.

You fail in your article to point out that the man who abused me was a serial abuser, who was supposed to be under restrictions that the church failed to implement,  and as a result he took me home, regressed me to childhood and sexually abused me,  leaving me not only seriously damaged by the regresssion as my first childhood was horrific, but also sexually abused under such conditions and left me regressed and childlike, abandoning me as I raised concerns, and from there I had to deal with the Dean, who was a friend and supporter of the abuser who attended church services and aevents with him, and then as Korris says, I had to live through denial and blocking by the Bishop and Safeguarding officer, which, in the state I was in, and with terrible treatment by Jersey police, led to me collapsing in severe stress and hysterically trying to make the church do something as my abuser continued to work in the church with their full backing, and laugh when he saw me.

You also fail completely to tell of the farce that occured as a result of Bishop Dakin illegally suspending the Dean when he had no power to do so and then allowing the powerful clique in Jersey to hijack the reports that followed, allowing the Dean and his lawyer-judiciary-States member friends to take control of the reports.

I am very very tired of you cruelly and vindictively misrepresenting me and it completely invalidates the whole vain and empty aim of the article which is to self glorify the church by claiming they care about vulnerable adults. The trademark of Paul butler is spin to glorify the church at the expense of voiceless and vulnerable victims.

You yourself are consistently and viciously harming me on behalf of the Church of England by repeatedly misrepresenting and vilifying me, and you are harming me further each time, and damaging my recovery and my life. Please redact the article and apologize or I will take you to court.

My blog is there to tell my story, and you obviously do not wish to read it or understand my story before you launch into attacks on me that are read nationwide, and as you are representing the church, you are saying that the church are happy to go on harming vulnerable adults to the point of destroying them.

What I have suffered as a result of the actions of Safeguarding officer Jane Fisher can never ever be healed and I will live a broken person for the remainder of my life, and again, you fail to report that a serious formal complaint against her has been repeatedly ignored, which highlights the complete lack of regard that the church has for vulnerable adults, more so because she was allowed to illegally refer me to her friend John Cameron of the NSPCC of all charities! In an attempt to force help me on me so that the Bishop could do a press release claiming he had helped me.

Now that duplicity is the real church of england, the real way they work and not the spin that you and Paul Butler use to portray them.

It is to stop, and you are to apologise in your paper or I will be taking you to court. I took the huge and corrupt corporation that is the church of England to court, you are no better and no difference as you continue to vilify and seriously harm me on their behalf

Please be aware and print to counter your nonsense that the church of england have ignored my side of things, not included my side in any report and are therefore wasting their time self-glorifying by claiming to care about vulnerable adults, they do not. 

To put it bluntly we are considered by the mainly wealthy and elderly subscribers to the church of england to be an underclass, less than them and at most, there to be used, as I repreatedly have been during episodes of sexual abuse in the church that destroyed me, and it remains that though you vilify me publicly to thousands, I built my life myself out of the ashes of a horrific childhood, and I had never been in police trouble until, while in Jersey, regressed and traumatized, the police punished me for reporting my abuser by beating me and throwing me in a cell the day they told me the results of the investigation, and it went on from there, with me having no understanding of the police action and no appropriate adult to explain. 

And who was overseeing the police? Ian LeMarquand, church reader/home affairs minster/friend of the abuser. 

I think the church times need to look at and hear the facts, the ones the Diocese and Archbishop have overlooked and omitted from all reports.

While safeguarding officer Jane Fisher refused to act, telling me my abuser was 'a Christian who got things wrong' despite her knowledge that he had been accused and warned previously, which I didn't know because the church neither told me nor implemented the controls put over the man to stop him abusing within the church again.

How dare you vilify me without including my side, what a dreadful example of how self-serving and unChristian the church and the Church times are.

Please make the churchy aware that allowing the article you have produced is a breach of the legal action and will be taken up.

