The Dean, in response to so many questions

Dear Peeps,

The stats are up because of the Dean's 'Resignation'. Just as the stats went up when in the summer the Archbishop and Bishop smeared me and upheld the Dean earlier this year. More death threats, hate attacks and lies against me always result from these one-sided press shows.

The Dean, as you know, has had the freehold of the Deanery and would have stayed until retirement, but was made to step down. The big show in the press and the resulting troll attacks on me are to do with the same thing as the Bishop and Archbishop upholding the Dean and his engineered Steel report earlier this year.
It is all catastrophic dishonesty and safeguarding failure, cover up and show, because the Church's image matters more than anything else.

The Dean and his wife jeered at me that they had freehold of the Deanery and would remain until retirement, in the same conversation with me where they called me evil and tried to use one-sided accounts of abuse and harm I had suffered in the past against me. This conversation was not recorded or dealt with by Jane Fisher and was blatantly lied about in court where I had no voice.

In 11 years has Jersey become more Christian, less unequal, more honest or kind or Christian? No, from what I have seen of Stuart and Trevor and Shona being destroyed and the terrible behaviour of the Bailhache Brothers and others. The Dean has achieved nothing for his free house and massive salary, and he is a danger to the vulnerable through his dishonesty and his acts of destroying a vulnerable adult to save his own skin. It is astounding that the Church are upholding him and giving him other positions where he will be a safeguarding risk, after they spent a million pounds covering up for him and destroying me.

No lessons have been learned. The Church of England with their loud noise and hot air about safeguarding and habit of employing people 'from a social care background' to create an image but not good safeguarding, is as dishonest and corrupt as it always was.

There still needs to be an independent review into my case and why I have been publicly destroyed, and the church are still hiding behind lawyers and insurers and even if they were to be forced to allow a review, they would choose a conflicted person and call them independent, no lessons have been learned. The complicit press print whatever the church say, and have told me so, and my side is only printed in distorted snippets.

The Church need to be audited by the government, and use of the press and media for the Church's own ends needs to be investigated and regulated.
No lessons have been learned. The million pound Jersey farce is a disgrace that the Church can't even find the grace or Christianity to take responsibility for.
The Dean is upheld and there is no safeguarding in the Church.

But once the Dean returns to the UK, taking legal action against him will be much simpler. I hate trying to deal with paperwork for two different countries.

http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-very-reverend-bob-key-dean-jersey

Gavin Ashenden

A divorcee clergyman who is on his second marriage, has not been reprimanded or dealt with either for his open harm to me in the press and media or his repeat and ongoing attacks on various vulnerable groups, most notably his homophobic attacks which he rather incredibly tries to use Christianity as an excuse for.
It is horrifying, just as it was with my case, that the press and media uphold this without question, but less surprising that the Church of England turn their embarrassed backs and do nothing, because they have no power to discipline clergy in Jersey or France.
God didn't condemn gay people, he did condemn divorce, and for so long the Church have twisted the Bible and Christianity to suit themselves, and it has got to blatant.
Is there ever going to be an overhaul of the archaic Church, and a system of accountability and discipline put in place?

Jersey Safeguarding Partnership Complaint

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

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

DEAR JERSEY SAFEGUARDING PARTNERSHIP,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This point is a very simple comprehensive explanation of my objection to your report. My wellbeing is more important than your need to make distorted confidential information and tampered-with evidence public to meet anyone else's demands or any target or legislation, and you have a duty of care to me, and you have resoundingly failed in your duty of care thus far and are still failing as you continue to push for your report.

 Sentors Gorst, Bailhache and LeMarquand are known to have abused their positions to handle and mis-use evidence and inaccurate police records in order to discredit me and protect the Church, of which they are members and dignitaries, and your time would be better spent investigating this rather than pushing for your report that they have been involved with.

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

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

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

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

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

sincerely,

HG

Further Reading: 

http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/open-response-being-bullied-and-trolled-jerseys-safeguarding-partnership-behalf-ian-gorst

http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/senator-ian-gorst-resignation-and-freedom-church-jersey-safeguarding-complaint

http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/starting-to-respond-to-bullying-by.html#.V5SpVPkrLcc

Apparently the Liberation Day speech didn't go down so well

The Power Cut was well timed, but not well timed enough, and I think it should be looked at more closely.

