Sunday, 5 April 2015

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

Sunday, 29 March 2015

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/


Sunday, 22 March 2015

Gavin Ashenden

Well, Gavin Ashenden is performing in the spotlight again.
He is apparently in the National press with his recent opinion on Islam.

I know he reads my blog, usually from the safety of Yemen or Normandy, but I know he won't mind me blogging about him, as he is never averse to maligning me or hurting other people's feelings.

Some peaople might expect me to write an open letter, about how he shouldn't be telling Muslims how to live when he hasn't worked out what Christianity is all about yet, But actually, he can make enough of a fool of himself and the church without my help.

Peacekeeper from Yemen, trouble stirrer from Jersey.

Do you remember Pepper Anne?

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

Here is the recent Story of Ashenden and Islam, as told by a Jersey Blogger:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/httpwww.html

Afterthought on Islam from me.
I do not like the way the media are playing up these stories of young people being radicalised. It is scaremongering. The Churchwarden's wife used to include in her daily fears that we were going to taken over by Muslims and it would be awful for us women.
I used to live among Muslims. They were peaceful, respectful and had good senses of humour, their beliefs lead them to have a set of ethics, something that Catholics and Buddhists have but the Church of England lacks.

Gavin Ashenden saw an advert in the church rag (Times) and it said 'Come and work where clergy discipline cannot reach you! Golden sand, corruption, old boys and favours in kind'.
So he went to work in Jersey.
It is a puzzle then why he is trying to take over in Normandy!




Friday, 20 March 2015

The journey to Winchester and the Crucifiction written and produced by Junie Wanman and Green Pie productions.

This film script by Ms. Wanman is also known as 'How to write a farce'.

HG sat by the Great Ship Bay with the blue bike. HG was watching the Solar eclipse, although she couldn't really watch it because of the cloud.
The blue bike was muttering about looking like a lump of mud.

HG was wondering how to continue the re-enaction of Jesus Life when she didn't have a donkey for Palm Sunday, 'It's not fair, the Church of England has so many donkeys and they won't lend me one'.

The blue bike liked to pretend to be a horse, but it drew the line at being a donkey, huffed crossly and reminded HG that only Lou Scott-Joynt illegally rode her bike in the Cathedral Close and on the precinct, and because the police in Winchester are the Church's private mafia, Scott-Joynt could get away with it but HG couldn't.

This was true.

Applications to the Bishop for one of his donkeys to be borrowed for  Palm Sunday failed, as the Bishop had promoted them all to legal and safeguarding positions to that they could assess the Steel report and give it marks out of ten.
When the Bishop's solicitors, Batty-Broadbent, were questioned on this matter, they denied all knowlege, because although the Bishop claimed that he had legal and safeguarding experts reviewing the report, his solicitors and all genuine safeguarding officials knew nothing about it,
while those assessing the Steel report got worried because they didn't know what it meant but they knew that Steel, Philip Bailhache and others had acted illegally and were afraid to tell the Bishop that he would be arrested if he published his obviously illegal actions.
Unbeknown them, the Bishop already knew this, hence getting his donkeys to assess the Steel report for 10 years, thus keeping them in employment until everyone forgot the Steel report and it was dsposed of in secret by shredding it and using it as communion wafers, this had the bonus of killing off all the old people, because the diocese of winchester is progressive evangelical.
The Bishop also hoped Steel would pass away in the meantime so she wouldn't object.
So, the Bishop refused HG a donkey as they were all so busy.

Hg was not impressed, having done the being 33 and travelling homeless persecuted and scorned by Church Pharisees routine, how could they skip the donkey ride before crucifying her on a Steel Cross, not fair, the whole plot was unravelling!

The Bishop decided he was going to do a minor crucifiction and only release parts of the Steel report that didn't implicate him as party to a crime. But it was difficult to disentangle the parts of the report that he needed, as the whole thing had been written very cleverly to stitch HG up and absolve wrongdoers of blame, which was a repeat of a repeat of a repeat in the Jersey matter, and HG was autistic, and objected to being stitched up when she had no physical injuries and the wounds that needed stitching were emotional and psychological.
And on the subject of psychology, HG had really smashed the diocese in the teeth when she produced a psychological report from treatment starting before the Korris rubbish was released, that refuted the Korris rubbish.

And those who still don't know, the Korris rubbish omitted Hg's views, and the Bishop lied to a court of law and claimed that efforts were made to include HG, which is not the case as HG was traced AFTER the report was published, and her amendments were not included when she was traced AFTER the report was published. The report was never amended but was left online and given to the police and press as if it was fact, and not removed until HG took the Bishop to court. The report remained in the Diocese's archives until recently, when it was removed, presumably to cover the Bishop's back when he publishes the conflicted Steel report, or it was removed because HG made a formal complaint against Korris. Funny how the loud and proud cover-up report that they spewed all over the press so HG was slandered by strangers and attacked and driven out, was removed so quietly, not a word.

So anyway, none of that produces a donkey, so HG applied to the tribunals, complaining that the Diocese had scourged her and and were crucifying her but there was no donkey to get to Winchester on. The tribunals were typical church, so they told her they would be in touch in a few years time.
Meanwhile someone told HG that her weight would be so unfair to the donkey anyway.
This whole crucifixion business was really unravelling, but HG had watched Evan Almighty so she knew things would be OK.

HG asked Jesus where her donkey was.
Jesus said 'Remember, if you try to reconstruct a situation, the strengths and weaknesses are reversed'.

And Shrek emailed saying he could not lend donkey as he would go mad with the peace and quiet.

And so, that Easter, the Bishop of Winchester was crucified on his cross of Steel.
And while they tried to work out how to hammer nails into a Steel cross, HG went round letting all their car tyres down. Something you couldn't do in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, which is why St. Peter cut people's ears off instead, totally impolite in this day and age.

The end.

If anyone reading this would like to donate a donkey for the day, I will walk alongside it to the Cathedral on Palm Sunday in protest at the way I have been treated by the Church of England.













Tuesday, 17 March 2015

What really happened in October and November 2013

References:

Julie Wallman, former Jersey resident, grew up in the care system and allegedly abused by her alcoholic Mother, became a very small time member of the film industry and tells me she goes without money in between films.
Bob Hill, former MET police officer and Jersey deputy. Offered to act as my mediator.

http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/bob-hill-honest-man.html#.VP6qf3ysW5w

I re-posted this yesterday:  http://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/bob-hill-julie-wallman-and-nspccletter.html#.VP6q4XysW5w

I was homeless and the weather was bad.
I did what I sometimes did, I had a night in a bed and breakfast,
I was shattered by nine months or so of being destroyed by the Diocese of Winchester and the Deanery of Jersey, publicly, in the press.