Please also note that you are completely failing with regards to good journalism because you are printing a one sided and defamatory story against someone vulnerable.

It is time at very least that you answer to the Press Complaints comission, you and the rest of the church times, who have ignored my letters but have printed defamatory and misleading rubbish from lawyer-clergy who support the Dean, such as Gavin Ashenden who slurred me as insane when I am proved not, you and the church both have no understanding of vulnerable adults and the harm that ongoing persistent defamation that omits the real story can do to them.

sincerely,

HG

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

Dear HG

I am genuinely surprised by your response, except that I can’t blame you for rolling the Church Times up in your criticism of the Church of England. We’re independent of it, but obviously part of the establishment in many people’s minds.

First, just to state that the purpose of the piece was to say to our readers, in the context of the Waddington inquiry results, that the C of E has a great deal more work to do if it wants to have any sort of confidence that its churches are safe places for all, adults as well as children. Many people now know this – and I believe Paul Butler is one – but the message is not being disseminated effectively. The Church will never be perfect, but it could be a damn sight nearer perfect than it is now.

We mentioned your case as an example of just how badly things can go wrong. It was a brief reference, that simply listed the chief undisputed facts of the case. You say, though, that you were never served with a harassment order. It’s important that we clear that up, and correct if necessary.

Otherwise, I’ve reread the piece a couple of times, and I don’t see anywhere where we malign or vilify you. We are not rude or derogatory about your blog. Our piece is neither attacking you, nor defending the church hierarchy.

Most of your criticism is about elements of your story that we left out. But this was a general piece about the subject of vulnerable and abused people in the church, and, besides, you have told us before that you find the rehearsal of your case harmful to you.

This was our dilemma: we think it important that the Church addresses this issue, in all its facets. If we’d left the stone unturned, you wouldn’t be writing angrily to me – but neither would we have brought this issue to the attention of our readers – who, we must assume, include both clergy and church workers who carelessly harm the people in their care, and who we know include people such as CF, quoted in the story, who deserve a voice.

The vehemence of your criticism suggests to me that we’re not going to agree, which troubles me. Both Madeleine and I are thinking that perhaps in future the paper should leave this subject alone, because journalism can’t do what those whom we’re attempting to represent want done. We can expose a wound in the hope that others will work to heal it – or at least not cause other wounds – but it’s not in our power to heal it ourselves.

But whether or not we agree about the article, your email to me is a clear indication that we have caused you upset. Please accept my apologies .This was not remotely our intention.

With best wishes

Paul

Paul Handley

editor

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

Dear Mr Handley,

You have produced a defamatory and inaccurate article on behalf of the church of england who you represent.

You have left me in shock, and I am surprised and horrified to see the same excuses that the church of england roll out from you.

You have produced an article that does not in any way represent me, my side of things or what has happened but which defames and sickens me and covers up for the church of england, and it is terrible to see the excuses when I have referred the complaint to you, a manager.

You are not independent of the church of england, that is a very silly thing to say, seeing as week after week, year after year you do articles about them, representing them, telling their story, you do their announcements, you do their propaganda and have repeatedly damaged me through articles and published letters while refusing to publish my side of things at any point.

You have left a vulnerable adult sick and in collapse and in tears on the anniversary of her dad's death, you have not even attempted to get my side of things or express it, all you have done is vilified me to the world and are now rubbishing my complaint.

And if that does not make you representative of the church of England, who have done the same, then I don't know what does.

My letter of complaint was not me 'lumping you in with my criticism of the church of england' what a ridiculous suggestion, it was me making a complaint about your journalist writing about me in a defamatory way and causing me harm and only representing the inaccurate church of england side of the story.

No Matter what you say. You have attcked my blog, deriding it as my 'rage about what I consider to have happened' basically rubbishing a blog that tells my side where the church do not and have silenced me by producing press releases and reports that omit me, That is derogatory and as you omit links to my blog and also omit the story of the saily blog 'Life after the Diocese' which runs from homeless in October 2011 to the present day, refuting day by day the criminal defamation of me by the Church, you are basically rubbishing my blog and not allowing people to hear my story and decide for themselves.

