A letter of Questions

Dear Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury,

This is a letter of questions.
Some of Which I have already asked you but have decided to share with the general public.
The list of questions is exhaustive, because what the Church of England have done in their crazy showing off has brought up many many questions, and as you continue to subject me to harm and damage to my life, I am answering with questions.

1. Diocese of Winchester, Don't you think it was ultimate abuse of power that you liased with the police to destroy me for continuing to fight both your refusal to deal with my complaints and your illegal violations of my life, and then you used the same police to have me illegally traced so that you could go on destroying me?

2. Can you explain why, if your reports were about safeguarding, why you allowed Gavin Ashendent to be interviewed for the Steel report when he has never met me, was not in Jersey when I was there and was abusing his power as a former lawyer and chaplain to the Queen in order to protect the Dean, and has gone on to cause serious safeuarding issues in Jersey and the Diocese of Normandy?
What is being done about the safeguarding issues that Ashenden is causing in Jersey? Examples of which are commented on here:
1)http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/gavin-ashenden-and-devil.html
2)http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/on-demonic.html
3) http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/httpwww.html

3. This is one of your clergy, who you are permitting to use the press to spread terrible propaganda against vulnerable people and Islam. Can you explain why?

4. What is being done about Ashenden's behaviour, including his slander of me in the press and media, which is also a safeguarding issue? Can you explain why the Diocese of CAnterbury and the Diocese of Winchester are allowing Ashenden to run a column in the JEP that is furthering his damaging views and harm to vulnerable groups?

5. Unrelated. According to Bob Hill, the Diocese have agreed to pay for my accommodation for the rest of my life. That was in 2013. It is now 2015. Would the Diocese like to make the arrangement to backdate the money to 2013 and start paying me?

6. Could the Diocese of Winchester please explain why, if there was nothing wrong with the Steel report so that they were prepared to release it in 2013 and again in 2014, why it has been 'being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts' for a year now. With legal fees starting at £300 per hour, and safeguard expert fees probably not much lower, how much has a year of these experts cost? Who is paying, and why, if the report has twice been prepared for release, has it needed a year of 'being looked at'?

7. Can the Diocese then confirm that what they intend to release in the end is not the full whack of what Steel, Bailhache, Key, Ashenden, Birt, LeMarquand, LeFeuvre and other powerful and conflicted interrelated people engineered to cover up for the Dean and my abuser at my expense? Can the Diocese explain what worth a report hijacked by the defendants and amended is worth to the general public, transparency and safeguarding, especially considering how much it has cost?
How much, including the year of having the Steel report looked at by experts has this un-safeguarding report cost? And who are these experts? And why have these experts been given a report that excludes the person it is about and their views? Why after a year if these are genuine experts, haven't they spoken out about this being one sided?

8. A question was asked in the States of Jersey recently: Why is the Dean on Sabattical (again) and who is paying for it? I would like to ask the above question and also add, why was he apparently sent on Sabbattical by the Luitenant-Governor of Jersey? And why did he and the Deanery make a concerted effort to get the Steel report released before his sabbattical?

9. Can the Church please explain which authority they have referred the complaint about Sir Philip Bailhache's abuse of power and breaches of the data protection act while holding documents he was not entitled to, and when the results of that investigation will be available and where to get a copy?

10. On the same theme of investigation, who is investigating the smear campaign and lies about me in Jersey's local press and media by the Jersey Deanery, and the wider attacks on me as a result of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of CAnterbury's launch of my case and the Korris report into the National Press. Who is carrying out this report and when will I be interviewed?

11. Remaining on the subject of reports and investigations. The Diocese of Winchester made a lot of noise about safeguarding and transparency and independent report, but as yet, no independent report that includes me has been arranged, unless it has been arranged without announcement, and as yet, I have not been contacted for interview. As all are aware, the Bishop has instigated investigations into Jane Fisher and the Deanery of Jersey's complaints against me, in the form of the Korris and Steel reports, but has not instigated any investigation into my complaints against the Jersey Deanery and Jane Fisher. Therefore this is an entirely unfair situation. When is the Bishop of Winchester or the Bishop of Dover going to arrange for a report into my complaints?

12. Can the Bishop explain exactly why he has effectively done a public, illegal and unjust investigation into me, and called it a safeguarding report? Can the Bishop explain how paradoxically destroying me while claiming it is in the interests of safeguarding makes sense? Can the Bishop explain why he has given a voice to my destroyers and unpheld them?

13 Can the Bishop explain why he had me illegally traced by the police on the claim that the diocese 'wanted to help me' after they had destroyed me, and he then went ahead in upholding the way the diocese had destroyed me, by threatening me, with the police and record that I would not have got if his clergy and safeguarding officer had not been doing wrong in the first place?

14. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain why, when he claims to consider Safeguarding is very important, why he has not dealt with Jane Fisher, his safeguarding director who has committed serious misconduct, and, as she is also a Reader in the Diocese of Winchester, why he has personally not dealt with complaints against her and left her to openly harass me, in the case of her illegally referring me to the NSPCC, illegally liasing about me, and her jeer of adding me on twitter last year, showing off that neither diocese nor police had dealt with he rmisconduct? And can the Bishop also explain how, as Jane Fisher is a reader, he has dealt with her conflict of interests in the 'Safeguarding complaint' as she is a reader alongside other readers in the Jersey Deanery, such as Ian LeMarquand and Neville Brookes and others who are close to my abuser? And can the Bishop explain why the formal complaints against Jane Fisher have not been dealt with and why after the complaints were made, she was allowed to continue to be involved in the Jersey Safeguarding matter? And why she refused to deal with the case of another vulnerable adult mistreated by the Church in Jersey, when she was in Jersey to illegally liase with the police over my case?

15. When is the Diocese of WInchester going to announce the conflicts of interest and coercions and abuses of power that rendered their 'visitation' and investigations in Jersey worthless? This includes connections between the Jersey Deanery and: Judiciary, Police, Masonic agreements, lawyers, advocates others involved in law, press and media workers, relatives and friends of the Dean, my abusers and the others listed here, other people not listed here. Unless the Diocese is quite open and blatant about these conflicts then they are neither being transparent nor honest, and if the Diocese do know these conflicts, then that again invalidates their 'investigations'.

