Dear Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury,
As yet I have not had a reply to the first letter of questions, which I sent directly to you, but that is pretty typical. You have made me an object to scapegoat, and in Church of England style, you have failed to realise that I am a real human being with feelings and a life. I gather that if there is no money and no status, the Church cannot view a person as a human being.
Let's launch into the questions. Which of course are exhaustive and so I am doing these letters at the same time as music theory revision. This matter is of a major scale in my life.
1. Can you explain the conflict of interests where Dame Steel represented the Jersey Deanery against you for your misconduct? If she was supposed to be investigating FOR you, how could she investigate YOU on behalf of the people she was supposed to be investigating? See this link:
1a) Can you also state your knowledge that your advert for witnesses would bring forward those hand picked by the Bailhache-Willing-Birt_Falle Town Church-States-Judiciary-Lawyer-Freemason clique, and that genuine witnesses to my side of things would be warned off or feel intimidated, as evidenced on the comments on Bob Hill's blog?
Considering the Jersey dynamics, for example my abuser having relatives in all areas of the island, some, such as his brother, with very poweful influence, and the friends of the abuser's family, the friends of the Dean, friends of those in the clique mentioned above, many throughout the island, would far far outweigh those few who knew me or knew things were wrong, and those who did or do, have not been brave enough to speak up, so do you think you got a valid and impartial witness circle?
No, because even when I was at St. Andrews Church, being abused, the Churchwarden manipulated the situation to isolate me from others, and to tell them that my distress at being regressed and abused was my disability and not him harming me. So, who do you think the matter would go in favour of???
And what provision did you make for that glaring inbalance?
2. Can you explain why, for this advert, Dame Steel was using a Church of England email address? Which was actually how I contacted her, the fact being that despite her supposedly investigating my case, she had not contacted me, and presumably had no intention of doing so! And when I contacted her to ask her to withdraw as she was conflicted, she didn't withdraw, neither did you withdraw her. Have you explained that in full to people you are excusing yourself to? And have you explained the fact that Steel caused me traumatic stress by contacting the advocate who failed me in Jersey and enabled Bob Key, Jane Fisher and Michael Scott-Joynt to destroy me?
3. Have you explained how Steel was demanding paperwork from my advocate that she didn't need, such as paperwork relating to my deportation and a letter from a friend who the Diocese have since estranged me from (during the time Jane Fisher openly estranged me from all my friends in the Winchester churches in order to cover up for herself and the Bishop). Why did Steel demand that paperwork when she was not even following Korris's reccomendations regarding investigating my imprisonment and deportation?
4. The Bishop, having launched this matter rather thinly concealed as a 'safeguarding investigation into the National Press, took what action about:
a) blatantly untrue material published in the JEP by Teri Bond, a close friend of the Dean's wife, and Philip Bailhache, a Church officer, who sat on the synods with my abusers?
b) blatantly untrue information broadcast on BBC Jersey by Philip Bailhache, Bruce Willing, and Reverend Gavin Ashenden, none of whom had met me or heard my story, and none of whom had any experience of abuse, trauma or vulnerability, and who didn't care, their only interests were in vilifying and discrediting me and upholding the Dean and my abuser?
c) Took what action about sites and media such as 'Clerical Whispers' 'Thinking Anglicans' (The great oxymoron), Premier Christian Radio, Huffington Post, and other sites, defaming me and publishing distressing and misleading comments about me by total strangers who were mislead by the Korris rubbish?
d) About Philip Bailhache abusing his dual roles in Church and States to write a defamatory and misleading 'Open Letter about me, circulating it to citizens of Jersey who didn't know me and were influenced by Philip Bailhache's status in the States, Judiciary and Church, to support Philip Bailhache and the Dean against me?
Further reading of Philip Bailhache's ongoing misconduct on the same theme:
e) On the Same subject, the breaches of the data protection act regarding my case, when Philip Bailhache was flying to and from influencing the Archbishop of Canterbury against me and making him reinstate the Dean?
