Writing Hour

My life is going through transitions again, so I wonder if I should try to commit to writing on here for an hour or so per day.

I will return to Jersey in the next post, although it does trigger flashbacks.

On the subject of flashbacks, when I was younger I did not know what they were, and I still had flashbacks to when I was 12 years old and experiencing extreme violence.

One of my worst flashbacks before the Jersey and police brutaliy ones was a flashback to 12 years old. The time I had a breakdown that has affected my emotional and mental growth, leaving me childlike and always anxious.

I remember my mother saying that my brother was dead, that he had been killed.

 At the time my Dad and other older brother were out at work, there was just Mum, my sister a year older than me, and the younger children. The brother in question had been chased away by a gang, and my Mum said they had caught him and killed him.

This, for me, was the end of the world, because we had always been 'protected' by 'God', and the fact anyone could break through this illusion of protection that my parents created was unbelievable, as was my Mum saying my brother was dead.

My Mum told me that the gang was going to kill her, and there was no way of refuting this as they continued to hurl a barrage of bricks and stones at the house, some of the windows were boarded up and the rest were shattered, and the gang hurled themselves at the door, trying to break it down.

My mum told us children to go upstairs, she said she didn't want us to see her get killed, although I have no idea how we would have been any safer upstairs if she had been.

But anyway, my siblings went upstairs. 

I didn't.

I couldn't.

(I go against 'normal psychology' according to my psychology teacher of last year, before the diocese wrecked my life last year, I was at college, and we were taught that normal psychology is to turn away, and I do not, which is strange because I am autistic, but I do not leave someone on the ground if they fall, and I do not turn away from dangerous situations, like in Jersey when me and my friend intervened in an argument where a man was beating his girlfriend. My friend called me a vigilante ever after and took me to see 'Kickass' at the cinema, because she said it was my type of film)

Anyway, aged 12, I picked up one of the tree branches that we used as weapons, and I stayed with my Mum no matter what she said, I waited with her as they broke down the door.

We were lucky in a way, a lone police officer arrived in a car, but refused to radio for help, but the gang retreated, they had no real fear of the police, because all the police could do was add to their CV's.

But my Mum was hysterical, she kept telling him to radio for backup, I asked him to get my dad but my Mum told me not to say where Dad was, as she had no trust for the police at all, then she told me to go upstairs as she was going to kill the policeman, now my Mum is and was seriously mentally ill and I knew she could not kill the policeman, but I was terrified, it all got too much for me and that is when I broke down.

When I came round from the initial collapse, my Dad was back, and my brother wasn't dead, another policeman had rescued him from the gang, I always remember that police officer's Name, Jim Mulligan. 

And my other older brother was home, the policeman wasn't dead, no-one was.

I didn't fully recover, and never received the medical attention I needed, we were briefly granted police protection, then the violence we faced continued on the same scale and worse for a year. I never really recovered and have become the damaged person I am as a result of that time as well as the fraught years leading up to that and the continued unsettled times after that and before I left my family.

So it is true that I arrived in Jersey still damaged and without having recieved as much therapy as I needed, as the NHS is very lacking in provision for such things and no doctor had ever queried my background, despite me only seeing a doctor when I left home and with a whole record of childhood immunizations and illnesses missing and me obviously distressed. No doctor ever looked into what was troubling me, until I was homeless after Jersey, and even then they could do nothing to help.

So, even in Jersey I remember having flashbacks, and going to the church to tell them I was having flashbacks.

I wonder, why the church think this is my fault and a crime?

Peter Ould who has the time to jeer me and my blogs and say my testimony is worth nothing because he considers me to be insane, despite the fact he has undoubtedly never suffered or been abused or in poverty, would he have survived this? and would he have survived everything I have in the church of England and then had people like himself launch on me in agreement with the hate campaign against me and pronounce my testimony worthless as I was all of a sudden launched on by diocese, police and deanery and thrown off balance and traumatized and having to defend myself?! I may come accross as unusual and unstable, but I have been through every hell and not been allowed to develop into a normal person, and being abused and ground down by the church of england, even up to now with the diocese still being a pain, I cannot maintain stability, because I am raw. I am not mad, and I am truthful. 

I know what insanity looks like, it looks like what My mother used to say and do, to do with death, and I grew up with it, and my sister's suicidal tendencies as a result, and it has affected me, but I am not insane, assessements have shown I am traumatized but not seriously mentally ill, I am just broken and frightened and trying to live as each huge wave of damage washes over me and drives me further from the shore. It has always been a downhill spiral as I got abused and ground down by the church of england while unable to access the help that I founght for even from the time I left my family.