I was in the bed and breakfast when Bob Hill started going on about this woman who wanted to help me. He told me that she was someone he trusted, which at the time still meant something even though Bob was messing my case up and harming me. Bob made me write letters to people I didn't want to write to, and pretend they were from me, and he called me a liar over something I told him truthfully, leaving me shattered, and never apologized, and he simply repeated all the slander by the Jersey Deanery back to me, because Bob had never met with me and taken my story, so he had no answer when I was slandered to him. Not a very good mediator at all, but nonetheless, I still trusted him, so when he put me in touch with Julie Wallman, I was still vulnerable and gullible enough to believe in both of them, and it turned out to be at massive cost to me.
Julie often appeared as a commentor on Bob's blogs and other blogs, complimenting me and signing hername as 'J x'.

Julie asked me if I would come to London to meet her, and because I had faith in Bob Hill and was quite happy to be helped, I agreed, and said I would go the next day, after all, I had nowhere else to be.
I travelled to London and met Julie. She was supposed to be a film director and writer, although I had no interest in that as I am not very interested in the film industry. I watch a few films but I am not a stars in their eyes wannabe film person. I remember among the Lihou's endless boasts, how they said that the father of one of their grandaughter's school-mates was a film director so their grandaughter might be in a film!
I suppose the reason I didn't simply walk out on the Lihous and their boasts early on is the same reason that I had faith in Bob and Julie, I am gullible, to the point of being an idiot and letting myself be damaged.

Julie was a complete puzzle, she claimed to have been homeless in London, but didn't even know where the National Gallery was. Any smart homeless person knows that.
We went to the National Gallery, because you can sit in there and talk. So we did.

Julie told me she had left home aged 16 to stop herself from violence to her alcoholic mother. She claimed to have fled to London with just £100 or was it £200 in her back pocket. I like the fact she uses expressions like back pocket. No-one with any sense keeps money in their back pocket, especially not in London.

Unfortunately later on, other versions of her story came out, such as that she started her career at Channel TV, not homeless on the streets of London.
I still have her version of her story, where she was homeless in London and starving in a little flat and working unpaid as a runner and relying on her neighbour to feed her.

The reason I am vulnerable is that I still fall for stories that people make up, I don't know any better.
Julie told me that she had been raped when she was homeless. And was then picked up by the police.
Again, I know this is unlikely, and I doubt she told the care inquiry that story. Seemingly she did it to scare me about my life on the streets, but it didn't.

She told me a story about a landlord of hers grabbing her by the throat while she was in the bath.
Horror stories, and I, having been on the streets, have heard so many horror stories but know not to believe them from addicts and alcoholics, but a friend of Bob Hill's, who was a film director, was a different story.
Unfortunately Julie was also one of Bob Hill's 'care inquiry witnesses, that he was grooming to give evidence, as far as I know.
He tried to get me to give evidence, despite the fact I was never in the Jersey care system, so I got a rebuff from the inquiry to add to my confusion and distress, but back to the meeting with Julie in London.

Julie said she had something to tell me, and she weirdly said she had to close her eyes in order to tell me. So she did. This always makes me think she was lying. Along with the fact that she told me not to tell anyone things she said to me.

She told me that she had been close to Philip Bailhache, who had seen himself as her mentor and was proud of her for being from Jersey and being in the film industry and doing a film called 'The crooked mile' or 'The straight mile' or something.

Julie told me that Philip Bailhache had been her good friend and mentor until her boyfriend was arrested, Philip was to be the judge of the case and she phoned him and asked him not to but he proceeded and put her boyfriend in prison.
Now, I do not know how much of that is true. Yes she has a boyfriend, and he helps her to run 'Greeneye Productions' Her kind of film company based in St. Helier, while Julie lives in North London, but I do not know if she simply made the rest up to make me believe she was genuine about helping me.

Philip Bailhache had been slandering and libelling me publicly in the press and working hard to clear the Dean, leaving me deeply traumatized.

Anyway, Julie said she wanted to help house me, and to be honest, although being indoors caused me traumatic stress, even in the bed and breakfast, I was ok with being housed at this point, because from the end of 2012, I had started to recover enough to consider living indoors.
The only problem being, I couldn't house myself from the streets, or thought I couldn't, and there was no way I could get through any local authority process, especially not with the terrible record and slander of me by the Diocese of Winchester, which is what made me homeless and kept me homeless, along with the trauma.

So I went along with what Julie told me in London, just as I went along with the churchwarden's plan in Jersey. I am an idiot, and I am suffering for it.

Julie told me that she wanted to phone the bed and breakfast and arrange for them to keep me for two or three weeks if they had the room, she said she would pay, and she would tell them that I was her cousin and I needed somewhere quiet to stay while I did my thesis. Well I am never happy with blatant lies, it was reminiscent of Jersey police telling me to lie, but I trusted Julie as she was Bob Hill's friend, apparently.
Julie told me she had to go and make the phonecall in private, and of course I said that was fine, even though it did worry me.
And it should have.

Julie claims that while I was in London with her, I agreed to her contacting the Church of England, well Bob Hill claims that Julie claims this, but Bob Hill never checked with me, and no, I never gave Julie consent.

Julie told me that while I was in the bed and breakfast I was to look for somehwere to live, anywhere I liked, and she would pay a certain amount towards the rent, per week. Again I was gullible and agreed, after telling her I didn't feel good about this, and I didn't want to be a burden or a debt, after my bad experiences in the church where people had taken me in and then taken pound after pound of flesh in vilifying me, both harming me and invalidating the potential good that they had done.
Julie assured me that she was in a position to help me, and I believed her, she was a film producer and director and other things. And although I don't want to live off anyone, I was weakened by the combined attacks on me by the diocese and deanery, and the chest infections that I had had, and I hoped that I could rely on Julie because Bob had asked me to let Julie help me, and Bob was my mediator so I trusted him. Bob seemed to think that Julie was in a position to help me.

So Julie arranged for me to stay on in the bed and breakfast, and I had stayed there a night or two at a time for years, and never had a problem, but their attitude to me changed after Julie's phone call. The man was downright nasty. Of course I should have known something was wrong. People turn nasty when Jane Fisher gets involved, and slanders me, and has me driven and vilified, while pretending to care about me.