16. What are the Diocese of Canterbury doing about the Jersey situation? Not a lot if Ashenden is anything to go by.

17. Did the Diocese of Winchester undertake this open public attack on me without foresight or was it deliberate? If the Bishop felt that he had the evidence on which to suspend the Dean, why did he then clear him before the Steel report was carried out, and thus defame me by anulling what had happened to me, and giving the press opportunity to attack me as discredited, why, if the Bishop re-instated the Dean, did he then proceed with the Steel report, having gone from suddenly suspending the Dean to suddenly clearing him? How did the evidence change from publicly suspending the Dean in the NAtional press, to clearing him? And why did the Steel report then occur when the Bishop had annulled his own actions, and why then has the Bishop not apologized to the Dean?

18. Why if the Dean was cleared, did he 'apologize' to no-one? Why did the feeble 'apology' never get sent to me by the Diocese? And why, when it was never sent to me, was it used as a 'trophy' on the Church website, after the Bishop cleared the Dean without even interviewing me?

19. Why, if the Korris report was inaccurate and thus you have cleared the Dean, have you not publicly annulled the Korris report and instead allowed me to continue being shamed and defamed by it? For example, in the Church (Times) Rag? Incidentally, why have you also allowed your clergy to libel and defame me in the same paper, where hundreds of clergy read their side of things and without my views added, one side of things gets heard and believed, and the same with the rest of the press slander. How, with these massive irregularities, can you claim that anything you have done is to do with safeguarding, and again, since you have cleared the Dean at my expense, why have you not apologized publicly to him for suspending him and publishing the Korris report? And why have you not apologized for me for the defamation and data protection breaches that have led to hate attacks and shunning of me? How is what you have done anything to do with safeguarding?!

20. Can the Bishop explain, in the context of the public display of abuse of power and ignorance of vulnerability and the effects of abuse shown by the typically wealthy and powerful Church members in response to the 'safeguarding reports' How the Bishop and Diocese have improved safeguarding through their actions, and how the Bishop and Dioceses have countered these ignorant, bigoted and narrow attitudes and educated these people on the subjects of poverty, vulnerability, disability and abuse? Especially notable church officers such as Philip Bailhache, Ian LeMarquand, Bruce Willings and other conflicted Church members? Can the Bishops publicly describe the work they and his dioceses have done in response to the open bigoted prejudiced and nasty attacks on me and on all abuse survivors and vulnerable people as a result of the Bishops unprecedented public attack on me and the Jersey Deanery through the Korris report?

21. Can the Bishops explain what action has been taken against the Clergy and Laity in the Jersey Deanery case for their ongoing misconduct as a result of the safeguarding report? And when there is to be a safeguarding investigation into my complaints, presumably leading to further appropriate action? And why a number of people involved in misconduct were actually promoted, as seems to be a generic action by the Church of England?


The next set of questions are the ones that I sent to Jan Korris in my open letter to her:

Here are some questions that you and other people need to ask the Bishop of Winchester:
1. Why did he have me traced and violated, illegally by the same police who his safeguarding officer had me destroyed with? Why  he do that AFTER publishing the Korris report and not in order to offer me a chance to participate?

2. Why were my amendments and views not added if it was a genuine safeguarding effort? And why was the report left up, not amended, until I took the Bishop to court?

3. Why did the Bishop not release the Steel report to a court of law if it was a genuine report? Why and how was he able to wriggle out of it, and will he do so again as I continue action against him?

4. Why did the Bishop claim that the Steel report was ready for release in November 2013, and then claim that someone had made a legal bid against the report's release? How could someone have made a legal bid when no-one knew what was in the report? This claim by the Bishop led to further slurs on me, most notably Peter Ould claiming I couldn't have made the legal bid as I was not intelligent enough - Peter Ould being the Vicar who blogged about sex until recently and illegally involved himself in my case to the detriment of the church and slandered me and jeered at me openly with the church refusing to restrain him until I kept up a sustained complaint - good safeguarding?

5. So if someone made a bid against the Steel report, and the Bishop had to amend it, then the report was not going to be accurate anyway, so then the Bishop claimed to be preparing to release it, again, in May, and Bob Hill and I both took action. Why was the Bishop trying to release this report to the wrong official in Jersey though? Again, when there is an independent investigation, outside of the Church, these things need to be queried.

6. Why does the Bishop keep claiming to have 'safeguarding and legal experts looking at the report? Why does he need these people looking at the reports if it is a fair and balanced report? Why have they been looking at this report for a year and more without contacting me to include my views and amendments? Why has the Bishop not sent me a copy of the Steel report to comment on?
Who are these legal and safeguarding experts?
If they are within the Church of England then they are conflicted, if they are not within the church then they would not have waited over a year to contact me for my views or declare the report conflicted and unbalanced and inappropriate denigration of a lone vulnerable adult. The Bishop's solicitors seemed unaware of the situation when I contacted them about this, and there is no sign of an outside safeguarding panel viewing this report, because if this happened, then due to the nature of the conflicted Steel report and due to the material about the mess the Bishop has made of my case being widely available, the Bishop would already be in a lot of trouble over the Steel report.
Presumably when Luther-Pendragon tell the Bishop to say that the Steel report is being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts, they are referring to the conflicted Jane Fisher and Elizabeth Hall, and the Bishop's chaplain, who is a trained Barrister. Thus the general public are being mislead.

7. Why did the Bishop of Winchester allow conflicted Jane Fisher to illegally refer me to the NSPCC? Especially when he had said that there would be no further unsolicited intervention in my life? And when Jane Fisher had a formal complaint against her, which the Bishop, Elizabeth Hall, Paul Butler and the Church of England have still failed to deal with? How are they committed to safeguarding when they have failed to record, investigate or resolve my complaint?

8. Why am I being made to live in fear of and trying to survive, continued press attacks while the Bishop of Winchester continues to lie about the Steel report and leave me waiting to be destroyed by it? Will any amount of safeguarding experts and legal experts make it into a genuine report when the fact that they are involved, ficticiously or for real just says the Bishop only cares about his and the Diocese's legal safety, as I remain excluded?!