5. Why was the Korris report released to the police as fact, without my side of things, and without my consent?
6. Why were 'Further meetings' promised by Gladwin and Daly, at a token meeting that they had with Bob Hill and Myself, and those meetings never occured? Cover-up and excusing cover up?
Church of England broken promises and misleading people? Failure to represent both sides of things.
7. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain the comment about 'called to help the lost, last and least' in his misleading statement to the press in November 2013? In the context of if not being a Biblical reference, and the Bible saying that 'The First Shall be Last and the Last shall be First' ie, fat old men in palaces, who crush the poor and vulnerable, are not going to get into heaven, but those crucified on earth by those fat old men may just get into heaven?! The 'Lost, last and least' statement was ultimate arrogance and is the brand and stamp of the Church of England. And I want an apology for that statement.
8. Regarding Dame Steel's terms of reference, one of the terms is that she can have anyone to assist her. Did you write that term or did she? And are you aware that it allows her to invite 'anyone' including Philip Bailhache, Gavin Ashenden, Ian LeMarquand and anyone else with an interest in protecting the Dean and themselves and other wrongdoers, to assist her, which is what has happened, thus the investigation is invalid.
a) In the context of you claiming in November 2013, that the Steel report could not be published due to a legal bid, would you explain who could have seen the report and made a legal bid?
b)And why I have not seen the report, when it is a conflicted investigation against me?
c)So, who has seen the report when I have not? Why was part of the report's appendix apparently leaked?
d)And how would Philip Bailhache know the cost of the report?
Why if other parties investigated have seen the report in order to make a legal bid, have I not seen it?
f)And how accurate or misleading have the amendments to the report since the legal bid made the report?
g) Seeing as you were about to release it again when I took you to court?
h) Also, if someone else was allowed to view the report and on the grounds of what they read, allowed to make a legal bid to stop the release of the report, considering that it was supposed to be about safeguarding and about me, why was I not allowed to do the same?
i) especially as you have been asked to provide me a copy of this conflicted whitewash report and have not done so!
10. The Bishop of Winchester claims to take safeguarding very seriously, why then has he destroyed me publicly and left me under threat of destroyal for two years, while allowing all wrongdoers in the Jersey Deanery to triumph openly and in the press, while leaving me at risk of my life and receiving hate and threats and defamation?
11. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain exactly how the defamation, threat and misleading of the general public while letting wrongdoers off is condusive to safeguarding?
12. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain why there has been no investigation or action into Jane Fisher's misconduct and instead she has been given time and freedom to ensure cover-up and closed ranks? Can he further explain why, after receiving my complaint and considering that Jane Fisher is a reader as well as a safeguarding director, she has not been been disciplined by the Bishop, but instead allowed to continue to provoke me and act illegally, just as she was in Jersey and Winchester, to my detriment, when she was allowed to have me beaten and imprisoned by police for my reaction, how has anything changed regarding safeguarding, when the Church have simply done the same again as they did to me before, only on a much larger scale? And again with no appropriate action taken?
Can the Bishop also comment on how Jane Fisher has been conflicted in this whole safeguarding association, by her relationship with other wrongdoers and her need to cover up for herself, and why she has been allowed to continue to complicate matters by being involved. A prime example is her illegal liason with Jersey police in November 2013 at the same time as she illegally referred me to the NSPCC. If the Bishop is passionate about safeguarding, and suspended the Dean on that note, why has he allowed Jane Fisher to continue unrestricted? Doesn't that show bias and imbalance, to dangerous levels?
