Dear recipients,
Another week, another drama from the Church of England invading the lives of the general public through the media. Or is this some bizarre parallel universe where wrongdoers investigate themselves in the full glare of the public spotlight?
This one is certainly an elaborately staged drama. The National Safeguarding Team, gatekeepers who have actively worked to cover up the serious misconducts of Justin Welby and senior Bishops and Deans, some of whom remain, are investigating their boss, Justin Welby.
How contemptible to waste more money and time instead of arranging an impartial investigation, although that has been being said for the seven years of farce investigations that aim to falsify safeguarding and glorify the Church of England. How can the National Safeguarding Team investigate corruption and criminal activity that they have been part of?! The C of E have pulled some fine stunts in the past 7 years but this is beyond a joke and another insult to victims. This one can't be another fake for the IICSA because they are astute enough to know the conflicts of interest.
Do the NST look forward to losing their jobs for pinning some muck on their Teflon boss? Unlikely, but as most matters of the C of E are vanity and publicity stunts, this one will die down in silence as neither Welby nor his complicit gatekeeper national safeguarding team will be held to account for their years of serious and criminal misconducts. You can't investigate what you have been part of, and the national safeguarding team have been repeatedly highlighted as slandering victims, breaching data, blocking victims from communication about their cases, advising others to ignore victims and making their contact out to be harassment, and more. That is the national safeguarding team who are apparently 'investigating' their boss.
The C of E can't mark their own homework, that was what was stated by a prominent abuse lawyer over the C of E's recent fighting in the press relating to the Oxford case. And it is true, and any ethical or just organization would acknowledge that, and would make sure external investigation was carried out. Unfortunately the C of E only use conflicted investigators from outside and label them as independent, which indicates how dangerous they are to children, the vulnerable, and especially as curators of thousands of schools. The C of E no longer competently manage their affairs, and they seem to think that a persistent show in the media and grabbing headlines over irrelevancies and eccentricities will hide that.
Normally when the press are thrown a bone by the C of E, it is vomited on the general public through every headline, but this current piece is muted, so maybe the C of E can correct it by removing the national safeguarding team and handing the matter to independent inquiry, genuinely independent, not conflicted bodies or nodding dogs, and then the matter can be returned to the press with a bit more pride.
Sincerely,
John Carter
Tuesday 28 July 2020
Saturday 25 July 2020
Louise - Grooming and Church Safeguarding
The names in this blog are changed to protect identities. Be aware that as well as this only being an example - it doesn't always happen like this, there are many cases like this, so if you think you know the family, you may be mistaken.
It is quite a well-to-do district, and many there enjoy a good quality of life, Louise and her family included. Teenager Louise lives with her parents and her younger brothers, Joe and Chris, in a nice detached home in the village. They have horses and a dog, and enjoy a life full of activity. Louise's Mother works in neurology, her Father is a business owner. They are a happy and close family despite the age differences between the children, Louise just turning 16, Joe is 11, Chris is 6.
The village church has bucked the trend and is thriving and lively, and as well as attending there, the children join a bigger church in town for some activities.
Louise is a quiet girl, but happy, passionate about church and a very keen student at her private school, she's set on being a doctor, and her school career holds her in good stead, she has been a top student and is now looking forward to higher education. On Sundays she loves to chat to the retired doctors in church, they tell her stories and offer her advice. Louise hasn't yet had a serious boyfriend, while most of the girls in her year have, and sometimes they make her feel that she's missing out or that she's immature for not dating, but on the other hand, she knows that there's plenty of time for that, her studies are important. She wants to make her parents proud of her and she yearns for the day when she will be qualified to help and save. She gets the Doctors without Borders newsletters, and she dreams of joining them.
Something happened that changed life for Louise and her entire family.
The village church has two churchwardens, Andrew and Jennie. They are the normal friendly older middle class wardens that you expect from a village church. They are there outside the door to greet everyone on Sunday.
It had been shock to the church when Andrew's wife left him, they all rallied round with sympathy and food, and as details of the divorce were not forthcoming, the vicar told a prayer meeting from which Andrew was absent 'What goes on behind closed doors is none of our business, all we can do is support Andrew'. So the church admired Andrew's bravery and carried on as normal, as he did, except that they invited him round for meals regularly, it's what the church does.
Louise's family invited Andrew for meals or to eat out with them, to 'help him during this difficult time', and as the summer holidays came, Andrew became a family friend, he would play cricket with Joe and Chris in the garden while Louise was at work in her summer job. When Louise was home, Andrew was always keen to talk to her, to hear about her day and to talk about her ambitions in medicine; he was like an uncle to the children. He often gazed at her intently as they spoke, but she thought nothing of it.
One day when Louise came home, Andrew was there, he had been talking to her parents about a Doctor who he knew in a hospital about 20 miles away. He had asked his Doctor friend if Louise could visit the hospital and learn a bit and maybe work experience could be arranged in the field that she was interested in.
Louise and her parents were delighted as well as grateful, it was nice to have such a caring friend, they had no concerns about Louise being alone with a Good Christian such as Andrew, and the following week, Andrew took Louise to the hospital.
It wasn't quite what she expected. The Doctor friend, an older man with grey hair and an unkempt beard, didn't seem as interested in Louise's ambitions as in her looks and relationship status. He asked her if she had a boyfriend, and told her that hospitals always needed 'pretty young things like her' to brighten and liven things up.
'You have to be very special to be a female doctor, the men expect things of you if you want to do well, being pretty really helps your chances'. The Doctor and Andrew laughed but Louise was hurt and puzzled, this wasn't at all what she was expecting, she had already done some medical work experience and it hadn't had this atmosphere at all. She sat in the office with Andrew and the Doctor while they made jokes that she didn't completely understand, and a long time seemed to pass before the Doctor finally stood up and offered to give them a tour.