Jersey insists it isn't a tax haven!

And it also claims it was not a place where traffiking of children and systemic abuse occured.

But this is awesome:

Jersey's conflicting headlines

One headline reads 'No apology from civil servants over South Africa Flights'
The other headline reads 'Civil servant Sorry for £13,000 flights'  minister apologises unreservedly.

Typical Jersey

Obituary to Sir Philip Bailhache

Dear Sir Philip,

The mainstream obituaries will read out all the nice things, won't they? Especially BBC Jersey and the JEP, who will make you out to be a great visionary leader.

But I am one of a number of people you have harmed with your self-obsessed power-hungry crusades that have gone on for decades.

My obituary to you could be summed up in a few words, for example 'paedophile protector',
'above the law' 'feudal lord', 'control freak' and other simple terms.

You aren't a nice person and I am amazed that you really genuinely appear to consider yourself to be a Christian while behaving as you have.
'Delusional' and 'Hubris' are two more short ways of remembering you.

You may think you are a Christian but do you really doubt the fact that you are going to hell when you die? God isn't someone you can bribe, bully or otherwise manipulate to think your way or do things your way.

Philip Bailhache, gone, as soon as possible please, and good riddance. Leaves behind him a broken marriage or two despite holding church positions, and leaves behind him a trashed and ruined island of Jersey, we pray that he rests in hell and his brother follows him shortly.

This obituary may sound a bit nasty, but have you ever been on the receiving end of this man's terrible remorseless attacks?

Dakin when are you going to sort your unsafeguarding mess out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9aLhTHmuTg

Ashenden googles himself

One of the mysteries of life, why is Gavin Ashenden looking himself up on my blog? Does he want acclaim?

I dunno Ashenden if you really want an article about yourself, I could put together what people have sent me.

Apparently you used to be a very unbiased and inclusive Christian.
You were liked by your friends, some of whom have contacted me.

You were married and your wife's bipolar disorder became very serious and she threatened suicide a lot.
Incredibly, after a very stressful time where your wife's illness caused you very much stress, especially the suicide threats, she recovered.
And left you.

It is thought by the various people contacting me about your rabid behaviour of recent years, that that episode with your first wife was what tipped you over into your own mental illness that manifests as the rabid rantings and attacks that you are known for now.

When you judge everyone else as you do, you omit the fact that you are a divorcee and remarried and thus not in a position to lay down the law at all regarding Christianity. But I think you are too far gone to either understand or stop your wrong behaviour.

Anyway, while you were chaplain at the University in Sussex, you were seen to change from inclusive and liberal to rabid and unforgiving, biased and judgemental.

This is apparently why you had to leave there.

And Jersey of course being the trash can for priests with misconduct records who are not actually welcome to preside anywhere else but are welcomed to Jersey as the Church there is very different from the norm.

Since going to Jersey you have blatantly and constantly attacked minority groups and vulnerable people and rubbished abuse victims and their feeling, you have been openly racist and homophobic. Your rants and the fact that they are met by silence in the church of england, who proceed to proclaim 'great safeguarding' in Jersey, are a terrible reminder that the Church of England is not a Christian church.

Why are you googling your reaction to immigrants or searching my blog for it?
I have no idea if you ranted about immigrants or if you decided to do the church's usual PR trick of pretending to 'care very deeply'. Honestly, you are not very important, Ashenden, I pity you, I don't waste blog time and space on you.
It is true that people in the Diocese of Normandy have complained about your rude and arrogant behaviour and taking over there, but they contacted the wrong person, I am not your boss.
And regarding your Xenophobia, why did you go to Yemen? Just an all-expenses paid trip like when you go to Normandy?

You know and can't hide from yourself that your dishonesty and judgement of others and bad behaviour won't go away when you stand before God, and He will ask why you have abused me and others and continued to the charade of representing Him. And He will hold you responsible. The Queen won't be there to protect you then, neither will anyone in law or the church. If you really believe in God while you behave so badly, what is he going to say to you about the way you have behaved towards me in the media when I had no voice? What is he going to say about your engineered Steel report?

Seeing as you are looking yourself up on my blog, I hope this satisfies your cravings. You are not really worth my time or a proper article. If you were, I would print what was sent to me, a bit like you wanting the Steel report published to destroy me and cover up for the Dean's wrongdoing.