Bob and Julie were now working closely together, Bob no longer told me to speak to him or pass information to him, he told me to speak to him and Julie and to pass information to him and Julie. This was without my consent, I did not agree to close liason and again, it smacked of the Diocese and church of England, their way of working, Jane Fisher's violating way of working, and increasingly I became unsettled and concerned.
I voiced concerns to Bob repeatedly, and he ignored them.
I was yet again voiceless and powerless as I had been at the hands of the Diocese.
Bob seemed to think he could use the fact that I had agreed to stay in the bed and breakfast to get me to stop asking questions, and he told me to 'go and read the film scripts that Julie gave me' as if it was an important task to do with my case. The scripts were crap, they were like Julie's copy of other people's work. I looked them up, and they were, and I looked Julie up and I found only real film industry people making jokes about her like 'She is compact and therefore economical to travel' or something.

I was in the local library where I spent most of my days, when Julie rang me and told me that she couldn't afford to pay for accommodation for me and she wanted to phone Bishop John Gladwin.
I was furious, Bob Hill knew very well that John Gladwin had let me and him down, and as Julie knew who Gladwin was, she must have known very well that I was angry with him.
I furiously told Julie that she was not on any account to do so, and if I felt threatened, I would walk out of the bed and breakfast.

Bob sided with Julie, basically he had stopped being my mediator and now worked with Julie, he was no friend of mine, he tried to tell me off for being upset and it developed into a massive row.

And the row went on, because I was utterly shocked that Julie had threatened to betray me to the church of england as she had, and that Bob had backed her up against me.
Can you imagine my disgust and horror at the thought that I had agreed in good faith for Julie to help house me, and had been let down and duped and she thought that I would let my destroyers, who I had been on the run from for so long, actually house me? And know where I was!!! After the police beatings and being imprisoned and homeless and driven from my home city and damned, Julie seemed to think I would allow the same people to house me, thus invalidating my side of things and my complaint against them, and Bob backing Julie up in this! Utter hell.

It is difficult to write about November 2013, all the elements of the nightmare that still haunts me.

So, the row went on, and Julie was due to fly to Jersey, to see her boyfriend, Justin, who helps her to run Greeneye productions, this Justin is presumably the same boyfriend who Philip Bailhache put away, for fraud, I think Julie said.
But Julie couldn't fly that day because of fog.

That night, I was awake most of the night, because I remained terrified of indoors and usually didn't sleep until early morning. Julie sent a weird drunken email through, in the early hours.
I replied, as I was concerned, and we talked. She was obviously drunk, and that worried me all the more, this whole situation was unstable, I had taken her at face value, agreed to the bed and breakfast and now she had said she couldn't afford to house me and wanted to set the church of england on me, I was left with my faith in her and Bob damaged and no reassurance from either of them. The fact that she could get drunk and send random emails didn't help, and now I was concerned for the fact that she could not afford to help me, had decieved me and winter was setting in and my time indoors was going to affect me returning to the streets as the temperature dropped, a potentially dangerous situation, made worse by the recent chest infection.

Julie flew to Jersey the next day.

I remained confused and anxious as nothing had been explained or reassured, and I was left hanging, feeling like I had been screwed over to believe that someone who could not help me could. It felt dreadful and alongside the Diocese and Deanery war, it left me ill.

The Diocese and Deanery war continued, with more slander of me and then Jersey police muscling in to traumatize me.

This whole episode was so traumatic that I started writing this blog last week and had to stop. I still cannot believe the depths to which Bob and Julie and the Church harmed me.
When I try to think of what happened, I suffer traumatic shock, confusion and flashbacks, because after all the uncontrolled smearing of me in the press and media, after all the strangers maligning and condemning me, I was weakened and ill, and I was still terrified at night indoors and trusted in Bob and Julie, now that they were working together without consulting me, in a grim church of england style that should have alerted me to something being wrong, especially after Julie threatened to contact John Gladwin.

Both Bob and Julie were well aware of my disgust an distress about the Church of England and Bob was supposedly on my side and did a number of blogs condemning the Church of England over the way they handed my case, so what happened was and is a shocking betrayal, that has never been resolved or apologized for.
Although it remains that Bob had called me a liar over something I did not lie about, and left me in collapse with no apology, and he and Julie had presumably liased to arrange to contact Gladwin when Julie phoned me and asked me if she could. Even though Gladwin had already let me down by meeting me only for a token meeting when Bob had put him under pressure to, by writing a letter as if it was from me and making me copy the letter out and send it. He did this with several things, including causing me traumatic stress by making me contact one of the advocates who had blatantly failed me when I was in Jersey.

So, anyway, when I had got deeply distressed at Julie telling me she couldn't afford to help me, when she had duped me to believe that she could, and then asking if she could contact John Gladwin, that should have been the end of the matter except that I had been duped into staying in a bed and breakfast that Julie apparently could not afford, and seeking accommodation on the proviso that Julie had said she was willing and able to help support me as I settled in. I was left embarrassed and shocked by her revelation that she couldn't help me and would even consider setting the church on me and putting my location and new identity at risk from my destroyers, the Church of England, and more shocked that Bob Hill would uphold her and snap at me for reacting to this.

Jane Fisher and her destroying church were triumphing again, violating me, raping my life and dignity and freedom and privacy yet again, and this time my trusted and respected mediator was helping them, and I cannot begin to tell you the horror of that.

Those of you who think I am overreacting have no idea what Jane Fisher did to me, and the Korris report doesn't tell you, because it covers up for her.

So I was being forcibly parented by Bob and Julie, and it wasn't fun, it made me angry that I had been undermined, Bob knew damn well how important it was to me to keep myself safe and hidden from the church after what they and their pet police had done to me, although he didn't believe me because he treated the Korris rubbish as his Bible and would not listen to me or interview me, and yet he and Julie wanted Gladwin to help house me, AFTER he had let us down and made promise of more meetings, which simply never happened, and Bob thought I would actually let a member of the Church of England know where I was and play a part in me being housed, despite my homelessness being due to the trauma of the church taking my home and work and life from me and leaving me homeless and destroyed, and STILL hounding me and launching police attacks on me. I still do not understand why Bob and Julie completely ignored my feelings and rights and overrode them, presumably duped by the church as most people are, most people who I beg to protect me from the church, people who hear the church's propaganda and not the cries of victims who are silenced.

Anyway, it was now mid-November, I had been in the bed and breakfast for a few weeks but felt very bad about it, seeing as Julie had now made it clear that she had lied to me and could not afford to keep me there, so I was left feeling deeply embarrassed and at a loss. I was not well, the stress of the whole matter was now leaving me weak and shaky and I was having temporary loss of feeling down one side, I knew that this was not a stroke, it is called conversion disorder, and is not a usual part of my psychological problems, and it occured only for a few months in 2013, never before and never since. So I had no choice but to trust Bob when he told me to remain at the bed and breakfast.