Most people say that Peter Ould and his jeers, and the comments of outsiders on the whole matter are irrelevant because they do not know me, but actually, Peter Ould is responsible, he has a duty of care as a priest, even though in the church of england such things are taken with a pinch of salt, he has vulnerable people in his church, and judging and condemning them, even if he does know them, is wrong in every way and he needs to learn about proper pastoral behaviour. So why, if he has not lived through what I have, if he has not experienced what has left me disturbed and hard to relate to and struggling to relate to others, why is he condemning me to the world while he claims to be ordained for Christ?

I know he vets all my posts personally :) little stalker that he is, to tell everyone I blog about anything and everything, so no doubt he will do a critique about me blogging about anything and everything here, but actually, I am blogging about two things, trauma and flashbacks - my experiences aged 12 and Peter Ould and his badly behaved associates both cause me trauma, just different kinds of trauma.
I guess a point I am trying to make about Ould is, he is yet another example of the church of england judging me and publicly condemning me without fair trial, without my side being heard, and while he has got the other side of the story from wrongdoers who have done wrong and defend themselves by maligning me.
That is pretty much the same as the advocate 'representing' me in Jersey telling me I had done wrong and my side of things was irrelevant, and the same as Jane Fisher and the Bishop omitting what they had done to provoke me when I was on trial in sussex, and claiming they had only helped me when they had harmed me isolated me and left me cut off from friends and homeless services.

The Church of England, 'called to help the lost, the last and the least', have done everything they can against God in destroying me, from lying, judging and covering up, to leaving me permenantly destroyed and publicly jeered and humiliated.
It does not change the fact that my unheard testimonies are truthful and that I have been abused and that my actions and reactions are because I am seriously damaged, not seriously mentally ill, and condemning and blotting out my testimony will not change it, but will only make those in the church wrong in God's eyes.

being launched on while homeless, traumatized and autistic, what does Ould expect but incoherent anger and grief? would he be any better in my position? No, but he judges from a position of wealth and status, not from a position of someone who has suffered and understands, hus he is not a just judge, nor qualified, nor asked, to judge. so the Great Judge of All will send him to the furnace for adding to my wounds.
Psalm 69, as always.

Two sides of the Church of England, panic recruiting, lack of accountability

A deeply cynical post, written for the likes of Peter Ould who would attack an abuse victim because he is defensive of a warped church system (and he is a bit vouyeristic as well, by all accounts, hence being an ordained priest who writes on the internet about sex and interferes in abuse cases and slates the victim for what he has heard about them, without ever having met them, he represents the Church of England badly, or well, depending on how you look at it).

The Church of England divides into two, and both sides seem to be losing direction.

I know correct terminology but I can describe what I have seen of the two sides of the church.

The Church of England Side one:

Side one is undoubtedly the original Church of England. You see it in Cathedrals and old village and High Churches. If you watch the Vicar of Dibley, then David Houghton is a perfect example of this side of the Church of England. Holding positions in Church because he is wealthy and has status, rather than because he is ethical or a mature Christian. It is almost 'expected' for the local 'aristocracy' to hold positions in this side of the church, and I have witnessed that firsthand in my life, working for the big country house when I was younger, my employer wasn't ethical, she allowed drug use in her house and on her estate, and other things, but because she was the aristocrat with the range rover and labradors, she was the churchwarden for the local church congregation of 12 or so people.

I would say, that this side of the Church of England is still the prevailing side. But I remain without understanding as to why exactly these people are in the positions, isn't it at odds with their life and attitude?

So, in the structure of this side of Church, the leadership is a clique of rather well-to-do people and there is a Vicar or Rector wedged somewhat uncomfortably in the middle, and they can wedge in three or so ways, passive -they let the clique lead and they follow, dominant - they control the way the church is run and don't like being questioned -this doesn't work so well these days because everyone has a car and everyone can choose another church, and the third option is for the priest to be one of the clique, despite the Diocese of Winchester now desperately trying to recruit everything that looks vaguely human, a lot of priests are still from stable or well-to-do backgrounds and can be as removed from the normal world as the cliques who run the churches are.

So who goes to side one of the church of England? Mainly wealthy older people, disabled and disadvantaged people tend to stick out like a sore thumb, and their offers to help in church tend to be knocked on the head by the cliques and politics that run the church, and who are behaving at odds with Christianity despite holding their positions.

This side of the Church of England belongs in the dark ages, and such discrimination as you meet in these churches would not be allowed in any workplace or anywhere outside the church, and any other organization that was so exclusive would be slated to the world for it, but the Church of England is kind of separate from the real world, exclusive, and they daily glorify themselves on twitter despite the glaring mess they are in, and you have to wonder, how do they explain this self-glorification in the context of Christianity, it isn't Christianity, did Jesus advertise himself thus? A Christian Church should be modest, and while the Church of England refuse to be accountable for their faults and prejudice, they love to show off what they think is good about themselves.