He's his own biggest fan, Ashenden, Ashenden...

He is one in a million.
And apparently he is causing offence to non-brainwashed people again:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/forgiveness-and-anger.html

And someone video'd worship in the Jersey cult churches one day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9mbomIvYQQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n453yVHMpbw

Gavin Ashenden's finest preaching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTfpR5HDzoc

A post by a Jersey blogger -The parable of the knife

This caught my attention so I asked if I could reblog it, it is a Jersey blogger's post about social media and how survivors can be affected. Thank you to Tony the Prof who blogs about issues in Jersey and the wider world: 

WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2015

Parable of the Knife

Do you remember Doris Luke (played by Kathy Staff) in Crossroads? A do-gooder whose interventions invariable caused more problems for those they were trying to help.

Bloggers can sometimes do harm, even when they intend to do good. This short piece tries to communicate what that can feel like if you are vulnerable, sensitive and have bad memories brought back by those who think they are doing you a good turn. It's not about me. It's about someone I know who has trouble persuading "do-gooders" that their interventions can do more harm than good.

I hope it conveys something of how this makes those "helped" feel, and how disruptive it is to getting their life back together again.

Parable of the Knife

He was an old man now, but he could still remember the events. The cell. The strangeness of the court. Many people speaking to him. His head hurt. And then, he’d agreed something, and it made them happy, and it was all over.

For them, not for him. Suddenly he was on a plane, landing, left, nowhere to go.

“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

He was homeless, sleeping rough for many years. The cold and hunger remained in his memory, pain etched deep. But it was also liberating: no people speaking, telling him what to do, not understanding, and with their own ideas of what was in his best interests.

It was in the past now, and he was rebuilding his life, far from the troubles of the past, but flashbacks still haunted his days from time to time, made worse by those who still thought they could speak for him.

The world had become global, and blogs from those who had decided to support him came, and came, each time, a turn of the knife, each time a dagger of the mind, bringing back that past.

Wasn’t that patronising? How dare they think they knew him better than he did? And why wouldn’t they leave him alone?

He told them to stop, but they would not listen. He begged them to stop, but they would not listen. He emailed, and ranted at them – stop, stop, stop – but they would not listen. That cut deep.

Sometimes those who take your side can do more harm than your enemies.

And so he wrote this down, wrote how he felt, how miserable this made him, the pain, the memory. Memory never goes away. Traumatic memories may be held back, but they are always there, waiting to be released. Sometimes it can be a scent, a sound, and sometimes – a blog.

"Think before you blog" would be a good maxim, especially when dealing with vulnerable people. Have some fellow feeling for the harm that well-intentioned support can do. That’s all he wanted to say, all he wanted them to hear. You are damaging me.

But they would not listen. And in the end, he put his head in his hands, in despair, and wept.

And still they blogged on his behalf. And twisted the knife deeper.

Gavin Ashenden 2

A lot of people are landing on my blog looking for Ashenden, again.

Well, I gather he has had a row with the JEP, but I am still not wasting time on him.

Other bloggers have done posts, and one blogger has actually posted the article that the JEP have refused.
I cannot locate that article but I can link you to the other blog posts about Ashenden's whatever.

Please feel redirected, I am too busy for Revd. Ashenden at the moment.
Here you are:

http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/7536

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/gavin-ashenden-and-broad-historical.html

Evil? Or misguided?

For example, did Bailhache know, that I was egged on to do certain things and was told that they were legal, for example writing notices and sticking them to St. Andrews church or the churchwarden's house or re-directing spammers to spam the churchwarden, I was told that these were legal and that the churchwarden's unrepentance and arrogance deserved them, however I never did some other suggestions, such as weedkilling the churchwarden's garden or even worse suggestions.

The notices on the church were designed to help the church who had closed ranks against me in support of the churchwarden, to understand my side of things.
It is incredible that even then, at that late stage, I still thought that the church were Christians.

The notices and letters I wrote and stuck on the church and house were mainly not dated, and I have no doubt that the deanery have abused that, because they claim that the reason the Dean saw the churchwarden first was because I was harassing the churchwarden.
No, the churchwarden and his wife were slandering me to the church they had segregated me in, and throughout the church community where they were prominent figures, this made me an outcast in a small island community and left me deeply hurt, and more so when Jane Fisher covered up by denying that it ever happened. I was answering back to what the churchwarden was doing. And had the Dean received both complaints, it would still not have made sense for him to deal with both at the same time and also it didn't make sense that he saw the churchwarden first, as the chruchwarden was a known offender, who had been allowed to take me in, be alone with me even in the church and even when people witnessed inappropriate behaviour.