As they walked, he would touch Louise, putting his hand on her shoulder, arm or back for longer than she felt comfortable with, as he pointed out various aspects of the hospital. She endured it politely, she liked the hospital itself, it brought all her passion for a career in medicine to the fore.
At the end of the tour, Louise asked if work experience would be possible, and the Doctor told her she would 'have to apply through the usual channels, but he was sure they would be pleased to welcome a pretty young thing like her, as long as she didn't get pregnant or anything in the meantime'.
Louise was again surprised by such comments, she didn't have a boyfriend, she knew what protection was, and she was sure that this doctor shouldn't be saying things like this. He seemed old fashioned and out of touch, almost as if he was guessing at the way that teenagers behaved nowadays. She didn't say anything in response.
At the end of the tour, as the Doctor walked them to reception, he and Andrew were making in-jokes again, adult jokes that Louise had trouble following; and the Doctor said to Andrew very quietly, as Louise pretended to read some notices 'Good luck with her, she's really perky'. Louise would never be quite sure he was talking about her, but it made her very uncomfortable. Although she had enjoyed meeting some of the staff and learning about their daily routines, and she felt she had learned a bit, she was disconcerted about the way the Doctor had behaved, and Andrew's behavior somewhat as well.
As they left the hospital, Andrew suggested that they got a coffee at a nearby cafe. As they had a coffee and pastry, Louise was uncomfortable, Andrew kept his gaze on her the whole time. He asked her if she had enjoyed her tour of the hospital and she politely affirmed that she had. Then he asked her if she had a boyfriend and 'that kind of thing, as she was growing up fast now'. She told him that she felt that there was plenty of time for relationships later, it was important to concentrate on her studies and grades.
'But you can do both, you don't want to miss out while you're young' he replied 'I mean, you're not into girls, are you? Most girls your age already have boyfriends, unless they prefer girls and are keeping it quiet'.
Louise blushed and denied it 'Can we go home now?' she felt sick inside, she just wanted to be home, in her room, alone. Today had been too much pressure, not enough hope of work experience. She didn't want to work at the hospital and she was afraid that the Doctor was right about how her career would only progress through sex.
Andrew seemed offended 'You don't seem to have enjoyed today, that is a pity, it seemed like a good investment of my time, to show you what the medical world is really like, but you don't seem very happy about it'.
Louise was falling over herself to assure him that she was grateful and had found the day useful. Andrew snorted slightly and suggested that they headed home. Louise tried not to sound too enthusiastic as she agreed.
On the way home, Andrew pulled the car into a woodland car park, and suggested that they talked. Louise wondered if he would reveal why his wife had left him, as the church were still curious although the vicar forbade them from questioning. But no, it was another lecture about relationships and maturity.
'Adult life isn't about grades, you know, it is about exchanges, interactions; the best grades in the world won't get you far when other women can offer something else to the Doctors who might promote them'.
Louise said nothing, deep inside she felt shame and deep disappointment, but she didn't believe Andrew, she was sure that grades and qualifications must be important, there must be places where she could work without needing to flirt, or worse. And in General Practice, surely she wouldn't need to make any sacrifices, knowledge, work experience and qualifications should be enough. She was confused, and her stomach churned. Her foundation, her belief in academic achievement, was being rocked.
Andrew put his arm around her shoulders, making Louise jump nervously 'I'm only trying to help you, young lady, I'm worried that you might end up disillusioned, I only have your welfare in mind, your parents are good friends of mine'.
Louise gulped, remembering how offended Andrew had seemed earlier 'Can we go home and talk about this with my parents?' she asked.
Andrew stared ahead, not seeming to hear her 'It's hard to help young people these days, they get hysterical and make accusations...there was another girl like yourself that I was trying to help with her prospects, and she made accusations against me, would you believe it? I was like a father to her, and she accused me of shameful things...all I want is what's best for you, you know you're perfectly safe with me, don't you?'
His arm was still round her shoulders, but his hand moved lower. 'Don't you have feelings and needs?' he asked her. Louise pulled away and took her phone out of her pocket 'I would really like to go home now' she told him, she was afraid now.
'Okay, okay, all I want to do is help, calm down young lady, I'm not a rapist or a molester or anything, I just want what's best for you, you seem afraid of intimacy and your head is full of big dreams, adult life is hard and I'm just trying to prepare you'.
Thankfully he started the engine and drove them home in silence. At the house he spoke again 'You don't need to worry your parents with any tall tales now, do you? The only aim of today was to show you what the world is really like, and what being in the medical world really means, and it was a sacrifice by both of us to give you today'.
Andrew drove off without coming into the house, and Louise went in and went to her room. Her parents had taught all three children that they never needed to hide anything that worried them about the way people treated them, and so Louise, although quite embarrassed and confused, told her mum everything when she came to check if something was wrong.
Louise's parents were horrified. Her Dad phoned the Vicar, and was quite surprised to get a dismissive response, the Vicar said that it was obvious that there was no sexual assault and no clear sign of attempted seduction, Andrew was an old fashioned man and had probably said things that he didn't realize could be misconstrued in this day and age, and the same for his Doctor friend, maybe Louise was being a bit sensitive because of things she had seen on television or learned at school. The Vicar said that the matter would be passed on to one of the congregation who was the 'Safeguarding Representative', and Louise's Dad was mortified, as they knew the Safeguarding Representative well and she was also friends with Andrew, this did not feel good, but the Vicar said that as they had reported a problem, it had to be discussed.
To make a long story short. Anyone holding a position in the village church was soon aware of the allegations, and Andrew was treated like a victim, he was a popular man with his position, his payments into the church and charitable causes, he made weary utterances about how he had only been trying to help the family and it had backfired and he would never have dreamed of harming a young girl, he was a Christian and God would be the judge. Unfortunately for the family, everyone believed Andrew.
The Safeguarding Representative came and took notes from Louise and her parents, and spoke to Andrew, and said she would be in touch when she had 'investigated', but they didn't hear back, so Louise's Dad phoned her and was told that she had 'referred it to the Diocese', in the meantime the family felt unable to attend church as the atmosphere was unfriendly, no more invites to garden parties and events, some people pointedly avoided them.