13. a) Why was the Dean cleared BEFORE the visitation was carried out? And as he was cleared publicly by the Bishop,
b) then what was the point of the visitation and why was it carried out? Why was that money wasted?
c) and why did the Bishop and Diocese not bother to communicate with me about the Dean's re-instatement, nor pass on the Dean's 'apology' which was kept on the Church of England's website as a trophy for months, presumably as part of Paul Butler's PR and spin campaign at the expense of Victims?
d) Is that campaign over or are the Church going to continue to sicken abuse survivors, people who think, and God by continuing with it?
e) Why have I been excluded from e Church all reports when it is supposedly my complaints that the reports are about, Although in reality the reports were or are supposedly part of the CofE's failed PR stunt campaign at the expense of victims, most of whom are voiceless and the Church don't really plan ahead for those of us like me, Eli Ward or Theresa Cooper, who keep speaking up even when you call us mad, bad and all the rest of it.
14. a) Can the Bishop of Winchester explain how he will afford to destroy all other abuse victims the way he destroys me, seeing as, according to Jane Fisher, she gets hundreds of calls per month about abuse and misconduct in the Church?
b) Can the Bishop explain how she gets hundreds of calls per month about abuse and misconduct, considering how many churches there are in the Diocese? Wouldn't the Bishop consider that there is a root fault with his Diocesan Safeguarding policy or his Safeguarding Director's competency (the latter I know is the case).
c) Can the Bishop expand on how many other cases he has launched into the press as a safeguarding failure in the duplicity campaign before destoying the victim in the press?
d) Can he explain how many more will be dealt with this way? How many other's so far? Because I have not seen the Diocese publicly destroying anyone else apart from Reverend Hawthorne, where they also tried to use mental illness as an excuse for destroying this person. I have heard from several priests who, when diagnosed with conditions that classified them as vulnerable, they were destroyed by the CofE as Reverend Hawthorne was.
e) Apart from that, how many other failures by Jane Fisher have been atrociously used as PR stunts before destroying the victim publicly as in my case? How many have even been looked at, considering that most cases involving the voiceless vulnerable do not lead to the voiceless vulnerable speaking up until a review was forced, which Jane Fisher hijacked as the Korris report, and it went on from there.
a) Can the Bishop just clarify something about the Korris report? Written from Jane Fisher's notes, of course it was detrimental to me and covered up for others, but at one point it inaccurately describes what seems to be a mishmash of early abuse that I suffered at the hands of the Diocese of Winchester, but it claims that I 'first came to the Diocese's attention when I was 19 years old' presumably it is talking about my being taken in by JM and abused by FM.
b) Could the Diocese explain then, why if I came to their attention aged 19, I was taken to live at the rectory aged 20, was not removed from the rectory by the Diocese when I was being abused aged 20, but removed myself when JM's mother went mad and blamed me for being abused.
And yet, JM set up situations AFTER I left the rectory aged 20 where FM could abuse me, and not once did the Diocese contact me, as JM blamed me for the abuse, told me I led her husband on, which fortunately my counsellor told me was an invalid excuse, and not once did the Diocese contact me, ask me for my story, or prevent abuse as my friendship with JM continued from age 19 to age 27 when the Diocese allowed the churchwarden and Dean in Jersey to take that abuse by FM and rope JM in to accuse me of being a serial accuser.
further questions: a) Why if the Diocese knew about me from age 19, did they allow JM to move me to the rectory and get housing benefit and social services money for looking after me?
b) Why did they allow her to take me to New Zealand for three weeks, and why, if I was a serial troublemaker did she take me with her accross the world for three weeks?
c) Is the Diocese aware or were they, that when she decided to take me, I was not on speaking terms with her because she blamed me for abuse, and when she spoke of New Zealand I made her come round and talk about FM abusing me, and try to get her to stop blaming me, and she didn't stop blaming me?
d) And so the New Zealand trip was a disaster, and I went because she had said she would pay in full for me and I was hardly earning enough money for food at the time? I was not using her but decided, or hoped, that her suggestion that an all expenses paid trip would be good for me was right.
e) Can the Diocese explain why, if they became aware of me when I was 19, they allowed JM to breach her counselling boundaries and take me home as a replacement for her step-daughter, and then, even up to my time in Jersey, she would have me to stay over at the Rectory, as a friend?