But I was angry with Bob and Julie for duping me, and had no idea what to do now I had been offered help with housing and let down and threatened with church interference through Gladwin, I am sure you can imagine, if you have been damaged and let down by an organization, for example if you have been screwed over by RBS or HSBC, and someone you trust says to you, 'Oh, sorry to let you down, I knew I couldn't help you after all,  but I will help you by handing you over to a lovely chap at RBS or HSBC or whatever...' You would be furious at their callousness and betrayal and deceit.
And so I was furious with Bob and Julie.

Bob and Julie also caused me maximum distress by claiming that they were liasing to get me to see a solicitor and journalist, and then all Bob did was churn out some rubbish from the Korris report as a 'statment' while Julie slated me for my anger and distress.
It was all made up, and of course, by now, Julie was already in touch with the Church of England, so of course they didn't want her helping me with solicitors and journalists, oh no. And again, as I had many times, I knew there was something wrong when Julie said that she wanted to forget the solicitor and journalist and only concentrate on housing me ( as instructed by the CofE of course).
THis whole episode caused me trauma and shock, and as usual, BOb was self-righteous and didn't apologize for his dreadful misleading statement. And I certainly felt alarm bells at Julie's statement that she only wanted to house me.
Don't be fooled that the Church wanted to house me because they cared, it is only about liability for making me homeless, and it wasn't the first time they had entrappc ed me and tried to force me indoors, and simply raped me and left me seriously harmed and used that against me.

Julie was due to fly to Jersey to stay with her boyfriend, Justin, who helps her to run her 'film agency' Greeneye Productions, which is based in St. Helier, presumably Justin is the one that Philip Bailhache put in prison for fraud as well.
Anyway. Julie's plane was cancelled due to fog, and she was up all night and sending emails to me in the early hours that showed her to be drunk, and I was concerned, she seemed vulnerable, lost and completely pissed. So I talked to her.

I wondered, and I did ask Bob, if he was aware that good safeguarding boundaries meant that a vulnerable and unhealed survivor like Julie should not be working with someone like me, certainly not on the level of transforming my life when she couldn't afford to. At very least, Julie should not have offered to help me when she couldn't, at the other end of the scale, Julie knew damn well she couldn't help me, and she or she and Bob, had intended all along to violate me with the church, and presumably some malicious person in the church was playing Bob and Julie to harm me in the way that they did.

Anyway, Julie flew to Jersey the day after the drunken emails and skypes. And was there with her boyfriend, and then at Bob and Anne Hill's house.
She then let another incongruency slip, she said to me 'Oh Bob and Ann are doing so much for you, and they say they love it, they say 'we are doing all this for HG'' Now Why would Bob and Ann call me HG to Julie? When they all know my name? HG is the label that Korris and the Church of England gave me! Again it sounded worrying to me, but again I trusted Bob and thus allowed him to keep liasing with Julie.

I can confim here and now that I never at any point gave Bob or Julie permission to liase with the Church of England, and as the Church of England were effectively defendants in a dispute and Bob was supposed to be acting for me, so Bob definitely knew better than to ever liase with or make arrangements with, the church behind my back, and yet he did, and thus disqualified himself as my mediator, and destroyed me and my trust for him. Why, apart from Jane Fisher and the Diocese being masters of duplicity and deception, Bob actually handed me over to be crucified, I will never know, but he did, and he did it knowing my feelings, knowing my vulnerability, and knowing what my reaction would be.

Bob later feebly claimed that Julie got my permission in London, she did not, nor did Bob check with me, and if my permission had been given, why did they go behind my back? And why when I reacted, did Bob slate me, call me a liar and still try to push their agreement with the Diocese onto me?

It all broke around the third week in November. Horrifyingly. And I saw my whole world and everything I saw as safety taken from me as violently as rape -which is the trademark of Jane Fisher and the Diocese, I have been decieved, tricked, trapped, humiliated and violated enough times by Jane Fisher to say that this rape of me in pretence of care is her trademark.

I was in the bed and breakfast, I was upset at their changed attitude to me as I had stayed occasional nights for years, and they had always been ok, although the younger guy was a bit of a bastard, but now it was not a friendly place and I was still terrified to sleep at night as a result of Jane Fisher and her police's years of harm to me.

Then in the news in Jersey, the Bishop of Winchester was showing off that he had 'appointed' a police officer to liase with Dame Steel, the conflicted judge, and although the Bishop had no right to appoint anyone and it was blatantly illegal for him to appoint anyone to access my inaccurate records by police who had acted heniously,  for a conflicted judge who I had objected to, and both Bob and I objected, our objections were ignored.
And it turned out that the Bishop had just co-incidentally 'appointed' the same man who was advising Jersey's sham safeguarding board that the police had done nothing wrong to me, for another sham whitewash serious case review arranged presumably by Jane Fisher and therefore only a whitewash, and so the safeguarding board had rubbished me, again, as with the Steel report, what actually happened to me, my account, was omitted in favour of the wrongdoers who arranged and wrote the reports.

Does anyone still think it was OK for Bob and Julie to deceive me and hand me over to the same church who did the original damage and then added to it with all this

So in the Jersey press and media, the Bishop was showing off about 'appointing' his cover up officer, and the press omitted the fact that this officer was also on the sham safeguarding board and had made up his mind and theirs, the Bishop refused to respond to the fact that I did not grant permission for anyone to view the inaccurate police records and cover-ups for police misconduct and brutality and Jane Fisher's illegal liasons with the police to destroy me and cover for the Diocese.

Again, what on earth did Bob think he was doing, handing me over to the very people who did and were doing all this damage? I can only assume, as I have said before, Bob is a bit gullible, and seems to have been willing to listen to and go along with any story but mine, especially reproducing the Korris rubbish as if it was fact.

The police then contacted me, thankfully the blogger commentors had told me that the police were claiming that they wanted to take the church back to court.
Apparently the police were claiming they were 'following new leads', basically Jane Fisher had been witholding evidence and perverting the course of justice and all of a sudden she and the church want the churchwarden prosecuted, after protecting him and destroying me before.