The Diocesan Safeguarding Representative told the family that their case 'Had to wait' as she received hundreds of complaints each month and those that went to the police as well were priority.
Hundreds of complaints per month? Louise's Dad scratched his head in confusion, the Diocese only had hundreds of functioning churches, was each church having safeguarding complaints multiple times each month?
Louise, as she prepared for college, was having problems with anxiety, depression and shame. Being ostracized at church had compounded things. The family GP was male, and Louise was adamant that she didn't want to see him, so they went to a female GP who sympathized and referred Louise to a counsellor, she also assured Louise that she had not had to give favours to male Doctors in order to become a Doctor. This eased the situation a lot for Louise, and she began to prepare for college with more enthusiasm as the family started to worship at a big Evangelical church in the nearby town, it lacked the same family atmosphere as the village church and it was hard to leave friends and memories behind, they would miss the Church Easter Trip to the Lake District, and the usual traditions and ways for each festival, it was hard to leave, which is why many people who suffer in church remain and suffer being ostracized.
By the end of the year, the Diocese still hadn't got back to them, Louise was responding well to counselling and she understood that she had done the right thing by discouraging Andrew, where other girls might have been curious and flattered and allowed his touch and talk to go further, Louise had been firm, and she knew that no matter where she went in her career, she could do the same again. Life was knitting the wound. But Louise's parents were concerned about Andrew and his Doctor friend, had they behaved like this with other women? Andrew had mentioned a girl to Louise, but there was no knowledge of the other girl in the church or diocese.
When they phoned the Diocese, they were met with excuses, and Louise's Dad wrote to the Bishop, who wrote back, saying that the matter had been investigated and closed, as there was no evidence and they hadn't reported it to the police. He would be happy to reopen the case if the police found something. The family were furious, and putting Louise through an ordeal with the police when there was no real evidence would not be worth it. It seemed that the church held their image in more importance than the family's wellbeing. They didn't want to 'discourage' people from attending the church because of an 'unproven scandal'.
Louise's mum bumped into a member of the church in the street, an old friend, who didn't like Andrew. The friend, Anne, said how much she missed the family and said that she still wanted to be friends, she believed the family and not Andrew. 'He's in the same lodge as the Bishop, so as well as being able to put his case to him at the Deanery Synod, he gets to fraternize with him at lodge meetings'.
'Lodge?' visions of a country club or hunting lodge crosses Louise's mum's mind.
'You know, the Masons?'
'So during the time they are investigating Andrew, he's attending synods and lodge with the Bishop and still holding his position and acting all innocent?'
She was furious. How can there be an impartial investigation?
Louise's dad writes to the Bishop, asking for an impartial investigation. No response is made. He writes again saying that maybe it should go to the press, the Bishop says that he thinks that would damage Louise, but he could 'speak to his contacts in the press for them if they liked'. No further action or response.
The interactions with the hospital were similar, denial and claims that the Doctor was simply old fashioned and meant no harm and had been telling Louise that she would have to work hard to earn credentials.
Louise's dad looks up church abuse on the internet, and finds several church safeguarding and abuse charities. On closer investigation, he finds that they are all linked to the denomination that the village church belongs to, some more obviously than others, members of the board, members of the charity, are also members of the church and some also hold safeguarding representative positions in the church, meaning that there is nowhere impartial for Louise and her family to turn for help.
Although the family are well off, there seems to be no further action that they can take. The last effort was to contact the head offices of the church, who told them that they would refer the case back to the Bishop. Nothing ever came of it, and all the family could do was support and believe Louise.
There is no doubt in the family's mind that Louise was almost groomed, that their trust in a church officer because of who he was, put Louise in a vulnerable position, and at very least, Andrew and his friend's behavior was inappropriate.
As it stands, nothing has been done. The family have moved on as best they can, and the parents and children are more aware of safety and keeping themselves and the family safe. They are preparing to leave the village for a fresh start elsewhere when Louise completes her first year at college.
It is quite a well-to-do district, and many there enjoy a good quality of life, Louise and her family included. Teenager Louise lives with her parents and her younger brothers, Joe and Chris, in a nice detached home in the village. They have horses and a dog, and enjoy a life full of activity. Louise's Mother works in neurology, her Father is a business owner. They are a happy and close family despite the age differences between the children, Louise just turning 16, Joe is 11, Chris is 6.
The village church has bucked the trend and is thriving and lively, and as well as attending there, the children join a bigger church in town for some activities.
Louise is a quiet girl, but happy, passionate about church and a very keen student at her private school, she's set on being a doctor, and her school career holds her in good stead, she has been a top student and is now looking forward to higher education. On Sundays she loves to chat to the retired doctors in church, they tell her stories and offer her advice. Louise hasn't yet had a serious boyfriend, while most of the girls in her year have, and sometimes they make her feel that she's missing out or that she's immature for not dating, but on the other hand, she knows that there's plenty of time for that, her studies are important. She wants to make her parents proud of her and she yearns for the day when she will be qualified to help and save. She gets the Doctors without Borders newsletters, and she dreams of joining them.
Something happened that changed life for Louise and her entire family.
The village church has two churchwardens, Andrew and Jennie. They are the normal friendly older middle class wardens that you expect from a village church. They are there outside the door to greet everyone on Sunday.
It had been shock to the church when Andrew's wife left him, they all rallied round with sympathy and food, and as details of the divorce were not forthcoming, the vicar told a prayer meeting from which Andrew was absent 'What goes on behind closed doors is none of our business, all we can do is support Andrew'. So the church admired Andrew's bravery and carried on as normal, as he did, except that they invited him round for meals regularly, it's what the church does.