9. Now that you have read my questions, ask yourself, what happens to the voiceless vulnerable when the church can be this dishonest and this cruel to someone who has a certain amount of ability to write to the church in defence? what happens to the voiceless when the Church of England control what the press get to see and when the Church can subject someone to the damage they have subjected me to, and never be called to account?

http://opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-jan-korris-church-england-counsellor-and-author-korris-report

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/why-was-korris-published.html

This is the end of the first letter of Questions. But the Questions are exhaustive, and I am trying to live a normal life despite being under pressure from this matter, so I will leave it at that for the moment.

sincerely,

HG

Further Reading:

https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/open-letter-to-jan-korris/

http://opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-jan-korris-church-england-counsellor-and-author-korris-report

http://opnlttr.com/letter/letter-jerseys-external-affairs-minister-sir-philip-bailhache

http://opnlttr.com/letter/letter-jersey-deanery-15-october-2013

http://opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-bishop-paul-butler-and-macsas

http://opnlttr.com/letter/i-woke-and-wrote-bishop-morning

http://opnlttr.com/letter/archbishop-canterbury

http://opnlttr.com/letter/letter-jane-fisher-and-bishop-tim-dakin-0

http://opnlttr.com/letter/second-open-letter-bishop-winchester

http://opnlttr.com/letter/1st-open-letter-bishop-winchester-0

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

http://opnlttr.com/letter/jane-fisher-safeguarding-director-winchester-diocese


No.1 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/bob-key-and-jersey-way.html

No.2 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jersey-establishment-closes-ranks.html

No.3 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/bob-key-support-and-recognised-formula.html

No.4 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-philip-bailhache-letter-to.html

No.5 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/04/open-letter-to-bishop-of-winchester-tim.html

No.6 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/04/dean-reinstated-press-release-from.html

No.7 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/05/business-as-usualthe-jersey-way.html

No.8 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/05/philip-bailhache-independenceagenda.html

No.9 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/06/senator-philip-bailhache-grouville.html

No.10 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/10/3rd-anniversary-of-abuse-victims.html

No.11 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/11/jersey-dean-who-exonerated-him.html

No.12 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/12/exonerated.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-dean-bishop-and-good-shepherds-fact.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-dean-and-voice-in-wilderness.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/jerseys-dean-and-victims-tale.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/jerseys-dean-victory-or-climb-down.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/jerseys-dean-did-punishment-fit-crime.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/jerseys-dean-diocese-of-winchester.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/jerseys-dean-red-letter-day.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/jerseys-dean-meaningless-apologies.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/jerseys-dean-doubting-thomases.html

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/jerseys-dean-another-meaningless-apology.html

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

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

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-dame-heather-saint-or.html

  http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-dame-heather-saint-or.html

More of Bob Hill's Blogs:

 http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-truth-whole-truth-or.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/jerseys-dean-unofficial-report-on.html


http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/a-reflection-on-2013.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/jerseys-dean-press-release-no-peace-no.html

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

http://introducingjersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/carry-on-jersey.html

THURSDAY, 14 MARCH 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/looking-from-distance.html

TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-cloud-of-witnesses-or-fog.html

THURSDAY, 21 MARCH 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/03/investigating-deportation.html

FRIDAY, 31 MAY 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/05/canons-to-left-of-them.html

THURSDAY, 6 JUNE 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/06/odds-and-ends.html

TUESDAY, 23 JULY 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/07/change-in-jersey-law-to-clamp-down-on.html

TUESDAY, 13 AUGUST 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/08/watching-from-sidelines.html

THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-curious-incident-of-dog-on-early.html

WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2013
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2013/12/jersey-and-winchester-view-from-guernsey.html

FRIDAY, 30 MAY 2014
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/05/stinking-bishop-and-wake-up-call.html

Open Letter to Jan Korris

Dear Jan Korris,

I know I have emailed you regarding this matter and have also contacted the BACP. But I often feel that I should speak out and tell the general public of my feelings as well as you, because you don't seem to care very much about the damage you have done.

As I write my series of open letters, I know that they may be all that I leave behind if the Diocese of Winchester are not stopped from destroying me. That is how serious and awful this matter in which you have taken part is.
I am also aware that the Diocese do not want me to be heard.

As a BACP counsellor, you were not qualified to carry out your report, and I cannot understand why a supervisor would apparently allow, condone and uphold what you did, but apparently your supervisor did.

The 'Korris Report', so titled, was made to sound official and important. It was also labelled 'Independent Safeguarding Review for the Diocese of Winchester. But I have to point out, it was not independent because you are not independent, you are a contract counsellor for the Church of England, and as well as not being independent, you, as a counsellor, were not qualified to carry out such a report. But most importantly, your report was based on Jane Fisher's notes and materials, and she had acted seriously unprofessionally and thus should have been being investigated, rather than using the Korris report as a combined cover-up for herself and a way of glorifying the Diocese and church at my expense, making it look like the Church and Diocese cared deeply about safeguarding, while paradoxically both covering up and having me internationally vilified, which is as far from safeguarding as you can get.

The 'Korris Report' was messy, not chronological, very inaccurate, very insulting and psychologically damaging. Did you think, when you wrote it, what the impact of it on me would be, to see it published internationally while I was voiceless and helpless as ignorant people smeared me and jeered at me internationally in the press and media and on social media? Did you even think of that impact, even if you didn't forsee the Jersey Deanery's smear campaign against me? And considering the way I had already been smeared when I was in Jersey and destroyed for reporting my abuser, you should have thought of that. Only you followed Jane Fisher's lead in making the way I was treated in Jersey into my paranoia, because you never interviewed me and totally omitted the incidents of me being attacked and shunned in Jersey. One of which even the Bishop of Winchester acknowledged while Jane Fisher blamed me.