Well, why should I go along with duplicious and deceitful people who want my abuser prosecuted or cleared for their own ends. Has anyone even considered the likelihood that the church want him in court to clear him? Well, considering the lengths that Fisher went to protect him and other wrongdoers who supported him, including Key, who she acted as a witness for to get me prosecuted, and considering the lengths Fisher had gone to to destroy me, why exactly should I go through the trauma of making statements to a bent and nasty police force who had destroyed me? Just to meet the Church of England's requirements?! What Fisher has done to me is literally infinite times worse than what the Churchwarden did to me, literally, no joking.
And does anyone know in full what she has done to me? No. There are too many gullible idiots like Boatyboy criticizing me and upholding the Church's actions.

Jersey police brutalized me, jeered at me, imprisoned me, ruined me, for the churchwarden and Jane Fisher, and they fail all and every abuse survivor and prosecute in 2 out of 28 rape cases and blame the lack of victim support services for this. I have no idea why ANYONE, especially Bob Hill has any right to question or criticize my response to Jersey police contacting me, I told Jersey police to go to hell. I really do not care that people have responded by saying it is because I have no case against the Church warden, I am not here to go on and on being abused by the church of england, including being USED by them in a dud court case at a time when I was sick with trauma and shame at being smeared and slandered by the Jersey Deanery, with no attempt by the Diocese of Winchester to safeguard me from that harm!

And the Diocese of Winchester weren't warning me each new time that I was launched on by police, press and the Bishop of Winchester's duplicious reports in the press and illegal actions that I was helpless against.
So why did Bob, and Julie, seeing I was anguished, slate me for telling the police to get lost and proceed, in liason with the church, to destroy me.

It was pretty much at the same time as the police launched on me, that the Julie-Bob-Jane Fisher-NSPCC rape of me occured.

It started with Bishop Dakin doing his usual bullying act against me, this is where he sends me emails demanding that I read them and demanding that I 'get a friend to read them to me if I won't read them' This is just bullying, Dakin knows that since threatening me for begging the Diocese not to violate me, I did not, and do not read his emails, nor would I inflict his damaging lies on my friends. He knew that Bob Hill was my mediator but he always refused to email Bob, bypassed him and bullied me directly, because he is a coward and a dishonest coward and would not want someone like Bob to witness his bullying, he can't bully Bob, but he and Fisher certainly mislead Bob to seriously harm me.

Anyway, my usual response to the Bishop is 'Get lost, stuff your emails, you bully' or something along those lines.
But then the crisis hit with full force.

I got an email from John Cameron from the NSPCC, it was marked 'Winchester Diocese' and I knew that there was trouble. But I could not begin to imagine what.
So I didn't open Cameron's email then, in fact I didn't open it for months, I simply hovered the mouse over his email address, copied the email address and wrote him an email, cc the police, telling him that no-one was to harass me for the Diocese, and that he was to be aware of that.
It was some months later that I read the email and found that it was Jane Fisher herself, AFTER I HAD MADE YET ANOTHER FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST HER who, having destroyed and destroyed and destroyed, me, was still pretending to care about me, this time to the NSPCC.

Immediately after receiving this email from the NSPCC and emailing them and the police. I contacted Bob and Julie. Telling them that the Bishop was threatening me and the NSPCC had contacted me.

Julie was in Jersey, and it became obvious that something was very wrong when she responded by saying she was cutting short her break in Jersey and flying home to 'sort things out'.
I kept asking her what she was suddenly flying home to sort out, and why, but she wouldn't answer.

Bob was out for his Saturday Afternoon bike ride, he is a creature of habit, I'm sure he is autistic, but never mind. I was completely panicked by the Bishop threatening and bullying me, and more so by the NSPCC, even though I knew there were no children involved. I was not being cruel to a child but I would not put it past the church of england to actually accuse me, because the depth that they will stoop to is incredible, so basically I was wondering what exactly the Church were about to do to destroy me further.

I soon found out when Bob got back from his bike ride.

Bob skyped me, skype is pretty useless at the best of times and I struggle to use it, but he skyped me, as he and were in the habit of doing, but he was talking to me on skype messenger. He told me not to panic and Julie would sort things out.
'Julie will sort WHAT OUT?!'

'Oh, what she was arranging with Christine Daly'.

Those of you who don't know, Christine Daly is a creep who hangs out with Bishop John Gladwin and uses her 'social work expertise' to validate the Church of England's wrongdoing, and who has lied to me and messed me about. Basically she is part of the Church cover up team - Gladwin, Daly, Butler-Sloss, etc, you know what I mean?

Having been let down by Gladwin and Daly, and with Julie and Bob fully aware of my reaction to Julie letting me down and threatening to contact Gladwin, Julie and Bob deceived and abused me by apparently contacting Daly.

Now that Bob had broken this shocking, sickening news, that he and Julie had liased with the Church of England about me behind my back, and presumably thus caused me to shockingly be launched on by Dakin and the NSPCC. Bob simply cut off skype and left me suffering such severe anguish that I very nearly committed suicide.
What Bob and Julie did is illegal and breaks all safeguarding boundaries, and it is no excuse that they don't know about safeguarding, Bob working with me and with care abuse victims and having been a police officer and a deputy in the states of Jersey, does know enough to know that what he and Julie did was heniously wrong, but instead of apologizing, he has only ever slated me, walked away from me as a person and continued to use my case as political ammunition without my consent, and despite evidenced pleas to him to stop.
He also fails to recognize that using one vulnerable adult to abuse another on behalf of the defendants in an abuse and misconduct case is henious.

The unrelenting trauma of that week continued with Dakin making silly and horrible announcements in the press with the assistance of Clueless-Pendragon, his 'PR firm'. Tell me, did Jesus need a PR firm?
The Bishop called me 'lost last and least' reminding the world thus that he has never read a Bible and doesn't know what Christianity is, he is simply in it for the money, the glory and the palace. Remind me to send him a Bible. I can't afford to send a Bible to all the non-Christians in the CofE who have harmed me, but maybe I could team up with the Gideons or another group.

Anyway. The Bishop somehow cleared the Dean, claimed that the Steel report could not be released because of a legal bid - And this does need to be investigated, because how could there have been a legal bid against a report that had not been released?
Basically, the Bishop continued the process of defaming and harming me because he had not investigated my complaints but instead had allowed an engineered report by a conflicted member of the Dean's supporters to replace an investigation into what happened to me that included me.
And again, what the hell did Bob Hill and Julie Wallman think they were doing, handing me over to this Bishop and his diocese behind my back, apparently Julie and Bob thought that these people, decietful and destroying me, could also actually house me, as if they could house me somewhere I felt safe, when they were the very reason I didn't feel safe indoors, that being indoors left me sick and traumatized.

It got worse though.