Louise's family invited Andrew for meals or to eat out with them, to 'help him during this difficult time', and as the summer holidays came, Andrew became a family friend, he would play cricket with Joe and Chris in the garden while Louise was at work in her summer job. When Louise was home, Andrew was always keen to talk to her, to hear about her day and to talk about her ambitions in medicine; he was like an uncle to the children. He often gazed at her intently as they spoke, but she thought nothing of it.
One day when Louise came home, Andrew was there, he had been talking to her parents about a Doctor who he knew in a hospital about 20 miles away. He had asked his Doctor friend if Louise could visit the hospital and learn a bit and maybe work experience could be arranged in the field that she was interested in.
Louise and her parents were delighted as well as grateful, it was nice to have such a caring friend, they had no concerns about Louise being alone with a Good Christian such as Andrew, and the following week, Andrew took Louise to the hospital.
It wasn't quite what she expected. The Doctor friend, an older man with grey hair and an unkempt beard, didn't seem as interested in Louise's ambitions as in her looks and relationship status. He asked her if she had a boyfriend, and told her that hospitals always needed 'pretty young things like her' to brighten and liven things up.
'You have to be very special to be a female doctor, the men expect things of you if you want to do well, being pretty really helps your chances'. The Doctor and Andrew laughed but Louise was hurt and puzzled, this wasn't at all what she was expecting, she had already done some medical work experience and it hadn't had this atmosphere at all. She sat in the office with Andrew and the Doctor while they made jokes that she didn't completely understand, and a long time seemed to pass before the Doctor finally stood up and offered to give them a tour.
As they walked, he would touch Louise, putting his hand on her shoulder, arm or back for longer than she felt comfortable with, as he pointed out various aspects of the hospital. She endured it politely, she liked the hospital itself, it brought all her passion for a career in medicine to the fore.
At the end of the tour, Louise asked if work experience would be possible, and the Doctor told her she would 'have to apply through the usual channels, but he was sure they would be pleased to welcome a pretty young thing like her, as long as she didn't get pregnant or anything in the meantime'.
Louise was again surprised by such comments, she didn't have a boyfriend, she knew what protection was, and she was sure that this doctor shouldn't be saying things like this. He seemed old fashioned and out of touch, almost as if he was guessing at the way that teenagers behaved nowadays. She didn't say anything in response.
At the end of the tour, as the Doctor walked them to reception, he and Andrew were making in-jokes again, adult jokes that Louise had trouble following; and the Doctor said to Andrew very quietly, as Louise pretended to read some notices 'Good luck with her, she's really perky'. Louise would never be quite sure he was talking about her, but it made her very uncomfortable. Although she had enjoyed meeting some of the staff and learning about their daily routines, and she felt she had learned a bit, she was disconcerted about the way the Doctor had behaved, and Andrew's behavior somewhat as well.
As they left the hospital, Andrew suggested that they got a coffee at a nearby cafe. As they had a coffee and pastry, Louise was uncomfortable, Andrew kept his gaze on her the whole time. He asked her if she had enjoyed her tour of the hospital and she politely affirmed that she had. Then he asked her if she had a boyfriend and 'that kind of thing, as she was growing up fast now'. She told him that she felt that there was plenty of time for relationships later, it was important to concentrate on her studies and grades.
'But you can do both, you don't want to miss out while you're young' he replied 'I mean, you're not into girls, are you? Most girls your age already have boyfriends, unless they prefer girls and are keeping it quiet'.
Louise blushed and denied it 'Can we go home now?' she felt sick inside, she just wanted to be home, in her room, alone. Today had been too much pressure, not enough hope of work experience. She didn't want to work at the hospital and she was afraid that the Doctor was right about how her career would only progress through sex.
Andrew seemed offended 'You don't seem to have enjoyed today, that is a pity, it seemed like a good investment of my time, to show you what the medical world is really like, but you don't seem very happy about it'.
Louise was falling over herself to assure him that she was grateful and had found the day useful. Andrew snorted slightly and suggested that they headed home. Louise tried not to sound too enthusiastic as she agreed.
On the way home, Andrew pulled the car into a woodland car park, and suggested that they talked. Louise wondered if he would reveal why his wife had left him, as the church were still curious although the vicar forbade them from questioning. But no, it was another lecture about relationships and maturity.
'Adult life isn't about grades, you know, it is about exchanges, interactions; the best grades in the world won't get you far when other women can offer something else to the Doctors who might promote them'.
Louise said nothing, deep inside she felt shame and deep disappointment, but she didn't believe Andrew, she was sure that grades and qualifications must be important, there must be places where she could work without needing to flirt, or worse. And in General Practice, surely she wouldn't need to make any sacrifices, knowledge, work experience and qualifications should be enough. She was confused, and her stomach churned. Her foundation, her belief in academic achievement, was being rocked.
Andrew put his arm around her shoulders, making Louise jump nervously 'I'm only trying to help you, young lady, I'm worried that you might end up disillusioned, I only have your welfare in mind, your parents are good friends of mine'.
Louise gulped, remembering how offended Andrew had seemed earlier 'Can we go home and talk about this with my parents?' she asked.
Andrew stared ahead, not seeming to hear her 'It's hard to help young people these days, they get hysterical and make accusations...there was another girl like yourself that I was trying to help with her prospects, and she made accusations against me, would you believe it? I was like a father to her, and she accused me of shameful things...all I want is what's best for you, you know you're perfectly safe with me, don't you?'
His arm was still round her shoulders, but his hand moved lower. 'Don't you have feelings and needs?' he asked her. Louise pulled away and took her phone out of her pocket 'I would really like to go home now' she told him, she was afraid now.
'Okay, okay, all I want to do is help, calm down young lady, I'm not a rapist or a molester or anything, I just want what's best for you, you seem afraid of intimacy and your head is full of big dreams, adult life is hard and I'm just trying to prepare you'.
Thankfully he started the engine and drove them home in silence. At the house he spoke again 'You don't need to worry your parents with any tall tales now, do you? The only aim of today was to show you what the world is really like, and what being in the medical world really means, and it was a sacrifice by both of us to give you today'.