I have made a complaint about Madeleine and her article, one of a number that defames me and omits my side, and the publication of defamatory letters about me in the Jersey Deanery, you are not addressing that by your cop out about my vehemence, and how you feel we wont agree, you are deliberately sidestepping the issue of the harm caused. You have a duty to deal with my complaint, you also have a duty to publish an apology to me, and unfortunately your claim that you will 'leave the matter alone' does not ring true after two years of you defaming me on behalf of the Diocese, thus I will be gathering the articles and as well as a complaint to the press complaints commission, I will be taking you to court.

I will not stand for any more attacks on me and public floggings and condemnations of me, you are to redact the article and apologize. I cannot begin to imagine how you can claim you don't understand why this matter has upset me, nor can I imagine how you can claim independence from the church of england, nor can I imagine how you cannot see how wrong it is from a journalist to behave as madeliene repeatedly has as I suffer in silence.

 I have put up with madeliene and the church times harassing me through defamation for all this time and cried and wondered how I can keep trying to rebuild my life on the back of the constant mis-reporting on my case where you break the very basic journalistic codes by writing defamation and derogatory articles that imply I am a monster and the wrongdoers innocent, without including interview with me, as well as refusing to publish letters sent to you by me, while publishing defamatory and misleading letters from supporters of the Dean of Jersey without even checking the facts nor considering the impact on me.

As the church times, Do you consider yourselves to be Christians? Seeing as you are writing about Church and Christianity? If so, you should be heartily ashamed of yourself for attacking a vulnerable adult and then rubbishing her anguish in response, after she has put up with you and your concretely unChristian behaviour for nearly two years solid.

There is no credibility at all in your claim to be independent of the Church of England, that is laughable, you report on them and from them, how are you independent in your report from Paul Butler?  You aren't, how are you independent in publishing Gavin Ashenden't letter defaming and discrediting me as 'Mentally ill' and furthermore, why would a real Christian ever try to excuse abuse on the grounds that the victim is mentally ill and not credible? Where did you mention in your 'safeguarding vulnerable adults' article this morning that mentally ill and other vulnerable groups are the most likely to be abused.

Lets ignore your cop out that you are 'concerned we wont agree' because cop out is all it is, you have injured a vulnerable adult by producing an inaccurate and defamatory article based on the chuch's views, the church you claim to be independent from. Here are points you have no right whatsover to make as they do not tell the story:

• You talk about my abuser telling the Dean he 'took a risk and thought he was doing the right thing' basically you are making him out to be a poor wounded man, you are omitting that he was a serial abuser that the church had allowed to remain in authority and put theoretical guidelines around, but the church failed to either warn me or enforce those guidelines, and instead the Vicar and his wife supported this man as he regressed and abused me.
• You make out I criticized the Korris report, you fail to mention that the Deanery also criticized the Korris report, that it was widely criticized, not least because it was published internationally and given to the police as fact even though Korris failed to interview me or the churchwarden, and the report was garbled, not chronological and I wrote my own report as long as the Korris report on the inaccuracies, and sent it to Korris, who sent it to the Diocese who failed to amend the Korris report or acknowledge it, or even remove the Korris report until I took them to court this year. Think what happens to the vulnerable who cannot type as I can, who get destroyed this way and have no voice!
• You mention, for no apparent reason and inaccurately, me breaking a harassment order, no harassment order was issued, and again, you do not have my side of this, and the police and court records are proven inaccurate, basically, for no reason whatsoever you vilify me, for the church, because you have avoided my side, and bring up the trauma of the terrible police behaviour, the beatings, the imprisonment, all of which occured because I was abused, regressed to childhood and left in a terrible state in a small cliquey island community where the power was on the side of an abuser and a Dean who had done wrong, not in your report, so you are not credible in claiming to be independent, if you were, where is my side of things???
• You fail completely to mention the added trauma of the cover up,which is indeed actually mentioned in the Korris report to start with, and the cover up was at my expense, while I had a breakdown as a result and continued to deteriorate into severe post traumatic stress, as recorded on the full psychological report on the blog you claim to be my 'rage' against what I 'perceive' to have happened. I am sure that although you show a very unpleasant and arrogant attitude to the victim you have attacked, you will have seen news articles about what Post Traumatic Stress does to people? If not, maybe you should read up on it before you interview me to ensure you can balance out your articles that so far have been acts of harassment and harm to me.
• Oh, I forgot, you don't want to give an accurate or balanced view.
• Your article, with no warning or permission from me, on top of the many other articles and letters, without you asking for my views, are harassment, and you now are obliged to rectify the situation with an apology in the Church times and possibly even ensuring people hear some of my response, which I will publish on my 'rage' blog.
• No matter what the excuses, I am on the receiving end of your terrible journalism and have been for some years and would like to point out again that you have worded the article in a way that vilifies me and even makes my abuser look hard done by, and as a reader and a representative of your readership (I am ashamed to say), I see myself being portrayed badly, and not for the first time by your paper. I have also been receiving feedback this morning, all morning, which says the same thing. Either the way the article is worded is too subtle for you to see how derogatory it is, or as you are not on the receiving end of it and do not appear to know the full story including my side, you fail to see how damaging it is, I am on the receiving end, I know it is not my story but is slander and I have a legitimate right to object, so it you have a superior, who may understand the impact of inaccurate articles better than you do, maybe you could pass it on to him.

It is very notable that at no point have you published the massive and questionable discrepancies that have occured without explaination in the Diocese of Winchester inquiry:

Such as:

• The Bishop had no power to suspend the Dean, so he had to re-instate him, why was this not investigated as Dakin should have known the extent of his power.
• Why did the Bishop claim the Dean had acted in good faith BEFORE the investigations? (basically because he had no power to suspend or discipline the Dean due to Jersey canon law 2012.
• Why Were two formal complaints against Jane Fisher ignored completely? Why was she allowed to continue to be involved when even the Korris report which is written mainly under Jane Fisher's dictation and thus covers her serious misconduct shows at a few points Jane Fisher's serious misconduct at my expense?
• Why was Jane Fisher not suspended and investigated as the Dean was? She is equally guilty of misconduct.
• Why has she been allowed to jeer that she has not been called to account by illegally referring me to her friend and colleague John Cameron without my consent so the Bishop could claim to have offered me help, while the actions of the church had disrupted all my support and therapy? And further to that, Jane Fisher recently jeered by adding me on twitter, with her twitter account full of boasts because nothing was done about her, I do have proof.
• Why was it claimed before the Steel report was released that someone, not me, had put in a legal bid against it?
• Why was Steel, a colleague and friend of the wrongdoers, allowed to run a conflicted report against me to clear the Dean anyway? Why were the wrongdoers allowed to get  States funding and backing for legal protection and expertise to hijack the case anyway?

This matter is not closed until you explain how your perceived independence is vilifying me with the church's story rather than ever looking into these matters and more? You have not interviewed me or anyone representing me, you have told the church's story, with Paul Butler at the helm as usual. You have tried to rubbish me and claim that 'We wont see eye to eye so you don't want to discuss it. Well we wont see eye to eye if you vilify me with the church's story and your journalism is so poor that you neither include my story nor consider the impact on me and deride my voice that speaks through my blog.

Your harm to me and your poor response are unacceptable in the extreme and you are to take further action to rectify this harm to me and I don't want any more unhelpful excuses, you have a duty of care to the vulnerable adult you have attacked in your paper with no warning.