You also omitted from your report the conflicts of interest, which the Church of England have also omitted and ignored, for example these people are conflicted: Ian LeMarquand, Philip and  William Bailhache, Bridget and David Shaw, The Warrens and Lihous, Michael Birt, and many others, so the fact that they have had a say and a voice, quite a loud say and voice, while I have not been included in your report or any report, shows serious misconduct on your part and the part of the Church of England.
If you write a report on someone and omit them, and publish it, having only included the accounts of other people who have done wrong to that person,and enable those wrongdoers to cover up for themselves, then you are simply doing a character assassination, not a report.

Bob Hill thinks your report is great, because despite having seen the Church of England's full and glorious duplicity, he still thinks there is something great about your report, and he has published parts of your report and had me harmed further, alongside the complete strangers attacking and slandering me from the original report.
You are well aware of how I refer to your report. 'The Korris Rubbish'. It doesn't matter to me that you started off by correctly describing some of my interactions with the Dean. You then couldn't continue correctly, because you were using Jane Fisher's notes and also illegally accessing and publishing information that I did not give you consent to access or publish.

Tell me, what do you think the impact on me was of seeing the Diocese of Winchester's side of things published internationally. How do you think it felt to me to see Jane Fisher's excuse of me being 'mentally ill' published internationally to save her skin? Does the word 'engineered' ever enter your mind when you think about my pleas for help in Jersey and then you being fed Jane Fisher's 'truncated'/altered and doctored notes nd her speciality, emails written for the purpose of cover up, so that you could write a report that rather than telling what happened to me, glorifies the church and leaves me being maligned, insulted and shunned by strangers and my community?!

Let me tell you the impact on me. I saved my own life after being left so horrifically damaged by Fisher and Scott-Joynt, and your report and the response to it nearly led to my suicide. Do you still think it is a safeguarding report?

And what has come out of the Korris report? You have permenantly branded me internationally. At the time of you writing your inaccurate report, how may autistic women with a problem with the church and in my age bracket were on the streets? And because I didn't know about the Korris rubbish being published, I had no idea why I was suddenly shunned and people were cold to me and broke off friendships, usually when that starts happening, it is a trademark of Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester and that they have illegally traced me yet again to go on shunning me.
Do you think it helped me to be further defamed and shunned after the level of shunning and branding I had already suffered at the hands of the Diocese of Winchester?
Was it safeguarding?

When the Korris rubbish broke into the international press, the Church were using it purely to glorify themselves, and then of course their was the tough situation of how they had to wriggle out of any liability. How do you think they would do that?
How have they done that? After using your report as part of their pretence of really really caring about safeguarding that came about as a result of them averting a government inquiry into abuse in the Church and them trying to stem the negativity about the Church's inability to safeguard? How would they, having got the 'good publicity' at my expense, then proceed?
Certainly not by proceeding to hear and record my story and recompense me. Do you recall me sending you a massive list of inaccuracies in your awful report?
Did your report get amended?
No.
You sent those amendments to the diocese, and you utttered some rubbish about being careful about how you discussed the Korris report in future.
You didn't, as the Bishop claimed to a court of law, contact me previous to releasing the report, to try and get my views and include them, there is no record whatsoever of you trying to contact me, so the Bishop lied to a court of law, and the amendments sent to you and the Diocese, which only covered half of your appalling report, were never added to the report. I only tried to read your report once and was left vomiting and in collapse and would have committed suicide if a few people who had not yet turned away had not taken me in until I felt a bit better.
Your report is not a safeguarding report and it is completely unprofessional, your supervisor and the Diocese of Winchester are guilty of serious misconduct for liasing with you in a public character assassination of a vulnerable adult, and had I been anyone other than a lifelong survivor who can write, if I had been most other vulnerable adults and indeed a large percentage of normal adult human beings, I would have committed suicide over your assisted hatchet job on my case. What you did was dangerous and thoughtless and a serious safeguarding issue, and you, as a counsellor, should have known better.

The Diocese of Winchester had no worries whatsoever about keeping your report on their website to glorify themselves, until I took them to court, and only then, was the report that they had not amended to include my views, nor arranged to interview me in order to amend, was removed.
The report was only recently removed from the Diocese of Winchester's archives, mysteriously. This latter fact was pointed out to me by someone following the case.

I am writing this as I cook the Sunday roast, so every time I stop writing and go to do something with the dinner, I think of something more to say to you.  Do you know who I am or how I live? Have you ever read my daily blog that runs back to 2011? And why did you not do anything about the publication of your report and lack of amendment when you became aware of my distress and my counterpoint to your report?
Here is my daily blog, the real HG, not the synthetic one that you and Jane Fisher created:

http://lifeafterthediocese.blogspot.co.uk/


Even the Diocese of Winchester have rubbished your report, as have the Jersey Deanery, and as for me, I am sickened by it.

The Diocese have rubbished it by not following up on your 'recommendations', you 'recomend' that the 'truncated information is investigated, well seeing as it would expose Fisher and the Scott-Joynts, and Jersey police, who you have effectively covered up for, that was not going to happen.

 And you recommend that my imprisonment and deportation are investigated, and Dame Steel, the conflicted judge appointed as a result of your farcical report, stated to Bob Hill that she was not investigating those things, and yet she contacted my former advocate who failed to represent me properly and demanded court documents, without contacting me to ask permission or even introduce herself.

Steel and her friends in the Jersey Deanery hijacked the whole matter and I remain voiceless and waiting to be wiped out by more defamation in the press. Now you started this horrendous two-year crucifiction of me, are you prepared to step in and put a stop to it? Because I hold you responsible, alongside the Diocese of Winchester, for all this harm to me.

You have taken my voice away and allowed wrongdoers to triumph.
Is that safeguarding???

Although every party in the matter now disregards the Korris rubbish, it was certainly the start of me being re-crucified by the Church of England, and why? I am crippled, branded and horrendously damaged for life. Why did it need re-doing and re-enforcing?

The Korris report is very much representation of the Church of England and their attitude to safeguarding and what they think Safeguarding is!

Would you believe that I am so traumatized that writing letters like these and proceeding to the next part of the letter are very hard for me?