The churchwarden had deliberately separated me from the church coming between me and other friendly church members, telling them that I was his responsibility and they were to keep their distance. I still didn't know at the time that this is exactly what abusers do.

And worse, this is also what some abusers do. While I was with the churchwarden, as I deteriorated, he and his wife told other people of my distress, in their own terms, to get sympathy, making my distress out to be my disability and not my reaction to what was going on.

Philip Bailhache makes the situation out to be a happy family one, but it was never that.
The churchwarden for some reason wanted a daughter, he didn't pay any attention to his infant grandaughter, he wanted a daughter, and his wife didn't, she made that clear and said so, and called me a burden, I had already been belittled so much by people in the church of england who have no understanding of poverty, disability or vulnerability.

The damage to me was not just sexual abuse by psychological abuse, being told I was 'daughter' but kept from the rest of the family, and left out of family occasions, belittled by the churchwarden's wife and regressed to childhood by the churchwarden and made to talk about rape and other sexual things while he touched me or sat me on his knees.
Then I spoke up, and had Juliet Montague phoning me up, trying to tell me it was my problem because I went to the churchwarden's workplace - she failed to also mention that I always did so at his request, or in the end, when I wanted him to face and resolve what had been going on. And again, that is typical church of england closing ranks, and if the press ever actually heard the extent of this closing ranks, which is not mentioned in ANY report, then it would make a story.


Obviously neither Bailhache nor the Dean nor the former Bishop and his wife, nor Jane Fisher, and certainly not Juliet Montague, understand abuse and it's effects, they have focussed only on blaming and smearing me, covering up and omitting my side from any investigation, and none of what you read above, is included in the Steel report, so how can the report be anything other than a whitewash.  Back to Juliet, her denial of abuse and defence of wrongdoers was consistent through the time I knew her, she made her step-daughter out to be a liar, although that girl could not have ended up in the shocking state she did without being abused, and she defended Malcolm Eastlake at my expense, making me out to be as bad as him, a paedophile, for being on the autistic spectrum, the depths of church of England ignorance and outright wrongdoing is astounding, but it is all blithely axplained away in the Korris report at my expense, so what is the point of these reports? They show, to those who know, that the church is in the dark ages, and to those whop do not know or who are as ignorant as the church, the church is making the impression of caring and doing the right thing.

And as I say, time and time again, what happens to the voiceless, who cannot write as I do? Well they don't get deported in their pyjamas and then slandered and driven from their home town, destitute and branded for life, but they also never get heard by the church or get justice, the only victims I know who have been heard in the media and through speaking out as I do, are Theresa Cooper and Eli Ward, who are both scarred for life by the abuse they suffered and the injustice they faced from the church as a result.

The Dean's recent behaviour in demanding publication of the report does not show a man with a clean conscience, it shows a man who has got his own way in hijacking a report and is smug about it, he calls Dame Steel a 'respected Jersey Judge', well she isn't respected except by her close colleagues Bridget Shaw, the wife of the Rector of St. Clements, and Philip and William Bailhache and Michael Birt, all part of the Dean's church and circle, and the fact that they are in judiciary and in the church doesn't mean that they are good or honest, and in this day and age, people should know that.

So, what of my abuser now? Last I heard, he nd his wife had invited a female visitor from the Town Church home, as he know attends the Town Church and was applying to be warden there, I wasn't his first female guest, and I wouldn't be the last, of course, but he is well established and looked after by Bob Key's church, while Bob Key demands his report, and not a single member of the church will forgive what I did as the result of trauma, but instead try to blanket defame and shame me for their version of my past.
Isn't it time the church started taking my story instead of upholding this? Ah, but Jane Fisher openly upheld it, blamed me for an attack on me by a Jersey priest, based on 'what he had heard' from St. Andrews, and tried to do the same as the Dean and Deanery in lumping my past, or their version, and upheld them in it.