Yes, I agree you should not report on this matter again after two years of playing a part in publicly flogging me, because it will impact on my legal action against you if you do.

sincerely,

To put it bluntly Mr Handley,

I don't accept your apology because it comes at the end of a letter no better than the article your paper has further harmed me with today.

What I want from you is for you to fulfil your duty of care by rectifying the situation with a correction and apology in your paper, bearing in mind you have defamed and misrepresented me for 18 months to a year, and you are obliged to apologize in the paper and rectify your mistakes with a notice/article, although reality is you should not have done the harm you have done.

Which, if you are genuinely independent, I am sure you will have no qualms about doing. But reality is, Paul Butler and the church wont be too pleased with a correction and you are not independent, your very title states that.

In the meantime I have published your letter and my responses on my blog that you innacurately refer to being about my 'rage' when in reality, there is consistently no rage whatsoever on the blog, again your reporter's journalism and omission of checking facts is apalling. 

I am sure you can imagine now, or hope you can, that my blog is my way of telling my story when journalists such as yours distort it in favour of the church of england's story, and do not try to get my side of things.

My blog has wide and high readership, not as high as your newspaper, which calls itself the 'World's leading Anglican Newspaper' And with your paper thus titled, tell me again how you are independent of the church of england???

You have left me ill on the anniversary of my dad's death, and your excuses are very poor indeed, I will see you in court.

Please remind the church of england on my behalf that a million pounds later, they have still completely failed to record and investigate the abuse and cover ups I have suffered in the church of england, leading to poverty, ruin and a criminal record after 28 years of clean record against the background of the worst possible upbringing.

The whitewashes that have failed to include me and which you have repeatedly used and based your articles on are nothing to do with genuine investigation.



Dear Bishop Butler,

As you continue to self-glorify at the expense of victims, I have to wonder what has happened to my complaint.

Please be assured that the only way the Church of England can ever safeguard without inquiries being conflicted self-glorifying whitewashes that harm the voiceless is when an independent body investigates you, properly.

Sincerely,

Dear Theresa May,

I am sorry to see you accidentally appointed another conflicted chair for the national CSA Inquiry.

That is not the only reason I am writing but I would also like to point out that twice in a row you have chosen unsuitable chairs for the CSA Inquiry, not just because of the named conflicts but also because both have been position holders in the church of england, the abusive government department who have destroyed and are still destroying me.

You must be aware when you appointed them both that they were church of england position holders and that that is a conflict due to the fact that so much abuse has taken place within the church of england and institutions run and overseen by them.

A member of the church of england cannot investigate the church of england, and the reason the church are getting away with abusing and destroying lives is because they are the only people who investigate abuse within the church, and they do so poorly and cover up and whitewash for year after year. It has taken a very long time for Eli Ward's case to actually be looked at properly after years of the church harming him, and my case still hasn't been looked into properly, it has been whitewashed and I have been vilified and am still being harmed to this day.

When Fiona Woolf resigns, please ensure you choose someone neutral, not someone chosen by Paul Butler to cover up for the church. I would not have found out that Fiona Woolf was a church of england position holder if Butler had not started making his usual loud spin and cover up noise that alerted me to something being amiss.

Most of all, please choose a neutral head of inquiry soon, as it is costing the government their election and harming victims as the charade drags on.

Please could you make sure there is an INDEPENDENT investigation into the Diocese of Winchester now as well, thank you.

sincerely

The reason Bish Dake is never free to answer communication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyhMYVU31ng


naughty religion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JKvJaJKPPk

looks like both inquiries are not going to properly cover or investigate the child traffiking that went on between Jersey and the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-29710544

Stuart speaks about the Jersey Inquiry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-29703989

Jersey is it's old self, and I like the comments

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2014/10/20/some-of-jerseys-new-politicians-struggle-to-tie-their-own-shoelaces/

Please note, I cannot tie my shoelaces, because I have a learning disability, so such things should be considered before being used against anyone.