Andrew drove off without coming into the house, and Louise went in and went to her room. Her parents had taught all three children that they never needed to hide anything that worried them about the way people treated them, and so Louise, although quite embarrassed and confused, told her mum everything when she came to check if something was wrong.
Louise's parents were horrified. Her Dad phoned the Vicar, and was quite surprised to get a dismissive response, the Vicar said that it was obvious that there was no sexual assault and no clear sign of attempted seduction, Andrew was an old fashioned man and had probably said things that he didn't realize could be misconstrued in this day and age, and the same for his Doctor friend, maybe Louise was being a bit sensitive because of things she had seen on television or learned at school. The Vicar said that the matter would be passed on to one of the congregation who was the 'Safeguarding Representative', and Louise's Dad was mortified, as they knew the Safeguarding Representative well and she was also friends with Andrew, this did not feel good, but the Vicar said that as they had reported a problem, it had to be discussed.
To make a long story short. Anyone holding a position in the village church was soon aware of the allegations, and Andrew was treated like a victim, he was a popular man with his position, his payments into the church and charitable causes, he made weary utterances about how he had only been trying to help the family and it had backfired and he would never have dreamed of harming a young girl, he was a Christian and God would be the judge. Unfortunately for the family, everyone believed Andrew.
The Safeguarding Representative came and took notes from Louise and her parents, and spoke to Andrew, and said she would be in touch when she had 'investigated', but they didn't hear back, so Louise's Dad phoned her and was told that she had 'referred it to the Diocese', in the meantime the family felt unable to attend church as the atmosphere was unfriendly, no more invites to garden parties and events, some people pointedly avoided them.
The Diocesan Safeguarding Representative told the family that their case 'Had to wait' as she received hundreds of complaints each month and those that went to the police as well were priority.
Hundreds of complaints per month? Louise's Dad scratched his head in confusion, the Diocese only had hundreds of functioning churches, was each church having safeguarding complaints multiple times each month?
Louise, as she prepared for college, was having problems with anxiety, depression and shame. Being ostracized at church had compounded things. The family GP was male, and Louise was adamant that she didn't want to see him, so they went to a female GP who sympathized and referred Louise to a counsellor, she also assured Louise that she had not had to give favours to male Doctors in order to become a Doctor. This eased the situation a lot for Louise, and she began to prepare for college with more enthusiasm as the family started to worship at a big Evangelical church in the nearby town, it lacked the same family atmosphere as the village church and it was hard to leave friends and memories behind, they would miss the Church Easter Trip to the Lake District, and the usual traditions and ways for each festival, it was hard to leave, which is why many people who suffer in church remain and suffer being ostracized.
By the end of the year, the Diocese still hadn't got back to them, Louise was responding well to counselling and she understood that she had done the right thing by discouraging Andrew, where other girls might have been curious and flattered and allowed his touch and talk to go further, Louise had been firm, and she knew that no matter where she went in her career, she could do the same again. Life was knitting the wound. But Louise's parents were concerned about Andrew and his Doctor friend, had they behaved like this with other women? Andrew had mentioned a girl to Louise, but there was no knowledge of the other girl in the church or diocese.
When they phoned the Diocese, they were met with excuses, and Louise's Dad wrote to the Bishop, who wrote back, saying that the matter had been investigated and closed, as there was no evidence and they hadn't reported it to the police. He would be happy to reopen the case if the police found something. The family were furious, and putting Louise through an ordeal with the police when there was no real evidence would not be worth it. It seemed that the church held their image in more importance than the family's wellbeing. They didn't want to 'discourage' people from attending the church because of an 'unproven scandal'.
Louise's mum bumped into a member of the church in the street, an old friend, who didn't like Andrew. The friend, Anne, said how much she missed the family and said that she still wanted to be friends, she believed the family and not Andrew. 'He's in the same lodge as the Bishop, so as well as being able to put his case to him at the Deanery Synod, he gets to fraternize with him at lodge meetings'.
'Lodge?' visions of a country club or hunting lodge crosses Louise's mum's mind.
'You know, the Masons?'
'So during the time they are investigating Andrew, he's attending synods and lodge with the Bishop and still holding his position and acting all innocent?'
She was furious. How can there be an impartial investigation?
Louise's dad writes to the Bishop, asking for an impartial investigation. No response is made. He writes again saying that maybe it should go to the press, the Bishop says that he thinks that would damage Louise, but he could 'speak to his contacts in the press for them if they liked'. No further action or response.
The interactions with the hospital were similar, denial and claims that the Doctor was simply old fashioned and meant no harm and had been telling Louise that she would have to work hard to earn credentials.
Louise's dad looks up church abuse on the internet, and finds several church safeguarding and abuse charities. On closer investigation, he finds that they are all linked to the denomination that the village church belongs to, some more obviously than others, members of the board, members of the charity, are also members of the church and some also hold safeguarding representative positions in the church, meaning that there is nowhere impartial for Louise and her family to turn for help.
Although the family are well off, there seems to be no further action that they can take. The last effort was to contact the head offices of the church, who told them that they would refer the case back to the Bishop. Nothing ever came of it, and all the family could do was support and believe Louise.
There is no doubt in the family's mind that Louise was almost groomed, that their trust in a church officer because of who he was, put Louise in a vulnerable position, and at very least, Andrew and his friend's behavior was inappropriate.
As it stands, nothing has been done. The family have moved on as best they can, and the parents and children are more aware of safety and keeping themselves and the family safe. They are preparing to leave the village for a fresh start elsewhere when Louise completes her first year at college.