This is what Bailhache refers to as me 'Making complaints in Guernsey and Hampshire' Which I didn't, Jill and George Lihou are the parents in law of the priest who attacked me on grounds of 'what he had heard' and Jill and George are church members who lived in Hampshire but moved to Guernsey, they made my life hell and I never made a complaint about them, ever, the Jersey Deanery, with the help of the priest who attacked me, brought them into the Jersey matter while I was still in Jersey, to strengthen the case for the churchwarden who they were defending, and to take away my credibility, basically what has happened in the last few years with the Jersey Deanery slandering and libelling me is only what was happening in Jersey when I was there, and if you think of it that way, then you can see how neither Fisher nor Korris were credible in rubbishing my distress as paranoia.

On the subject of Fisher, when this matter is properly investigated, which both Fisher and the Deanery hope has been permenantly prevented, someone needs to ask Fisher which 'Jersey Politician' she was boasting about meeting with about me: Bailhache? LeMarquand? Or numerous other conflicted church-states-judiciary-freemasons?

The fact remains that I was not just 'punished' for reacting to the terrible damage to me in Jersey, I was destroyed, and Jane Fisher and Scott-Joynt went all-out to destroy me again when I returned to Winchester, not a scrap of integrity or compassion, they publicly, in front of my old friends, in my home town, destroyed me, and I nearly died, but I saved my own life, and remain crippled, and then the church have destroyed me over again.

The Church of England, as well as being without safeguarding, without care, and without understanding, are without forgiveness, and have spent two years destroying me again and making me live in fear, now how much more wrong than my traumatized actions, are theirs, from their places of power and wealth and stability, when they have never suffered abuse and do not know in the slightest or care, about the ongoing damage done to me? How can I forgive myself? When I am publicly flogged indefinitely, for reacting to years of harm by the church? This matter  isn't hurting a single other person, no one else has even been or seemingly even will be, disciplined, reprimanded, or even enlightened to my side of things.

What I have written and what I can write, and even the 20 hours of tape recordings, does not tell the full story, and so I am waiting for an inquiry that includes me.

HG

Vigil in St. Helier today 11am

For abuse survivors.

...Did they invite Bailhache?
Did they invite the Jersey Inquiry Panel?

http://mtadier.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/let-independent-jersey-child-abuse.html

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/support-for-jersey-child-abuse.html

Well done deputy Tadier.

Publication by Dan Wooding/Assist

This says so much that it doesn't say, Jersey:

http://www.sloppynoodle.com/wp/bill-latham-in-on-the-start-of-tearfund-and-the-man-who-suggested-the-first-overseas-project-for-jersey-overseas-aid-back-in-1972/

I think it is time...

That we collated some concerns about Philip Bailhache's misconducts?

I can imagine, just as when I suggested a justice protest in Jersey, all the anonymous commentators will start whimpering and trying to hide.
So, OK, I will start a blog, and contributors are welcome,
the more you live in fear of his wrath, the more you are enabling him.
Look at his public character assassination of me. I am still standing.
or I will simply nick your material anyway if you don't contribute.

Philip Bailhache has abused his power and harmed me to protect wrongdoers,
and has put other children and vulnerable people at risk,
and has insulted and harmed other Jersey abuse survivors,
and has tried to prevent justice for them.

So.
I will do a blog.

And hope it takes off.

I will read it on an airoplane as I return to Jersey, or was that fly from Jersey?

http://philbailhachehurtsabusesurvivors.blogspot.co.uk/

Earthquakes from the Jersey Inquiry

It is so tempting to say there was no earthquake in Jersey the other evening, that was just Senator Bailhache throwing a rather loud tantrum.

The Jersey Care Inquiry has hit potential funding problems, and Senator Philip Bailhache has decided to try to exploit that by trying to get the Inquiry closed down as a result.
Senator Bailhache has always been opposed to abuse survivors and proper inquiries into abuse, and that showed in his 2008 LIberation Day speech, where he said that the Island's reputation was more important than the abuse victims.
That is a terrible attitude, but it is also typical of him.
Privately educated at a top school, and never wanting for anything, Senator Bailhache has no empathy for abuse survivors and no understanding of them. This is quite typical of the majority of the Church of England laity and clergy, and he is or was a Church warden.
Paradoxical when you think of Jesus' teaching and examples.

Basically, Philip Bailhache does not like to be probed, oops, excuse my error, he does not like wrongdoing in Jersey to be probed.