As the individual who is the subject of your dreadful report, I hereby nullify it and warn you NEVER to subject a vulnerable adult to that kind of harm again. I write that in full knowledge that you wrote your report without malice or intent of harm but you were so damn misguided and without foresight that is is a matter of serious misconduct on your part.

I have never met you and you have never met me, so how did you imagine that what you wrote was anything to do with me? Jane Fisher committed serious misconduct in the Jersey matter, and although that is glimpsed at the start of your report, with her concern for scandal rather than my case and welfare, onwards from there, her behaviour is sickeningly covered up at my expense. So I cannot imagine you as a person, you are more like an extension of Jane Fisher in my mind.

Now, as a counsellor, why do you think I am writing this letter? Is it because the church brand me as an attention seeker or a troublemaker? As a counsellor you will know that writing things out is cathartic and healing. And that is why I am writing, why I have kept writing about this matter. You played a part in leaving me voiceless while re-writing my story, shockingly, and publishing it internationally, and I am simply answering, with a small and barely heard voice.

Examples of why your report was not an accurate report:

You claim in your report that the police wrote me a nice letter, basically as well as defending Jane Fisher, you appear to be covering up for the police. You omit the real story of how, on the day they let my abuser go, the police, hostile, brutal and dishonest, raided my home, tricked and trapped me, brutalized me and flung me on a police cell floor until the early hours of the morning.
The letter you mentioned never reached me, probably because if it was a real letter, the police, knowing I had temporarily fled the island due to the behaviour of my abuser and his supporters in the church and the trauma I was suffering, must have sent it to my address that I had fled, to the hostile landlady, who had tried to prevent me from leaving.

In Jersey, where non-qualified tenants are treated like animals, this woman had no qualms about going through my personal possessions and undoubtedly would have no qualms about opening my post,so if your report is correct that a letter was sent to me, it was sent to someone else and would have been to my detriment.
Only your report doesn't cover things like this, because you never interviewed me, and rather than me being traced to include me in your report, I was traced AFTER it was published, and even then, no interest was shown in including my side of things. So your report was a waste of time and money.
Although the Church thought it was a great way to glorify themselves and cover up the real story at the same time.

I am not going to include each error point by point, I will simply include links to them.

If the Church of England had bothered to use your report as a guide to further investigation, they would have been starting with an inaccurate guide, but they chose to do worse, to arrange and allow a non-independent and conflicted report and ignore or choose to remain ignorant of all conflicts of interest, basically they simply handed the matter over to the conflicted Jersey Clergy-judiciary-freemason-States clique, allowed them to write the report after the Bishop of Winchester unlawfully suspended the Dean publicly and had to re-instate him at my expense, at the same time as threatening me for begging the diocese not to keep violating me.
I don't know if you saw all that, the Dean's feeble apology to no-one, that no member of the church even forwarded to me? The one that the Diocese and Church of England kept as a trophy on their website until I objected because the Church had never even told me of the 'apology' and the Bishop had basically cleared the Dean when he reinstated him when Philip Bailhache forced him to, and the ensuing hopelessly conflicted report by Steel was a waste of the Diocese's money just as your report was, because the outcome had already been stated in the Dean being reinstated and cleared by the Bishop.
So, two years on, and I am still waiting for the Bishop to kill me with the Steel report, what do you think of that as an outcome to your messy and unprofessional Korris report? Good safeguarding?

Steel was and is a member of the conflicted Jersey Deanery Clique, alongside Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, Ian LeMarquand and others already mentioned or not mentioned, have you noticed that the Diocese of Winchester and Church of England have never made these conflicts clear to the general public in response to these people attacking and smearing me in meetings and in the press? Good safeguarding? Would you like to remind them that as they launched this massive character assassination on me, they are also obliged to ensure that the general public know the reasons behind these people's attacks on me and support of the Dean. Or were you yourself unaware of the associations? In which case, how effective is your report?
You followed Jane Fisher's preaching about me being mentally ill and not being shunned and maligned in the Jersey Deanery, in light of the actions of the Jersey Deanery since and my psychological report, do you still believe that?

The Korris report was a waste of the Church of England's money, they presumably thought that the PR acclaim that they would get from that very loud and prominent press release of it would make it worthwhile, and there was no thought whatsoever for me as they violated me and dragged up all the trauma, leaving me suffering utter torment. So was that safeguarding?

The Church have wasted approximately a million pounds on my case, while leaving me homeless and destroyed, and have not even included me or my views in their reports, so you think that means they care about or are committed to, safeguarding? Dame Steel, having never met me, and having included interviews with people who had never met me, in her report, told Bob Hill that there was nothing wrong with me and that I was just a troublemaker. What do you make of that? Is that condusive to a good safeguarding report?
Apparently, because of course she can't use thousands of pounds on a report that is supposed to be about safeguarding and do nothing to gratify the Bishop and Church, she has come up with some sort of safeguarding concerns, but has failed to declare her serious conflicts and has failed to step down when asked to by me and when Bob Hill has described her conflicts to the Diocese of Winchester and John Gladwin and Christine Daley.
So following on from your inaccurate and unprofessional report, here is a woman seriously conflicted and working with the conflicted Jersey Deanery clique for what is simply a magnified version of the way I was destroyed when I was in Jersey, when I was slandered and vilified to absolve Bob Key and my abuser, and the way I was vilified was not only upheld by Jane Fisher but furthered by her, is that included in your report?
And now that you know the consequences of your dreadful report, don't you think it is time that you did something about them?

Here are some questions that you and other people need to ask the Bishop of Wichester:
1. Why did he have me traced and violated, illegally by the same police who his safeguarding officer had me destroyed with? Why did he do that AFTER publishing the Korris report and not in order to offer me a chance to participate?

2. Why were my amendments and views not added if it was a genuine safeguarding effort? And why was the report left up, not amended, until I took the Bishop to court?

3. Why did the Bishop not release the Steel report to a court of law if it was a genuine report? Why and how was he able to wriggle out of it, and will he do so again as I continue action against him?