f) Can the Diocese explain why, if they were aware of me, they allowed JM to breach Church of England safeguarding policy and professional boundaries, resulting in the damage that FM's temper and abuse did to me psychologically as well as JM unethical approach to things,, and then allow JM to join forces with the Dean and the churchwarden to harm me?
g) Why the fact that her husband's abuse of me came out in the open in Jersey as a result of the abuse there and the churchwarden knowing about he husband's abuse because he made me talk about abuse, and thus using it to reel JM in to support his case?
h) and what about Jane Fisher actually backing up this defamation of me, and allowing the Lihous to be added to it via Phil Warren, their son in law, clerk to the Jersey Deanery, so that the Dean and churchwarden could make me out to be a serial troublemaker and Jane Fisher aiding this and furthering it to Lou Scott-Joynt and the Deanery of Jersey?
i) why is there no accurate record and Jane Fisher refused to investigate and blamed me and got Tracy LeCoutuer, my former friend who Jane Fisher estranged me from to blame me, for that evening when Lou Scott-Joynt made it clear that the Dean was not going to be dealt with and I was considered to blame, why there is no accurate record of the Dean calling me a liar about the abuse and calling me a serial troublemaker and citing JM and FM and the Lihous as grounds for that, and then lying to the police and court that I came to his house shouting and swearing when I didn't? Why did Jane Fisher refuse to engage with that situation in any way and try to blame me, it makes a mockery of the supposed investigation into the Dean when Fisher was aiding and abetting his actions at all times.
j) Where is the explanation of the Diocese knowing I was vulnerable and being abused since age 19 and nothing being done about it? No investigation, no protection of me?
Because the Korris report claims it is fact that the Diocese knew about me, knew there was abuse, and there is a claim about me abusing people's good nature but no explanation of anything being done by the Diocese or my side of things, and yet this report was released to the police and general public as fact, without the points I have made here, which are just a very small selection of points indeed.
Reading the above paragraph, can you imagine the damage this all did to me and as the description is only the tip of the iceberg, can you imagine how damaged I was when I arrived in Jersey, having been sexually and emotionally abused in the Church of England from the age of 19, and previously abused in every way up to the age of 17? Leaving me admittedly volatile but also open to abuse and to blame as a result of my psychological state.
And can you see how the closed ranks and internal wrongdoing and covering up for each other in the church is not condusive to safeguarding, especially when the Diocesan safeguarding officer is in the thick of it and cannot safeguard against bad practice that she approves of, upholds and takes part in?
15. a) When the Bishop of Winchester finally releases his rather worthless million pound report, will he announce the conflicts of interest? Those names in the previous letter and the full range of those not mentioned?
b) Will he also announce the illegal actions and data protection breaches that produced the report, will he announce why I am not included either in the Steel report or the Korris report when they are supposedly about my case? The real reasons, not the made up ones.
The real reasons being that although the Bishop illegally and harmfully had me traced by police after publishing the Korris report, he did not have me contacted to include me in it and had no intention of doing so, and having had me traced, he then didn't interview me or include my amendments, even though they were sent to him, those that I did before that dreadful unprofessional report made me too ill.
As for the Steel report, Steel was conflicted, and I asked her to withdraw, sparking lies from media and press who should have known better, such as 'Premier Christian Radio' and the Church (Times) Rag.
Steel made it very clear who's side she was on and tried to lie to Bob Hill about her connection with Bailhache, Birt and others.
So, as yet, over two years later, the Bishop has wasted estimated over a million pounds on whitewash cover-ups, when is he going to do an investigation and report into my complaints?
16. Back to Korris claiming that the Jersey Deanery denied shunning me, well, considering that they had been told by the Dean not to co-operate with the report, and considering that no-one in their right mind would actually admit to wrongdoing for a report like that, why was Korris simply allowed to coninue Jane Fisher's spiel about me being paranoid? How is it safeguarding to repeat, magnify and publicise lies about me and deny my experiences?
17. Did Bishop Dakin's grandchildren write the Steel report terms of reference for fun? What does the rigmarole and nonsense about publishing and redacting even mean?