It is paradoxical again how Philip Bailhache has been strongly against the Jersey inquiry but so keen on the Steel report being published, but the difference is, he abused his power in the Jersey's Dean case because he had a personal interest, ie, he is part of the church-politician-judiciary clique who support the Dean. So he claims to want the abuse report published there, and yet he voted against the Jersey care inquiry, and undermined and insulted the victims and is now 'calling on members of the public' to support him in quashing the inquiry, with costs as an excuse.
The common denominator in my case and the Jersey care case is that he has insulted and undermined me and the survivors of Jersey care abuse.
Why? Well he doesn't understand abuse, or victims of abuse, or their feelings or reactions to abuse, and he doesn't care, and he doesn't want to care, his main worry is what has not yet been uncovered about abuse and abuse of power in cover-ups, in my case and in the Jersey care case, and he is concerned for Jersey's reputation as he is like a feudal lord in Jersey, and he is apparently concerned for the part he and other powerful people he is close to and mutually supporting, in wrongdoing and cover-up.

I heartily applaud Deputy Montfort Tadier for once again having the courage and integrity to speak up in his letter to the media:

Dear All,

I am very concerned by these latest attempts, clearly led by Senator Bailhache, to close down the committee of inquiry. He was never a supporter of it, in fact, he consistently used his influence to try not to have one at all. This does not surprise me.

However, what does surprise me is that we were told by the Chief Minister that the Committee of Inquiry must be allowed to do its job - and that States Members should stand back and let them do this.

Senator Bailhache is trying to fan the flames of populism by asking a question that seems to invite an obvious answer: should we spend £50m on an inquiry to make lawyers rich?

I would ask the 2 questions: should we let the Committee continue its work and bring those perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes against children to task, including holding former Attorney Generals, politicians and staff to account - as per the agreed terms of reference?

Should we say to the UK - Jersey has run out of money. We would now like your Committee of Inquiry to extent to Jersey and we will give you free access to come over to do that?

Kind regards,

Deputy Montfort Tadier

And Here are Bob Hill and Voice for Children's Blogs on the subject:

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-costs.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/independent-jersey-care-inquiry-7.html

What Senator Bailhache is hoping, in 'urging the public to back him' over the inquiry costs is, the majority of non-native workers in the finance industry do not care about Jersey or islanders, and there are many Jersey people who have been dutifully trained to bury and repress, and there are those Jersey people like Bailhache who are too well off to understand or care about the abuse and it's impact.

What he doesn't realise is, each time he abuses his power this way, a growing number of people notice, and write about it.

I just had to copy this comment from Voice for Children's blog. It gives reference to Bailhache's data protection breach regarding my case:

Anonymous27 February 2015 at 22:01

Senator Bailhache being an intelligent man, and proclaimed believer in truthfulness is not happy with the rising cost of the child abuse enquiry.

Witness his public assertion regarding the possible costs topping fifty million pound. The way forward is for him to now propose a type of scrutiny Committee with himself as the chairman he also wants it to be impartial so may invite Terry Le Suer, Phillip Ozouf and Mr Mario Lundy and to sit in judgment over the cost of the inquiry. Once common sense and factual discussion has taken place he may then offer three open and reasonable propositions for the states to consider.

Option A) Continue but all victims must be prepared to travel to Barbados at their own expense to give their statements.

Option B) Continue but statements submitted must be read by the inquiry panel in confidence while flying in an airplane.


Option C) Continue and keep the Status quo, and hope that a witness does not come forward regarding a paedophile named as Roger Holland and who was responsible for allowing him to stay in a position able to abuse vulnerable people.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/philip-bailhache-and-roger-holland.html

Reply

Jersey had an earthquake last night

and Winchester had one recently.

Anyone else think God is also tired of the dirty war between Jersey and Winchester?

Or was the Jersey one not an earthquake?

Was it foot stamping because the Dean has been sent on holiday?

Or was it his private helicopter trying to land?

ITV's Blight

Is it just me or did Channel Television deliberately distort the words of the Chair of the Jersey Care Leavers Association.
They claim that she says that the inquiry is a blight, rather than saying the abuse is a blight.
Yeeks, 50 shades of Bailhache! And I know she is not like that.

Isn't it time the Bailhache Brothers also commented?

http://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/jersey-hits-headlines-over-telegraphhsbc-cover-scandal/#.VOR7ROasVkQ