4. Why did the Bishop claim that the Steel report was ready for release in November 2013, and then claim that someone had made a legal bid against the report's release? How could someone have made a legal bid when no-one knew what was in the report? This claim by the Bishop led to further slurs on me, most notably Peter Ould claiming I couldn't have made the legal bid as I was not intelligent enough - Peter Ould being the Vicar who blogged about sex until recently and illegally involved himself in my case to the detriment of the church and slandered me and jeered at me openly with the church refusing to restrain him until I kept up a sustained complaint - good safeguarding?

5. So if someone made a bid against the Steel report, and the Bishop had to amend it, then the report was not going to be accurate anyway, so then the Bishop claimed to be preparing to release it, again, in May, and Bob Hill and I both took action. Why was the Bishop trying to release this report to the wrong official in Jersey though? Again, when there is an independent investigation, outside of the Church, these things need to be queried.

6. Why does the Bishop keep claiming to have 'safeguarding and legal experts looking at the report? Why does he need these people looking at the reports if it is a fair and balanced report? Why have they been looking at this report for a year and more without contacting me to include my views and amendments? Why has the Bishop not sent me a copy of the Steel report to comment on?
Who are these legal and safeguarding experts?
If they are within the Church of England then they are conflicted, if they are not within the church then they would not have waited over a year to contact me for my views or declare the report conflicted and unbalanced and inappropriate denigration of a lone vulnerable adult. The Bishop's solicitors seemed unaware of the situation when I contacted them about this, and there is no sign of an outside safeguarding panel viewing this report, because if this happened, then due to the nature of the conflicted Steel report and due to the material about the mess the Bishop has made of my case being widely available, the Bishop would already be in a lot of trouble over the Steel report.
Presumably when Luther-Pendragon tell the Bishop to say that the Steel report is being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts, they are referring to the conflicted Jane Fisher and Elizabeth Hall, and the Bishop's chaplain, who is a trained Barrister. Thus the general public are being mislead.

7. Why did the Bishop of Winchester allow conflicted Jane Fisher to illegally refer me to the NSPCC? Especially when he had said that there would be no further unsolicited intervention in my life? And when Jane Fisher had a formal complaint against her, which the Bishop, Elizabeth Hall, Paul Butler and the Church of England have still failed to deal with? How are they committed to safeguarding when they have failed to record, investigate or resolve my complaint?

8. Why am I being made to live in fear of and trying to survive, continued press attacks while the Bishop of Winchester continues to lie about the Steel report and leave me waiting to be destroyed by it? Will any amount of safeguarding experts and legal experts make it into a genuine report when the fact that they are involved, ficticiously or for real just says the Bishop only cares about his and the Diocese's legal safety, as I remain excluded?!

9. Now that you have read my questions, ask yourself, what happens to the voiceless vulnerable when the church can be this dishonest and this cruel to someone who has a certain amount of ability to write to the church in defence? what happens to the voiceless when the Church of England control what the press get to see and when the Church can subject someone to the damage they have subjected me to, and never be called to account?

No more questions. Jan Korris, would you like to redeem the damage you have done by contacting the Church of England regarding the questions I have included in my letter to you?
Would you also like to produce a redaction of the Korris report, stating that the subject of the report, HG, has refuted the report as neither accurate nor truthful and not relevant to her case but extremely defamatory and harmful in a lasting and life-limiting way?
Please be one of the people who brings this shameful farce by the Church to an end.

Many thanks,


sincerely,

HG

https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/open-letter-to-jan-korris/

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/

Open Letters

http://opnlttr.com/letter/archbishop-canterbury

http://opnlttr.com/letter/letter-jane-fisher-and-bishop-tim-dakin-0

http://opnlttr.com/letter/second-open-letter-bishop-winchester

http://opnlttr.com/letter/1st-open-letter-bishop-winchester-0

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

http://opnlttr.com/letter/jane-fisher-safeguarding-director-winchester-diocese

Open Letter to The Very Reverend Bob Key, the Dean of Jersey

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

16/02/2015

Dear Very Reverend Key,

I am writing in response to your press release yesterday, demanding the release of the Steel report.

I know I am autistic and think simply, but has it ever occurred to you that the Bishop of Winchester is outside of the BBC Jersey broadcasting area and doesn't listen to BBC Jersey or watch it, and so he won't actually pick up on your radio message and respond to you? I wonder if you have considered contacting him directly to discuss safeguarding and reports?

His secretary's phone number is 01962 854050. I think unless you actually contact the Bishop, you kind of look a bit foolish demanding a report on a local radio station that is not heard by your intended recipients of your message. Your own Bishop, Bishop Willmott is also outside of the BBC Jersey broadcasting area, so you may also want to contact him about the situation. I will forward this letter to him for you.

You mention in your BBC press release that Dame Steel is a 'respected Jersey judge', respected by whom, may I ask? She failed a fair appeal in the Curtis Warren Trial and isn’t actually either known or respected for much else. Do you think she should be respected for writing an unbalanced report that omitted me and my views but gave you 8 hours of interview and interviewed witnesses who had never met me? For example Gavin Ashenden, who has repeatedly slandered me on BBC Jersey, and who claimed to Bob Hill that 'your case was watertight'?

Why is 'your case watertight' when you have done wrong and I haven’t at any point had a hearing or a voice, either in court or in these messed up safeguarding reports and investigations? Gavin Ashenden is a former lawyer, who has never met me, please can you explain why he was interviewed and passed on some of the defamation of me that you also used against me in Jersey, a one-sided view of my past, that does not tell my story? Can you explain how that is relevant to the report or how you or Gavin Ashenden, or the rest of your circle can behave like this and at the same time claim to represent Christ? Please refer back to my open letter to the Jersey Deanery, posted in November 2013, and at the same time, consider what happens to the vulnerable who are completely voiceless and cannot write as I do:

Open Letter to the Jersey Deanery in 2013, read by thousands internationally, and my first answer to a very horrible and Unchristian smear campaign against me by the Jersey Deanery: 

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

On the subject of Gavin Ashenden, his bad behaviour in Normandy is adding to my stress as members of  the Normandy Diocese have contacted me a couple of times over his behaviour, they describe him as very arrogant and trying to take over things there, assuming a position that he has not yet been given, now, I think it is your job to discipline him, he is one of your clergy and not in any way connected to me except that he has behaved extremely badly and in a severely unchristian manner to me, but I am further told that he has always had a bad attitude and makes a bad parish priest, and I am also aware of his stunts regarding trying to ‘drive demons’ out of mentally ill people, very much a safeguarding issue as described.