18. Does the Bishop of Winchester understand that due to the lack of independence and professionalism of the safeguarding investigations and the failure to include the person the reports were supposedly about, and the Church's obvious lack of understanding of what independent means, and due to the huge amount of money wasted on this matter, the Diocese of Winchester needs to be audited and investigated from outside of the Church of England, otherwise they have no credibility whatsoever. The Bishop also needs to arrange an independent investigation into my complaints.
19. Does the Bishop of Winchester want to explain why he 'tried to arrange help for me' in order to do a press release;
when he had been made aware by me for months before the press release, that he was disrupting my therapy and support and making both impossible, and yet he allowed Jane Fisher, who was under a formal complaint, to illegally refer me to an agency not qualified to help me, the NSPCC, without my consent, and cause me massive shock and disruption.
Just so the Bishop could try to close the mattter down and mislead the general public through the press to make them think he had done his job.
Can the Bishop please explain why he did this in full knowledge of what he was doing?
Can he explain why he has not apologized for doing these things? And can he explain his understanding of the damage to me that the collective events of November 2013 did, and how he potentially put my life in danger by destroying me as he did at that time, see link:
20. Can the Bishop explain how any safeguarding benefits have come out of this messed up farce, that is unrepeatable due to cost anyway, and which has shown at every stage that the Church have no understanding or concern for safeguarding, vulnerability or the safety or welfare or inclusion of vulnerable groups.
Reference back to my last letter of questions, what has the Bishop done about criminally ignorant attitudes and views of his clergy and church officers in Jersey such as Gavin Ashenden, Bruce Willings and Philip Bailhache?
And at what point has the Bishop answered the press smear campaign by explaining that Philip Bailhache is conflicted by dual States and Church roles and has asscoiation with my abusers? And on the subject, when has he enlightened the general public through the press, as to who is who in this matter, including Bishop Willmott's conflicts of interest? Because all I have heard is the Bishop either glorifying or justifying his or the Diocese's actions, and the same with the Archbishop.
21. Does the Bishop understand that a court of law or an outside investigation needs to ask these questions that I have asked, and more, and my questions are exhaustive?
22. Would the Bishop like to explain the biased media reporting? Is that a paid-for thing? Is it included in the inquiry costs? Does the Bishop know of the conflicts of interests in the press, for example the Jersey Evening Post is overseen by my abuser's brother, and the libel and defamation unchecked in the JEP is noticable and has been recorded, and there are more conflicts of interest there that I am not yet naming?
23. Do the Dioceses understand that vilifying someone without allowing them a voice to defend themselves is illegal and nothing to do with safeguarding?
24. Can the Bishop explain why he illegally had me traced and then threatened me and caused me a collapse? Threatened me for contacting him about the very issues I now write down in these letters?! Did the Bishop of Winchester threaten his church officers, Philip Bailhache, Bruce Willings and others? Did he threaten Gavin Ashenden or the Dean? Well, yes he threatened the Dean, in the leaked letter from the Steel report, he told the Dean to break Jersey law in order to obey the Bishop. No wonder the Birt-Bailhache-Falle clique of the Town Church, States and Judiciary were furious when one of their own, Dame Steel recorded that!
25. Could it be, in light of question 24. that the 'Legal bid over the Steel report' on November 2013, was thus the Bishop trying to save his own skin?
26. What investigatory action did the Bishop take in light of Bob Hill and my and other people's concerns about Dame Steel being conflicted, and where is the paperwork and report on this? And can the Bishop of Winchester please send this to me and Bob?
27. Considering that the Steel and other reports were supposed to be to construe good safeguarding, why am I having to live in fear and in hiding, publicly destroyed for no apparent reason and still being harmed by press releases? While nothing has been done about safeguarding in the Jersey churches, as is obvious from Ashenden and Bailhache's continued behaviours?