Saturday 18 July 2020
A Letter to the Jersey Evening Post regarding the Dean of Jersey and Church of England
Additional Notes:
A note on this post, Rob McLoughlin, the journalist regurgitating the foul vomit of Faulkner and his friends, was a States of Jersey employee who worked for and with some of the States figures involved in the cover-up of this case and this further falsehood is his favour to his mates in the States. Lord Faulkner was conflicted by positions relating to the Church of England and the supervision of the Channel Islands. An additional note is that one of the directors of the company overseeing the Jersey Evening Post (JEP), is the brother of the serial offender who sexually and emotionally abused HG.
19/07/2019
While I am aware that you have a history of appalling behavior towards abuse victims, and that you do not handle complaints well. I am writing to complain regarding your article about the former Dean. https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/07/18/former-dean-suffered-a-grave-injustice-says-peer/
Publishing lies by people in power is not appropriate. Although your long history of doing the same with certain members of the States is well documented, doing the same regarding a peer in the UK who had no right to involvement in the Dean of Jersey case as he did not declare his involvement during the case or respond to the victim's contact of him regarding the matter, and who obviously did not hear both sides of the story, just as you did not publish both sides of the story, is totally unacceptable, especially publishing LIES.
The victim of the million pounds of whitewash involving many figures of power, including conflicted former Judge Dame Heather Steel, has been abused and abused and abused and abused and abused by your incessant, sadistic, callous and totally unacceptable reporting on this matter. You have abused and abused and abused her, publishing the lies of the powerful incessantly, what you have never done, is publish her side of things. You were among those who published details of the victim, allowing her to be traced, repeatedly attacked, beaten, raped, made homeless - again! And more. You enabled the stars of the Peter Ball cover-up and other cover-ups, Butler-Sloss, Lord Faulkner, and others to have a voice, but not the victim, who suffers severe traumatic shock whenever you publish the rubbish that you publish. And you have been made aware of this, so it is abuse.
The people of Jersey were NOT dismayed or distressed about the Dean, he took a huge salary and free house and did very little for the island, and advised his clergy to avoid and ignore the victims of Haute de la Garrenne, he was not essential and not liked by all. Many people spoke out and said so and spoke of their horror at the way the Dean's behaviour was covered up, a lot of it never recorded, because for the duration of the million pound whitewash, the victim, HG, had no voice at all, neither the conflicted 'investigators' nor the nasty cowardly and cruel Jersey media and press reported on the victim's side of things, what they did was vilify her on the grounds of a report produced by a church member and counsellor who was unfit for the position and who simply recorded the lies of the defendants - Jane Fisher, Michael and Lou Scott-Joynt, and the clergy and laity in Jersey, neither knowledge or consent was from the victim, who was ruined by the lies. Your actions, and the actions of other press and media outlets could have killed the victim and nearly did, celebrities facing similar smear campaigns have committed suicide, and the vulnerable victim was attacked constantly for years on end because of the lies you published without question or investigation. She lives homeless, as a fugitive, seriously injured and damaged beyond repair, and each disgusting petty repeat of lies by the dignitaries involved in the cover-up, seriously harms her.
Lord Faulkner, unless he was an official part of the inquiry, has no right whatsoever to intervene, and would have needed to declare his role and partiality to the victim when she contacted him about the criminal behaviours both of church and the States, the victim didn't consent to it, just as she didn't consent to Jan Korris, Heather Steel and the guilty-of-serious-misconduct Jersey Police and Safeguarding partnership and their illegal and data breaching actions. Lord Faulkner has no right to make assumptions, he also should not be praising the Archbishop of Canterbury for heading what has been the biggest and nastiest cover-up in the history of the Church of England, one which goes on and on as you go on and on publishing inaccuracies about the case. Many many guilty people reside in positions of power after seriously harming a vulnerable adult, and you are part of that and a testimony to the serious danger to the vulnerable that the unregulated Church of England is. Lord Faulkner's praise of Justin Welby is ludicrous, Welby whose behaviour is extremely questionable in many cases but in this, using the press and media to publicly destroy a vulnerable adult for three years solid under the guise of a 'safeguarding' should have led to his resignation. Welby is not popular in the UK as he is tearing the Church of England apart, so the simpering praise by Faulkner and the indication that Faulkner and Welby were connected in the million pound public destruction of a vulnerable adult needs to be part of the overarching investigation into this case, by a neutral person, and who is neutral when this case has show the true extension of the Church of England's conflictions?
You have been asked by the victim to stop publishing lies, inaccuracies and attacks on her on behalf of the Church of England but your response was totally unacceptable, and your failure to safeguard her, a vulnerable adult who had no say in the so-called investigations into her case, your determination to go on and on attacking when she has been utterly ruined, your determination to uphold the former Dean, whose misconducts were never recorded a) because the church prioritised destroying the victim to silence her in 2008-10, b) because the church failed to include her in the conflicted sham and farce and refused to record her story or answer her or the concerned public's complaints at all, and c) because the church destroyed her again to silence her in 2016-18 when she continued to ask for justice.
For 3 years straight, despite concerted efforts by the church to turn Mr Bob Hill, BEM, against the victim, Mr Hill reported on her case where you didn't and wouldn't: http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/
In 2015 during a sustained media attack on the victim over the conflicted Heather Steel's report, Mr Hill collapsed because of the stress of his three years of attempting to preserve the victim's life against the lies and hatred that you and other media stirred up. The church then tried to forcibly close the biggest and most serious criminal cover-up in the C of E's history, that you were part of. You helped to fell a good honest man, and you went on and on attacking the victim afterwards with your biased and callous and ignorant reporting, you didn't respond to complaints telling you the harm that you had done, just as Justin Welby and Tim Dakin didn't, of course, until Tim Dakin did as Michael Scott Joynt and Jane Fisher did, tried to make the victim's complaint into a criminal offence and had her violently brutalised and imprisoned, leaving her again seriously injured and homeless as she remains. And still you fail to investigate and record the serious misconducts and conflictions of Heather Steel, the Bailhache Brothers, those peers such as Butler Sloss who is unpunished for her part in the Peter Ball case and was able to interfere in this case as a result, and Lord Faulkner, who was contacted by the victim in 2014, as she asked him for justice, he failed to respond or ensure that her story was heard by him or recorded on the same level as that of the defendants who were effectively simply enabled by the whitewash, to publicly destroy the victim, and yet Faulkner has acted publicly purely to uphold a man whose behviours were indefensible, and the Archbishop of Canterbury whose actions in this matter amount to criminal offence. Concern is growing regarding the behaviour of the Archbishop and C of E dignitaries, and yet this case is still waiting for justice, full justice including severe punishment of the Jersey Evening Post, Channel ITV, BBC Jersey and the Bailiwick Express, who have not only unfailingly published only what the C of E has produced as if the lies were fact, but denied the victim a voice and published details allowing the victim's name, date of birth, identity, and even location, to be exposed, leading to serious violence against the victim.