The Korris report showed some but not all of your own misconduct, and you supposedly 'apologized' but not to me, neither you, nor your deanery, nor the diocese of Winchester ever made me aware of this ‘apology’ nor passed it on. You refused to co-operate with the Korris report and instructed your clergy not to co-operate with it. So why are you so keen on the release of the Steel report, after the Korris report defamed you? (It defamed me too, and it's release was inexcusable).

Well the difference between the Korris report and the Steel report is that the Korris report was not independent but not conflicted in your favour as the Steel report is, the Korris report was carried out by a lay counsellor in the UK, who, although not qualified to carry out such a report, was not actually on anyone's side, she was simply commisioned to write a report, and the Jersey Deanery were unaware of this until Korris approached them, with a report which which she couldn't carry out efficiently because she only had the notes and opinions of people who needed to cover up for themselves to base her report upon, for example Jane Fisher, who heavily influenced the report as her notes were relied on.

 The Steel report was an expected follow on from the Korris report but with the Jersey Deanery and connected establishment figures such as Bailhache who slandered me in an ‘Open letter’ and Steel, his colleague in the judiciary, Steel ‘offering’ to do the report, was a hijack of what the Bishop of Winchester still appeared to think was a genuine safeguarding investigation.

Steel is a Jersey establishment judge, closely allied with your supporters in the conflicted circle of church members who are also in government and States positions, such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, Bridget Shaw, Ian LeMarquand, and numerous others.

The circle named above were involved in the Steel report and in maligning me, for example Philip Bailhache was allowed to abuse his dual roles in the States and Church and his legal expertise, not to mention his connection with the churchwarden who abused me, to malign me openly in the press and through and open letter, and along with Ashenden and other church-judiciary-states-lawyer crossovers, allowed to make me out to be mentally ill and thus not credible, please refer again to my open letter to the Jersey Deanery.

I understand from your press release that you want this matter concluded, well so do I, I have suffered a solid two years of being defamed and maligned as a result of the actions of your Deanery and supporters, and the release of the Steel report would  not be an appropriate  conclusion at all for me, it would simply compound the injustice, leave me ruined again, and possibly homeless or dead. Please now read this independent blog on the subject that a Jersey blogger released today in response to your press release yesterday, this describes the situation very well:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/pastoral-care-and-church-politics-in.html

There is evidence not only that Steel is and was conflicted, but also that she was derogatory about me, having never met me, in much the same way as Gavin Ashenden was. A subject that I will discuss further.  This is neither Christian behaviour nor appropriate behaviour for either a priest or a judge, and it lessens anyone’s respect for them.

Bob Hill has evidence both that Dame Steel is conflicted in her connection to your supporters, and he is also a first-hand witness of her being derogatory about me, having never met me. And while you have managed in the past, to make my trauma and distress into madness, you would not be able to do the same regarding Bob Hill, who is a former police officer and Jersey deputy. I will set out below a number of links to Bob's Statements about Dame Heather Steel being conflicted, maybe if you are as yet ignorant of the harm to me of a conflicted report that omits my side of things, you would like to read these and reconsider your desperate calls for this report to be published:

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/jerseys-dean-diocese-of-winchester.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/jerseys-dean-they-have-learnt-nothing.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/jerseys-dean-steel-report-fit-for-waste.html

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

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/jerseys-dean-steel-and-gladwin-reports.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-dame-heather-saint-or.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/jerseys-dean-unhappy-anniversary.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/jerseys-dean-truth-whole-truth-or.html

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/jerseys-dean-steel-and-gladwin-reports.html

I hope that, having read Bob Hill's blogs, you will understand that the release of such a report is nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding, and that in calling for such a report to be released, and indeed, having influenced and played a part in compiling such a report, you are causing serious harm and distress to a vulnerable adult who you have already harmed immeasurably by your previous wrong and inappropriate actions and behaviours in Jersey.

You will see from Bob’s blogs that there is a conflict of interests that that means any report by Dame Heather Steel is not actually viable. As you will see in Bob Hill’s Blog about the Laity Advert, the Jersey Deanery Laity Named Dame Heather Steel as representing THEIR COMPLAINT against the Bishop of Winchester, and they used a large advert in the JEP. How could Dame Steel actually fairly represent both sides in a conflict? Basically she couldn’t, and she was put forward to lead the ‘investigation’ as a colleague of your circle of supporters in judiciary and the States, despite her conflict, and the Bishop of Winchester allowed her to proceed with this investigation despite her conflict and despite the fact that he was told that she was conflicted.

So, I have a feeling she is only a ‘respected judge’ in the eyes of those who have behaved as badly as her, or who have acted in an equally biased and unchristian and judgemental way as her, thus shafting Jersey to the rest of the world.

I feel that you as a Dean, now aware of the facts from this letter, need to call for an inquiry that includes me and my side, rather than maligning me. I am sure that a man of your Status and Standing with God, would see this as a good, fair, and just thing to do. Although I understand that you have been asked to go away on Sabbatical for three months so it is a bit short notice.

The Steel report does not represent what happened to me in Jersey, which is probably why it has not been released. But what I suggest is, if it is released. The best thing I can do is come to Jersey to live again, and hold a series of public meetings, telling my story and showing evidence, for example emails. And gradually, that way, two sides will be heard, especially as all journalists and bloggers will be invited to take notes.

While I was in Jersey, Jane Fisher used to try and silence me by accusing me of making threats when I said I would take the Deanery’s misconduct further, which made her a bully rather than making me someone who was making threats, as I was simply stating what I would do. As I am now.  Since the story of what happened to me in Jersey broke into the news, I have had numerous offers from Jersey people of a home and a living in Jersey, and if I continue to be troubled by your wish for the Steel report to be released, or the release of that defamatory whitewash itself, I will indeed come to live in Jersey and tell my story until everyone, whether they believe me or not, knows what I have had to suffer.