Anyway, back to basics, the Old Church of England is exclusive, old, dry, about money in the coffers and their version of helping the poor is putting some of their wealth in envelops for appeals and patting themselves on the back.

This side of the Church of England is not a good place for vulnerable people, because these wealthy older people tend to not know or understand disability or vulnerability or the difference between different health conditions, especially not non-physical ones, and they tend to still use words like 'mental retardation', I have heard autism repeatedly described this way by these old people, and I have been described this way, in my hearing, because some of them think my condition means I cannot hear or understand them.

So with a total lack of understanding of disability on the part of the majority in these churches, and with vulnerable people being a distinct minority and misunderstood, and with the Church constantly recruiting and employing people from the older and wealthier majority, because there would be outcry and shunning otherwise, the vulnerable can be abused. 

And in a number of cases, including a mentions in Police Inspector Harry Keeble's books on child protection, abusers go into the church because church people are more trusting and abuse is easy.
I would like to add to that, in my experience, the Church of England refuse to, or cannot, remove abusers from church positions, even if those people are not cleared by the police, and in both abuse cases, my abusers have remained respected church figures while I have been destroyed, which glaringly pronounces the church as a safe haven for abusers.

Finally, on the subject of Side one, the Old Church of England, as I have explained before, the churches are run by these wealthy older people, mainly old ladies who have always been provided for, and aristocratic gentlemen, and not only do they not understand the vulnerable, but they have blind faith in the Church of England Hierachy, the Bishops in their palaces and those high up, who also live very comfortable lives.

So when I told an old wealthy Church lady that the former Archbishop had repeatedly turned a blind eye on me and other abuse victims, and had left me to be destroyed, she was outraged, for the Archbishop, she kept repeating to me, trying to force me to accept it 'Archbishop Rowan Williams is a Very Godly Man', and she kept repeating this mantra at me, over and over, trying to drown me out, but had no answer to the simple question 'why did this supposedly Godly man fail so many vulnerable people who appealed to him? why did he ignore them?' This was beyond her scope, because she was old, well off, and knew nothing of abuse and didn't want to, therefore me and what had happened to me was an affront to her 'Very Godly Man' image of the former archbishop.
That is Side One, the Old Church of England.

Side Two of the Church of England:

This is not a more caring or inclusive side, it can certainly give that image, as well as an image of being 'modern' and 'not like the old people' but is it better?

The 'New Version' of the Church of England, 'Side Two', is the extreme Evangelical side, it is usually characterized by young male preachers, who are all charismatic and wear tight teeshirts and play guitars, well that is a stereotype but it is a good one. The congregation is quite happy to have plastic chairs and stand up a lot, it is all noise and light and sound, it is a bit like a rock concert on a Sunday, and everyone has to join in, and smile. They usually have to have a big 18-30s group and everything has to be 'young' and 'trendy' and the young people are all professionals with all the latest stuff and gossip.
A different type of club than side 1. and they want to take over from side one and banish it as being in the dark ages. But this side is more of a club than a church, a fun young people's rock club, socials and things are very important, it all fits round work and they are all professionals, it is a desparate attempt by the Church of England to stay alive as their side one congregations are dying out.
But you don't see the side one and side two congregations together, so who is right and who is  wrong?

Ethics and knowledge in the Church of England:

Basically none are necessary.
The problem with both sides in the Church of England is that neither seem to have much by way of ethics, and neither are really inclusive of the minorities.

My initiation into the Church of England did not involve teaching me the ethics or structure of the Church of England, in fact nothing was taught to the group of us that were confirmed, and I learned nothing new about Christianity before I was confirmed, I was rushed through Baptism a week before being confirmed, with no preparation or teaching about what baptism involved, it was a last minute idea to get me confirmed, my concerns about Baptism were not allayed and I was under pressure to be Baptised, I was Baptised alone in a church with my abuser and two other rich old people who damaged me present. A week later, none the wiser, I was confirmed.

After Baptism and confirmation I attended Bible study and house group and was surprised and frustrated to find that neither of these things were named correctly, in both cases, it was a social group where people gossiped, whined, ranted and gave their opinion of the world, very little of the Bible was taken in, and basically Church of England people do not appear to learn the Bible, I have found over the years and even in the last few years, in a discussion, if we have to look up Bible passages, I find them or explain them and all these old Church people from Side 1 ask me if I went to Bible College or something! No, I was simply taught to read and understand the Bible properly, what on earth are you lot doing each week?!
I have to be cynical and consider that side 1's way of life doesn't represent the Bible too well, so they don't want to get too close to the Bible. But then, who am I to judge them? :)

The Diocese of Winchester.

The Diocese of Winchester is an interesting mess of side one and two. According to a Vicar, Bishop Scott-Joynt wanted to wipe side one out and have only side two, and that appears to be correct, having read his not-so circulated instructions about shaming people who didn't want to see the pews in church ripped out, they were to be 'instructed to move on' I gather.
I think he was defeating himself, it is the wealthy side one who are blindly paying to keep the corporation alive.