28. Can the Bishop talk about his lies to a court of law in context of Christianity?
29. Can the Bishop explain how giving the Deanery of Jersey centre stage and encouragement to behave in an unChristian manner has affected the Church and attendence, faith in the Church and inclusion or encouragement of vulnerable people to attend the Church? Examples including, blatant lies in the press, such as Bruce Willing claiming I was making complaints to get compensation, Philip Bailhache untruthfully claiming I had made previous complaints, two in Winchester and one in Guernsey, proven unfounded of course!
And currently Bailhache continuing to attack other abuse victims despite his church status, while Ashenden is using his JEP column to harm vulnerable and ethnic groups, and has used the Church Times to mislead people and defame me, for example trying to discredit me on grounds of mental illness, failing to mention to a largely ignorant and middle class clergy readership, that mentally ill people are not automatically liars and are the most vulnerable to abuse.
Also, someone needs to instruct Bruce Willings that terminology such as 'That poor unfortunate woman' used in a condescending tone, may have been appropriate for several hundred years ago, but not for the present day and age. See link:
30. In light of Question 29, what is the Bishop doing to educate these clergy and church officers both on vulnerability and safeguarding and also on how wrong their behaviour is. In the context that the Bishop and his safeguarding officer and Diocese's behaviour is no better because they are no less ignorant. Who is going to deal with this safeguarding failure through ignorance? And when is the Bishop going to bring this damaging public behaviour by his clergy and church officers to an end?
31 Which does the Bishop consider worse, well-off men who have never experienced abuse or protect abusers, abusing their power while calling themselves Christians, to destroy a lone vulnerable female?
Or a female with autism, learning difficulties and profound trauma, who has been regressed by her abuser, to childhood when her first childhood was profoundly damaging, going mad with distress when she is dumped by her abuser, left still regressed, after being told by her abuser's wife thoughout the time she had known them, that she was of a lower class and thus not welcome and shameful, then reporting the abuse, and seeing her abuser get off laughing and slandering her through the closed island church community, while she is beaten by police and flung in a cell for reporting someone well conected, and then after years of abusive childhood and damage by the elitist abusive church of England, she goes mad.
Which is worse? Well, according to the Bishop and Diocese of Winchester, the second one is worst, which is why they have had me beaten, branded and ruined for life with a criminal record, whitewashed investigtions, enforced the branding of me, and left my abuser and his wife central to the town church and still taking visiting women home in positions of trust.
It makes all this noise about safeguarding and caring for the vulnerable worthless. So the CofE should sack spin doctor and PR stuntman Paul Butler, (a colleague of Jane Fisher from his time as Bishop of SOuthampton) and instead employ someone who will deal with safeguarding. Only the Church will never dare to do that, the liability they would have to take if they suddenly became honest, would financially ruin the church, which is what all this spin and flannel in the press is really about, and the toadying of the National CSA Inquiry, it is all to prevent that liability and make the church look squeaky clean.
At my expense, in Jersey.
As yet, the Bishop has failed to answer these questions in these letters, and in 2013 he acknowledged an email of questions, but never answered them, he has not produced a press release or statement as he usually does in response to the Jersey Deanery's questions. Again he considers his image in Jersey and the Diocese and Press and world more important than answering the human being he has ruthlessly destroyed, failing while he has done so, to comprehend any of Jesus teachings and thus invalidating the Diocese and Church as Christian organizations.
As you will see, these letters ask questions and highlight the ways in which the reports and investigations are invalid, they do not tell my story, because as yet, the Diocese of Winchester, the Diocese of Canterbury, the Deanery of Jersey and the Church of England and the press, have showed no interest in my side of things, so this is not the time or the place.
The Bishop can only publish his report if the full details of conflicts of interest, dishonesty and illegal activity used to make up the report are published with it. This is not permission to publish the report, as it is a deliberate safeguarding failure and conflict of interests.
The Bishop does not and will never have, permission to publish the Steel report, as he knowingly allowed not a safeguarding report, but a character assassination, with a bit of safeguarding thrown in for credibility and to earn the undoubtedly big fee offered to Dame Steel.