Bob kept demanding that I sent him the email that the Diocese of Winchester sent me, as usual bulldozing me and ignoring my protests that I do not open or read emails from the Bishop and Diocese of Winchester. So he applied to the Diocese for the email.
The diocese aparently sent him the email, doctored or not.

Bob then told me that Julie had approached a church of england in London - without my permission - Bob claimed that Julie had said she had my permission - but I am sure that Bob would have checked with me if he really believed that, because he knows damn well what my feelings about the church are, he also knows my need for privacy and that it is right and courteous to ask someone before you take action. He and Julie would have been telling me what was going if they had been being honest, and instead I found out as a massive shock and crisis, for which neither apologized, but Bob simply slated me.

So there I was, being told that I had been handed over to my destroyers. I now did not know if they had been told where I was, and because the  Diocese of Winchester had a pattern of harming me, then having me brutalized and imprisoned by police for my reactions, I started expecting the police to turn up at the bed and breakfast. I tried to work out if I could jump from the window to escape, and I stopped sleeping and eating, my worst fears realised.

I would like you to pause and imagine again, what would happen if someone you really hated, who had really hurt you, was allowed to keep on and on and on breaching your human rights, coming round telling you how to live, where to live, and giving their opinion of you to others behind your back. You would consider that to be harassment, stalking, wouldn't you? Bob Hill wouldn't like it happening to him, nor would Julie Wallman or Jane Fisher, they would call the police. I, as a vulnerable adult, have the same rights as Jane and Bob and Julie, but my rights have been constantly and severely overridden, and the police, influenced by Jane Fisher, have refused to stop Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester from stalking and harassing me, while I am left knowing that if I react to the stalking and harassment, the police WILL ASSIST THE DIOCESE in hurting me further. Makes sense?

A note I will add in as I think about it.
The Bishop claimed in the press that 'He was praying that I would accept the help they were 'offering' Can you see why they can't investigate misconduct among their employees? Because they behave exactly the same. The Bishop trying to control me through prayers, just as St. Andrews and the Churchwarden used to try and control people through prayers. God, I need to send these people Bibles!

So, Bob Hill continued to explain to me that Julie had gone to this church official without my consent, despite the severe harm the church were doing to me, and had told them to do something. The something was that they contacted the Diocese of Winchester.
Apparently, again without my consent or knowledge, Bob and Julie then agreed to arranging a meeting with the Diocese, Bob claimed that they were 'going to tell me'.
When, Bob? After your illegal meeting with my destroyers?
But, presumably because Jane Fisher will go to any lengths to prevent me being heard regarding her illegal and vile actions against me, she prevented that from happening. And again, Bob Hill neither realised this nor took it into account.

So what happened was, a meeting went ahead without Bob, or Julie, or me. To shut things down, cover things up, and offer a pretence of help for the Bishop to put in his press release while at the same time absolving the wrongdoers in Jersey without a genuine or fair investigation that included me.

Bob didn't have anything to say about this, he was too busy liasing with his friend Mike Higgins to bait the conflicted Jersey Home Affairs Minister, who also happened to be a Church of ENgland reader and friend and upholder of my abuser, who had stated that it was a sad day when his friend, my abuser, had been sacked from his church previous to taking the churchwarden position in which he abused me.
So Bob and his friend Deputy Mike Higgins were busy baiting Ian LeMarquand, who's conflicts of interest are not named anywhere but my blog, and they were thus getting him to defame and vilify me in the States and local media in response, again not declaring his conflicts of interest. Just as a large number of other people who have vilified me and supported the Dean, Deanery and Churchwarden haven't.

Bob seemed to have absolutely no idea of the serious harm he was doing to me, as you will see from his email in the linked post.
And as a result of Julie's illegal liason with the Church, the Diocese of Winchester had been enabled to illegally launch on me in order to claim in the press that they had offered me help, at the same time as absolving the wrongdoers. Can anyone be as warped, well, can anyone apart from Jane Fisher, be as warped as to think that illegally trying to force and refer help without someone's consent at the same time as discrediting them publicly by clearing the people who have wronged them, without including the person illegally referred for help, is anything to do with helping someone or doing the right thing?

And of course motormouth Boatyboy was adding insult to injury as usual by doing as he does and believing church propaganda and saying about me 'Well, they have offered her help, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink'
Boatyboy. You cannot violently force a horse's head underwater and whip it and expect it to drink, so shut the hell up.
Boatyboy comes out with classics such as 'Isn't it good that the Dean backs the release of the Steel report' , and he broadcast the Church Times slander of me as if it was a good thing, while I had a breakdown. Back to Boatyboy later, what he did after all this horrendous scenario in November 2013 is unbelievable.

Basically I was being hit on all sides, and with absolutely no-one on my side, and Bob Hill slating me and claiming I had made him and Julie ill. AFTER WHAT THEY DID TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Utterly betrayed, deeply shocked and very ill and fearing for my life, well aware that if Jane Fisher now knew where I was because Julie and Bob simply had not given a damn about my life, rights, welfare, privacy or feelings, I knew that Jane Fisher would slander me to every church in the district, just as she did in Jersey and Winchester, while ironically protecting my abuser in Jersey and my abuser in Winchester. I didn't know what to do.
Believe me, things were desparate and I was by a railway line, and the temptation to commit suicide rather than go on being defamed in the press and media and in fear of Jane Fisher's police and the reality that she would go on and on and on and on and on and on and on as long as I lived, violating me, driving me from help, smearing me and branding me and re-branding me. Things were desparate.

So I wrote the best letter I have ever written and to be honest, I am proud of it, because I was very very ill but I wrote with complete clarity, one handed as I was paralysed on one side, and I wrote it despite the fact that I was shaking and being sick. This is the best letter I have ever written:

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

This letter has remained constantly as best read letter on my blog.
It mentions Hampshire constabulary, and the fact was that I had contacted them constantly, begging for protection from the Diocese of Winchester after the Diocese illegally, nastily and sickeningly had me traced through Hampshire Constabulary. But as yet, as the Diocese go into their third year of this run of harassment against me, Hampshire Constabulary refuse to protect me from the Diocese of Winchester, they refuse to deal with the complaint about the violation of being illegally traced, and both the IPCC and HMIC refuse to address these matters either.