It is noted that all senior Clergy and others involved have not said a word about this serious safeguarding failure.
The horrendous abuse of power by the C of E is not undocumented, and yet this deceitful illusion that the behaviour of Welby or Key were acceptable, is incomprehensible. To claim that a conflicted whitewash by those in the wrong and their colleagues was a safeguarding investigation WHILE Lord Faulkner, Justin Welby, Tim Dakin and others ALLOWED the murderous press onslaught of lies and assumptions based on the defendants' and their friends' views is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in history. The involvement of Lords, Peers, conflicted Judges and others in this matter has not been investigated, which is a protracted and very serious safeguarding failure, and each new attack on the victim over this unresolved and very serious safeguarding failure is a new safeguarding failure, by you, by Justin Welby, Tim Dakin, Sloss, Faulkner, Steel, and all involved in a horrific 'public attempted murder'. It is noted that you have refused comments for your article, because, you know that the general public are not of the same opinion that Lord Faulkner considers them to be of. It is time for Lord Faulkner and Baroness Butler-Sloss, Mark Hedley, the National Safeguarding Team and everyone involved in this matter to be placed under investigation. And although this is addressed to you as abusers of HG, it will also be forwarded to IPSO as HG has already repeatedly referred this to you, and also subsequently to IPSO, without you ceasing your abuse.
In the recent event of the Oxford College Safeguarding Debacle, which was flung into the press in a very similar nasty way, two members of the panel were made to resign as they were conflicted. This case has been under more scrutiny because it relates to Oxford University, but the million pound murder by Jersey, Winchester and Canterbury, faced no neutral scrutiny and no intervention. HG contacted everyone, from Faulkner to the Queen, from every safeguarding board in the country to every police force, the Lords, the States of Jersey, but no one protected her wellbeing, not a single person, indeed the National Safeguarding Team breached data as gatekeepers, and made her out to be mad for doing this, and THAT is the extent of this safeguarding failure of which you are part. You and all other media, were contacted, and you persisted sadistically in harm. Oxford is certainly making the C of E look bad, but it is not in the lawless unregulated Jersey, it does not involve a vulnerable adult being publicly murdered for perceived crimes, and it is scrutinised enough to make the usual conflicted defence of the C of E have to step down. HG's story has not been heard by a single court, judge or police officer involved, not a single press, not a single safeguarding official. No, these have actively silenced her, in a case reminiscent to that of Melanie Shaw, an abuse victim who was strategically silenced and imprisoned, ruined. And this is all from the supposed 'State Church' whose actions recently are causing the loss of congregation with alarming rapidity, and yet, their position of confliction and abuse of power is upholding them in these crimes that you are party to, as their congregation leaves. This is the Church that uses the Name of Jesus or God, and who have Bibles with the parable of the Lost Sheep and 'Let He who is without Sin cast the first Stone'. During HG's first stint on the streets, the 3 years, she was told by Catholics that her sins were between her and God and that the Church of England's actions were wickedness, she had not at the time faced the onslaught from 2013 onwards, but she was provisionally baptised Catholic, confessed her sins in full, and was annointed and confirmed You then became part of the violent incessant attack that destroyed her again.
The efforts to force a terrified and shamed and broken vulnerable adult into the classifications a) insane and b) troublemaker, show the very depths of the danger that the Anglican church are to the vulnerable, especially when Jane Dodds, Moira Murrary, Graham Tilsby, and others on the 'National Safeguarding Team' played an active part in this in order to protect the wrongdoers in senior positions; the psychopathy of branding a victim of serious child abuse who was drawn into the church because of her escape from that and her vulnerability, is beyond horror. She still isn't insane, she is destroyed, she is not a troublemaker, she never learned to relate well to people, didn't have a chance, between childhood and church. And surely as Justin Welby uses 'mental illness' as yet another attention-seeking stunt for himself, he and his church have no right to label someone with trauma is 'insane' or encourage the police, press and conflicted dignitaries to do the same?
HG wrote and wrote in the hope of being heard, and instead the church illegally paid a 'forensic psychologist' to 'advise to ignore her' as an excuse to throw her away silenced, this is a very serious matter and must be addressed before any further victims die, HG is not the only victim who has been subjected to the Church of England under Welby closing them down this way. https://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.com/
Do you think any victim anywhere should be silenced because a 'safeguarding team' are unwilling or opposed to dealing with their employers who are effectively the abusers? It is a terrifying concept and a life has been ruined. The poisonous callousness of the C of E's safeguarding, from Winchester's Diocesan safeguarding to the national safeguarding team, matches the toxic environment of the peers and dignitaries, the Bishops and laity, the money and power people and the middle class congregants who profess to care while their prejudice and ignorance shines through. The repeat releases to the press about this case at the expense of the victim are a serious safeguarding failure, and it is time for people to be held to account, from you to Faulkner and Welby to Hancock, Butler to Sloss, and Dakin to Bailhache.