Jane Fisher is also a side two, a slapdash evilangelical, who preferred smartass textbook answers about abusers just being Christians who got things wrong, and making everything into incorrect theology rather than actually engaging with the abuse and my situation, a way of describing her and other side two's way of answering things is 'misplaced-wisdom-because-it-is-not-wisdom-but-that-person-is-wise-and-Christian-in-their-own-eyes-so-they-want-to-misquote-the-Bible-and-theology' and that description is very much the atmosphere and ethic of the Church of England Side Two.

In the Villages of the Diocese, Side One thrives, or doesn't, as the old wealthy villagers die off, and parishes and benefices merge, so that one priest has many many miles to cover in order to look after his parishes or benefice, and although this is not always sustainable or fair, it does happen, and it means that parishioners miss out. I have seen this firsthand, with one village complaining they never saw their rector, but their rector had five villages and every inch of land between those villages, miles apart, to cover, and yes, people missed out, it is not sustainable but it happens.

So what is the solution, move in 'Team rectors' and rip out pews, make the 'Side two' way prevail so that all the wealthy young commuters in the villages can fit church round their other commitments? Maybe, but where is God in all this? When pews are ripped out and older people start to feel unwelcome and are displaced after years, is that any better than the old and wealthy leading the Church?

This debate could go on forever and go off at many tangents but in half and hour I am back on the streets with no food or hot drinks, so it can't.

So, the Diocese of Winchester, side one dying, side two wrecking, no safeguarding officer preventing abuse, no inclusion of vulnerable people in either side, because we are simply not of use to either side.
What did the safeguarding officer do about me being abused? Make sure I was included and safe anywhere? make sure my abusers were supervised? No, because my abusers were older, influential, well-off, had positions and connections, so I was banished, maligned by the safeguarding queen and the abuse was covered up, while my abusers were protected.

Anyone can join the Church of England, there is no need for proper teaching and preparation to join, there is no explanation, you do not learn anything unless you as an individual decide to study the Bible or theology, there is no clear guidance or ethics, ie, you are not taught about what might be right and wrong sexually or integrity-wise, you are just kind of left to do your own thing, there is no collective ethic and no accountability to God or to others is taught, it is a church for the self-indulgent and it is a Church for froth and excuses and it is ideal for the well to do, because they can profess Christianity without any accountability.

And one of the reasons I was delighted to join the Catholic Church is that there is an intensive teaching period for those who wish to join, you do have to understand what you are joining and why, you do have to commit to a relationship with God, you do learn accountability and integrity, and as I have said in my open letter to the Jersey Deanery, that first lesson of accountability helped me profoundly, because it released me from the condemnation of the Diocese of Winchester.
The Catholic Church does teach ethics, it does teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong, in contrast to the Church of England  being fearful of upsetting anyone or losing any side twos, so they daren't have ethic like that, so they 'let it all hang out' really, while the Catholics are bold, the Catholics are also still one universal church rather than having the division of sides one and two, and mass is always well attended.
The Catholic Church have many ethics, including 'do not gossip, it is a sin', while the Church of England thrives on gossip, and when confronted they attack the confronter, as I know from experience.

Priests. A ploy of the CofE is to go on about Catholics only having male priests, but the Church of England are so desparate that they are pretty much recruiting anyone, many unsuitable and not commited or ethical, notably young women fresh out of college, too young to have the wisdom that Pastoring requires, but the Church/Diocese of Winchester dress this up as 'being modern' and 'look at us! Aren't we inclusive!' No, a lot of makeup and high heels is not a great way of representing God, because we have to decrease in order to increase.

So where is God in all this? This is the Church of England, God doesn't have to be in it.

Introduction

Earlier this year, severely traumatized by the Diocese of Winchester's tracing of me. I started a blog.
It was muddled and not a very good description of things and I was under too much stress and trauma to get it right.

The blog was publicized against my wishes and I had harrasment from a church of england vicar who calls himself an investigative journalist in order to satisfy his vouyeristic needs, and who publishes a blog about sexuality and decided he had every right to barge into the church of england matter and scapegoat me.

It just shows how low certain people can stoop, especially ordained people.

This blog will hopefully answer some people who have asked me to write about what has really happened, as the Korris report is horrendously inaccurate and damaging, and Dame Steel's report, because she is conflicted, will be the same.

Following the example of the Jersey bloggers, who have faced arrest, imprisonment and other damage for speaking out and speaking the truth, I intend to keep this blog up, no matter what is done to me, basically I am already ruined beyond repair by the church of England and so it doesn't matter, I do not expect them to stop harming me, and my side of things has been excluded from any enquiry, so I am going to give my side of things this way.