I travel light, people are on hand to take me in, I am not in work as I have been rendered unfit for work by this matter so I am ready to come over, shall we say February 26^th? And I will start booking for my first talk, you are welcome to join me at the talks to give a counterpoint. I do have an incredible incredible amount of evidence waiting for an inquiry that would actually include me, so basically, it would be an ideal time for me to come to Jersey to share my story.  I have seen and am aware that Leah Goodman was banned from Jersey by the same group of people who support you, because she wanted to look into the child abuse and resulting cover-ups in Jersey,  and so I know the same ‘Jersey Way’ may well try to ban me again, and it will make headline news. But in the meantime my case is packed and I am looking forward to sailing on St. Aubin’s bay again.

I hear that you are going to America for your sabbatical, well it is a diverse and interesting continent no matter which part you are going to, so you won’t be bored.  There you can relax and reflect on the difference you have made to Jersey and to the division between rich and poor, able and disabled. I wish you well with your sabbatical.

I think the best way you can put the Steel report and the ugly and unchristian war between the Jersey Deanery and Diocese of Winchester to bed is to say in your mind that it is over, and move on, as I have had to do with the life I was forced to leave behind in Jersey and the injustice that took it from me, the psychological wounds to me remain and will do forever, but as a mature adult who accepts good advice, I have simply moved on from the injustice of the Jersey matter and gone on with my life, yes, the damage and injustice remain, but I do not dwell on it, I just live day to day, and when the matter comes up in the press, it causes flashbacks and distress that disrupt my life. So, in the same vein, maybe you should stop ‘picking at the scabs and making them bleed again’ – (a metaphorical advice once given to me by a Dean who defended my abuser, but this is a different situation, he was trying to make me drop a legitimate complaint of abuse).

The Steel report is not relevant to what happened and does not, cannot give a fair view, judging by Steel’s attitude and behaviour and the fact that she was allowed to continue when conflicted and did not include me in her report but tried without my consent, to access my records, which also did not include my view, and which she had no right to, and in the case of the police records, this was a blatantly illegal action.  Steel also tried to say to Bob Hill that there is nothing wrong with me and I am just a troublemaker. An interesting statement from someone who has never met me, and it also goes against your deanery and Gavin Ashenden discrediting me as mentally ill in the press and in the Church Times, as well as the diagnosis and psychological assessments that have been done.  As well as the fact that Steel is not qualified to assess or diagnose my conditions, it shows how unsuitable she was to carry out a report, as she, just as you and your colleagues who compiled the Steel report do not understand vulnerability or abuse, she doesn’t understand these things either.

So I think that rather than making a plea for the release of this report, through media that doesn’t even reach the Bishop of Winchester, in light of your understanding that the Steel report is conflicted and an unchristian act of judgement and defamation and cover up, you the Dean, need to call for a fair and open report, or you need to have the grace to let go, forgive the Diocese (hard as I know that is!) and go on with your life, look forward to your great holiday, your great adventure, your time with God, and at the same time, have the grace to stop inflicting needless harm on me, set yourself right before God before it is too late, because what you will face in death is pretty horrible if you don’t repent these terrible behaviours. I think it is worse for clergy who deliberately behave badly, when they finally face God, because clergy have chosen to be ordained, and thus should be acting for Christ, and when they neither act for Christ nor act with integrity, I should think God’s anger will be quite hot.

You harmed me enough in Jersey by trying to use my past to defame me and make me out to be wicked without hearing my side of things, and understandably, if your understanding of the effects of abuse and neglect on a person’s behaviour are that low, then Jersey’s Deanery does indeed have a safeguarding problem. Both judging me without my side and without wanting my side, and favouring my abusers, was wrong. And as you may see from the National Press, this vilification of victims who have been repeatedly abused, by officials who favour their powerful or well-connected abusers, is widespread. It is just a shame that the Church of England do not behave better than the UK government on matters like this, but in theory, the Church of England is part of the UK government, just as you are part of the Jersey government, where things obviously aren’t quite right when the Care Home situation there has gone on for years and been covered up and minimized, most notably by your colleague, Sir Philip Bailhache, who stood up for you at my expense, he gave a speech in 2008, that I was there to hear, at Liberation Day, and both you and my abuser were in attendance.

 Philip Bailhache stated that the damage to Jersey’s reputation was more important than the abuse victims.

Now isn’t it funny that Philip Bailhache has pushed for the release of the Steel report as well? Usually he wants things buried, if you get what I mean.

Back to your wrongdoing.  I am sure if you repent that, God will forgive you and you will be able to stop worrying about two years of dirty unchristian fighting and defaming me and bad unchristian behaviour. Put it to bed, let sleeping dogs lie, and all the other metaphors I learned from Bob Hill’s blog. The best way to put the dirty war to bed is to ask God for forgiveness and peace. I am telling you that as someone who knows from experience that it is the best way.

I have been left homeless, branded, destroyed, ill, injured, abused, destitute, without the support of friends and family that I had previous to you having me imprisoned,  but I am not bearing a grudge, I am trying to live, and I hope that you have the grace and Christianity to do the same. You need to count your blessings, you have a home, you have family,  you have cars, you have servants, you have a good wage, and you are about to have a lovely three months holiday. I don’t really think you should be worrying about the Steel report, unless it is playing on your conscience, which I would gather is why you are getting upset about it and wanting closure.  Pray for release from your angered thoughts, and pray that you can forgive and forget, that is what Jesus wants from you. You won’t get closure from the Steel report, because it’s release will not end anything but will start another very long series of actions.

You state in your press release that the ‘report will only be in the media a short while and then we can all move on’. That is a very puzzling and incongruent thing to say. You don’t speak for me because the defamation I have already suffered will last me a lifetime, I won’t survive much more, a short time of being defamed does not suddenly lead to closure, no, the damage done by the last lot will last me a lifetime. I am sure now that you have read this letter, you will be able to see two sides and fulfil your Christian duty in instigating an independent investigation or letting sleeping dogs lie.

Have a great holiday, and maybe we could meet up for a coffee in Jersey when you get back?

Sincerely,

HG