Anyway. As I said. I was very ill. The weather was terrible, and I was too ill to return to the Streets, the time at the bed and breakfast was coming to an end and Bob Hill was still stupidly, senselessly, trying to force me into the illegal arrangement that the Diocese of Winchester and NSPCC had made.
If you read the linked post, you will see that Bob Hill had been duped into thinking that the NSPCC would house me.
And my emails to the NSPCC show that is not the case. So what other deviousness and illegal action had been planned by the Diocese of Winchester and NSPCC, I do not know, what I do know is that it was and is a very very serious and criminal matter, because I consented to nothing, and these people, the diocese of winchester, were destroying me. Bob incredibly claims that I have won a victory in that the Diocese of Winchester will pay for my accommodation for the rest of my life.


  • Firstly: There is no victory in the people who have destroyed me and who I am on the run from being able to violate and harm me through someone I trusted.
  • Secondly, the Diocese of Winchester did not have my consent to house me or pay for my housing.
  • Thirdly, who would they be paying? The NSPCC don't offer accommodation.
  • Fourthly, they had disrupted my therapy, which I paid a lot for, while homeless and eating from bins, why were the diocese not offering money for my therapy or offering compensation? 
  • Basically, the Diocese were not going to pay for my accommodation, they were attempting, as far as I can see, to incarcerate me, using the NSPCC as a third party to avoid liability. 
  • Bob means well, but he was completely and utterly misguided in aiding the Diocese in Destroying me.
It is a cold and broken hallelujah, but despite the lasting damage, I smashed the lot of them. Bob, Julie, the evil Diocese of Winchester, the NSPCC, who I still have a formal complaint against them.
I smashed them all in the teeth, but the cost to me was huge.

I was ill, as I said. And the weather was bad.
I considered myself to be at severe risk from the Diocese and police.
I had been indoors for a few weeks and could not safely return to the streets direct from indoors, ill and in bad weather, I had been considerably weakened by trauma.
It was the Tuesday after the Saturday when all hell had broken loose, and I was due to leave the bed and breakfast on the Thursday, and I was terrified to be there, in case the police arrived. 

I got back to the Bed and Breakfast.

I switched the computer on.

There was a message.

I spent the next few hours trying to contact my adoptive mum, the phone signal was not good in the bed and breakfast and Mum is scatty about her phone at the best of times.
It was Tuesday, I needed an answer.

Eventually Mum answered, and said she was on her way over.

That day, my adoptive parents and someone else worked a miracle.

Those of you who know the Bible, do you remember Moses and the Israelites escaping from the Egyptians? I know it so well because of course it is the Passover Story, and whenever I hear it, I hear my Dad's voice telling the story.
'Let the Fiery Cloudy Pillar lead me all my journey through'


The Pillar of Fire stayed with the Moses and kept the Egyptians from harming them.
Then they crossed the sea, and it parted either side of them.
And when the Egyptians tried to follow, the walls of the sea fell on them and they were drowned.

Well that isn't quite what happened that week when I escaped the Diocese of Winchester, but it was dramatic.
It didn't bring Jane Fisher's reign of terror against me to an end, nor did it stop the Diocese from continuing to destroy me, but God, it was pretty damn awesome! Thank You Jesus! In the same miraculous way, bring the evil of the Diocese of Winchester to the ground! 

On Thursday that week, still expecting the police, and to be trapped, beaten, sectioned, called mad by jeering police, and everything I had already been made to suffer, I checked out of the bed and breakfast, and they obviously were not expecting that, I have no idea what Julie and her evil friend, Jane Fisher had arranged, but whatever it was, there was no way I could stop the damage they had done to my safety and reputation there or in the local churches and district. What mattered to me was that the fiery cloudy pillar was guarding me, and no police appeared as I started my journey.

I remained Shattered as I went forwards. To the people who I chose to trust with the next step of my life.
The Evil Diocese didn't go away or stop hurting me, but it remains with me that when they nearly killed me in November 2013, I managed to punch them in the throat and escape.

Julie Wallman didn't go away either.
Although she knew I was a churchgoer and went to church on Sundays, she was ringing and texting me on Sunday mornings, asking me to go and see her and telling me how she still wanted to help me. I couldn't believe it after what she had done! 
And this time she and Bob seemed separated instead of the Church of England style 'Us against her' That Jane Fisher or Christine Daly appeared to have taught them.

Julie said, and yes I still have all the records of this, that she still wanted to help me and could we meet up.
I replied, oh yes, you want me to come to London to be ambushed by your police and church?
She said oh, maybe lets not meet up then.
She didn't say 'No, I am not going to trick you trap you,or have you ambushed or injured.
But she kept it up.
She said she wanted to 'help me' seeming to forget how she had just had me destroyed and had lied so terribly about being able to help me when she couldn't.
I replied that she could help me by getting me a pair of walking boots.
Oh no, that was not the kind of 'help' she meant.
She really thought she could continue to trick and harm me. 
I find it inconceivable the level of evil in the Church 
of England, that they would harm too vulnerable adults by pitting them against each other like that. Julie is a vulnerable alcoholic abuse survivor, neither Bob nor the church should have stooped so low as to use her.

Anyway, I emailed Bob, and very politely put it to him that this was unacceptable.

Julie immediately stopped.

Then Boatyboy decided to hurt me some more, he sent some money to the Dean of Jersey for me, basically as well as being a thicko, he is a sicko. So that money was sent by the Dean to the Diocese, who contacted Bob Hill and asked if they could send it to the NSPCC for me! 
I never saw that money, I remain furious that there are people like Boatyboy who deliberately harm vulnerable people.
But being reminded of the NSPCC, I looked up Cameron's emails and it turned out it was Jane Fisher, my abuser and destroyer, who had referred me to the NSPCC, loud and proud, despite my formal complaints against her, another jeer, another pretence of care while raping me. 

As for my life, despite these and ongoing traumas due to the Church of England, I have rebuilt my life steadily. My recover started in 2012, when I decided to live and not commit suicide, and has been steady despite the serious and horrendous harm by the Diocese along the way and even to this day.

Julie went on to give the care inquiry a life story that was at odds with the one she told to me, and also at odds with the one she had used as political canvassing, although when I pointed that out to Bob Hill, the political canvassing article with one of Julie's three life stories was swiftly removed from the internet., because the Jersey way extends to the bloggers and their political allies.

Bob ceased to act for me, never having apologized or put things right, too self-righteous, he abandoned me to support care survivors, but continued to blog and do media interviews about my case without my consent. But refused to do a media interview with me or support me in court against the Diocese, but without my consent, tried to do his own court case, which of course I objected to, and have had his care survivors slating me because he complained to them about it. He has failed me, and maybe that was the aim of the Diocese, Bob is too much of a threat to them, with all the evidence he has, but because they have separated me from him, and he refuses to give evidence on my behalf, the evidence is wasted and the Diocese really won in that respect, as well as Jane Fisher being able to use Julie Wallman as evidence against me for my reaction to her terrible deception and illegal behaviour.

As for me, if it wasn't for the Church of England and living in fear of them and their press releases and police. I would be in paradise. I rebuilt one hell of a life. But every day I expect it all to be destroyed, by the Church of England.

What happens to people who cannot rebuild their lives? What happens to the voiceless vulnerable?
This is what I ask the Church over and over and over, they have in every way destroyed me, and the scars are red raw, but I chose life, others are forced to death.
When is something going to be done?


   















































Monday, 9 March 2015

Bob Hill, Julie Wallman and the NSPCC/letter to Philip Bailhache

I know people are looking for the Letter to Sir Philip Bailhache at the moment, but I thought I would bring this to the top today, to remind the NSPCC of what happened in 2013.
The Open letter to Philip Bailhache is available here: http://opnlttr.com/letter/letter-jerseys-external-affairs-minister-sir-philip-bailhache

NSPCC:
Regarding emails with John Cameron and Bob Hill in this post, I had had a breakdown by the time Bob was making the accusations he makes. He and Julie Wallman liased without my consent with the diocese who destroyed me, to try and have me put away under the guise of being housed by the NSPCC, Jane Fisher is the Key person responsible for destroying me, and the horror that Bob and Julie facilitated this attack on my rights and privacy and dignity remains with me, I have never really recovered, and can't, I trusted Bob Hill, and he handed me over to my destroyers as if my story was nothing, and his attitude remains the attitude you see in the email, he accuses me, as he did previously, of lying, and he slates me for not agreeing to be handed over to be incaracarated yet again with the pretence of housing me through the NSPCC.
Bob is very self righteous about helping me, but he never has, he has refused my story and rewritten it, using it as a grudge against Jersey and calling me a liar about what has happened since, rewriting my story in a style that excuses the diocese and uses the Korris rubbish which excuses Jane Fisher and Michael Scott-Joynt.
Note Bob's comments about Ian leMarquand and the States, because as I had a breakdown, Mike Higgins was inciting hatred and lies in the States and press regarding my case, instructed to do so by Bob Hill.
I was duped into this bed and breakfast situation he mentions by Julie Wallman's lies, and it nearly killed me.


From: <help@nspcc.org.uk>
Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: query, second email as no response so far
To: ******************************************



Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email, apologies for the late response.

The NSPCC is a children’s charity and all of the work that we do relates to protecting children. Some of our service centres in local areas work with families to support parents however the NSPCC does not provide accommodation for adults or take referrals for an adult. If we received concerns for an adult or a family that were in need of accommodation the NSPCC would signpost them to the relevant external agencies, e.g. adult social services, charities and shelters, police etc.

For more information on  the support our service centres can provide in your local area please visit:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/NSPCC-in-your-area/nspcc-in-your-area_wda84792.html
We hope this has been of some assistance. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Kind Regards
Sarah Snape
Contact Centre




On 05/08/14 11:12, *********** wrote:

Dear Sir or madam,

It has been some days since I contacted you, and I have had no response.
You are giving out the impression that you are not interested in queries.

Please could you answer my question.

Does the NSPCC, as I have heard, provide accommodation for adults.

If so, what provision is made and why, and if not, then what do they do when an adult is referred to them?

sincerely,





Bob Hill <bobps91@yahoo.co.uk>

11/22/13



to me, JULIE

 Good Morning
,
Thank you for your emails. I do feel that we have reached the crossroads. You will have to vacate your digs in a week and you must decide what you want which is best for you. No one can make that decision. I have spent months trying to help and so too has Julie in more recent times but if you can not trust us there is no point in continuing our involvement.

Your reaction last week end was very hard to take because we had no idea what you had received from Winchester and that not only would you not forward the email but you accused us of betraying you.  You say you did not open the email but I question how you knew that the NCPCC was being asked to help you unless you had read the contents.

Winchester has now sent me the email and I have told them that I am very cross at the way they have acted and that they should have invited you with me/Julie to discuss how it could keep the promise given to you by John and Christine in June. Unfortunately Winchester is in a world of its own and we cannot change want they have done but we can help you to have say in what is being proposed.

There is no point in moaning about what John and Christine promised, they let us both down, but you have won a victory in that Winchester will fund you future accommodation and they will leave how it is done with you and the NSPCC who do have facilities for adults. I am sure that if you agree to work with them it will be a small step, but you must take it.

I am not going to send any more emails to you but I do want to speak to you because we need to talk to find out how we go ahead or pull up the anchor. You now have a room in which you can Skype me. I will be publishing another Blog sometime this morning on the answers Le Marquand gave in the States on Tuesday so I hope will be around most of the day.

Please let me know when would be a good time to Skype.

Regards,
Bob
F.J (Bob) Hill, BEM

From: <JCAMERON@nspcc.org.uk>
Date: 18 November 2013 15:35
Subject: Winchester Diocese
To: r*********r@gmail.com


Dear,

I hope you do not mind me emailing you unannounced.  I have recently been contacted by  Jane Fisher from Winchester Dioceses.  She had concerns that you may be having some difficulties at present and seeking advice and support, she thought that we may be able to assist you in some way.

  We perhaps can arrange to meet to see how best we can support you. However  understand that you may not wish to make contact with me at this stage but should you wish to do so then please feel free to call me or email at any time.

Kind regards

John

John Cameron
Head of Child Protection Operations
NSPCC
42 Curtain Road
London
EC2A 3NH

From: **********************************************
Date: 18 November 2013 15:45
Subject: harassment
To: jcameron@nspcc.org.uk


Dear John Cameron or fake John Cameron,
whichever applies.

This email address is defunct apart from being used for a battle against the diocese of Winchester and I do not open unsolicited emails on behalf of the Diocese.

According to you email address you are from the nspcc, and the online reports show that there is such a person, but there is no guaruntee you are genuine and not a fake, and no reason whatsoever for such a person to contact me and the more I receive emails on behalf of that vile corporation the more furious I am, and they know it, so desist or I will include you in the harrasment complaint.
Emails regarding that vile corporation are to go via Bob Hill, now desist.

From: *********************************************
Date: 19 November 2013 10:30
Subject: formal complaint
To: help@nspcc.org.uk


Good morning,

The Diocese of Winchester who destroyed me for being an abuse victim who spoke up, have been harassing me, and yesterday started using one of your employees, John Cameron, to harass me.

There are no children involved in this dispute, thus Mr Cameron's violation of my life and privacy is ludicrous and inappropriate, and is to stop.

Sincerely,