It doesn't matter what stories have been spread to make HG look mad, bad, violent or anything else, the stories are only from the C of E and its protectors and associates, they are not the victim's story, which remains waiting to be told in full, although if Tim Dakin had been successful in the further attempt to violently silence her, the Church of England would have rejoiced at never being held accountable. This woman, diagnosed as autistic by the Maudlsey Hospital in 2005, although concerted efforts were made to Fisher, Steel and Korris deny the diagnosis in order to discredit her, spoke up about two serial abusers, one of whom was being protected by his wife despite destroying his daughter, the other of whom was being protected by clergy and laity in Jersey, who failed to either warn HG or protect her, instead blaming her for the abuse, Bob Key told her in person that the abuse had not occured, and tried to vilify her on the defence of the abusers and those protecting them, using her 'past' which had been rewritten by the C of E. This isn't in any report. And yet it can't be denied. Jan Korris, for example, for no reason other than Fisher's vindictiveness, wrote out lies about the victim being 'unforgiving' over her youth leader being arrested for paedophilia. Even if it was the case, it had nothing to do with the case and was simply a slur, the other similar stories, rumours, which didn't include the victim's side of things, she did not consent to the Korris report nor was made aware of it until her friends and community rejected her when they heard about it, and yet you are publishing an unrelated man singing the praises of the former Dean and saying he was treated badly. This is a very terrible judgement on the Church of England, to continue to publicly uphold those guilty of serious misconduct, while the victim is homeless, seriously injured and anguished. She has now suffered almost two decades of the Church of England's lack of safeguarding, their conflicted and criminally compromised judges and peers, their callousness and lack of understanding of safeguarding and the vulnerable, and you have proudly acted in the interests of the C of E throughout.
Faulkner is mistaken about Welby's 'Gracious apology', Welby spits out fake apologies according to his PR scripts pretty much every week, it wasn't gracious, it was a show, a show to make Welby look good, while the victim nearly committed suicide over your and others' biased and nasty cover-up of the attempt to close down the million pound whitewash after HG took an injunction against the Bishop of Winchester, which he was in contempt of court over when he lied in the same press release of May 2016 and claimed to be witholding the Steel report for 'the victim's welfare' ie he discredited HG again rather than tell the world that he had allowed a vicious conflicted judge to threaten to publicly call a vulnerable adult a psychopathic criminal, which is what conflicted Heather Steel did, without of course, meeting HG or hearing her story, because Steel and her friends in peerage and the Jersey Deanery, States and Judiciary, had one purpose, covering up the matter, without declaring conflicts of interests or checking the conflicts of those put forward as 'witnesses' on a small island where many knew the 'respected' clergy, judiciary, states members etc involved. The laity of the church also had considerable money and influence. And yet, your journalism doesn't scratch the surface, it has remained one-track in support and defence of the indefensible.
You haven't questioned anything about what you have published, not even that 'withdrawal' of action against the Bishop by Faulkner. You haven't shown any compassion for the victim who you helped to destroy, you haven't at any point investigated when facts were sent to you by Bob Hill and the victim and others, you even cut short a letter by Mr Hill, making the point lost, your behaviour in this matter has been as accomplices to abusers, and those dignitaries, from the Vicars who actively protected the abusers, to the Bishops, Archbishops, laity, safeguarding, and conflicted judges, police and peers, are abusers, they are guilty of severe misconduct, abuse, the national safeguarding team, instead of addressing this prolonged and severe abuse by the senior clergy and peers, added to HG's anguish, tried to justify her horrendous brutal and murderous destruction that included you, and when she refused to be silent and do as they wished, they illegally, yet again, breached the data protection act and paid for 'professional advice' to ignore her, and they spread that advice around, breaking the law throughout, and left her forcibly silenced, except that she wasn't, and that is why they had her violently brutalised, in the fragile condition that she was in, seriously injured, and violently driven from her new home, community, work and friends, which she fought to keep throughout this ordeal. She remains homeless, destroyed and injured, and will never recover. Throughout the very serious harm in which you were part, she begged and begged for the public attack to stop, and explained her heart and lung conditions to the Bishop of Winchester and police and others, and was ignored. This matter of which you are part, is the biggest safeguarding failure in history, and all that the self-interested and corrupt peers who act in the Church of England's interests can do is pity a man who actively destroyed an abuse victim, with you amplifying that absolutely evil and open misconduct?
Throughout the horrendous farce, HG begged the police to protect her from what was effectively illegal and abuse, the public destruction of her life and character, she begged and begged and explained that her heart and lungs and other health issues were being put under intolerable stress. This woman had never been in other trouble from the police despite her background described in 'Stepping out of the Circle' one of her books, she had tried to lead an honest life, worked for a low wage, trusted God, which led to the predators gaining access to her through the church, didn't drink, smoke, steal, do drugs, she lived with disability and psychological injuries that triggered her fury at the abuse and cover-ups, and yet all involved have been able to destroy her, in ignorance either deliberate or just the Anglican middle class culture, or pure nastiness, for example Terri Bond's vindictive and untruthful attack that you published even though the Bonds and their friends have still not faced action. Even during and after the main horrendous destruction, the victim went on and on trying to live a normal life, hounded from one home to another by the public battle, and struggling to work, sometimes unable to, because of the damage, until the violent repeat destruction of her life by the Bishop of Winchester and his staff and family, because she begged them for justice. And Faulkner whines about a Dean who has not been publicly held to account but privately removed with a terrible show in the press of his 'resignation' and who is able to live a normal life while the victim is not, she lives in terror, the next police beating of so many, with lies read out and no question or discipline for the police who failed to protect her but instead destroyed her for the people who she asked protection from.
All of this in broad daylight while the authorities looked on or enabled the church. The Police are guilty of very serious misconduct, and their behaviours in using severe violence against a terrified autistic woman and jeering at her, repeating the unchallenged lies of the church and not recording her story, are part of the culture that has had a tip exposed by the recent violences and offences against Black people, that behaviour although universal, has also been done for the Church of England as part of this power-heavy massive cover-up.
The recent concerns about the unregulated C of E and their behaviour have been strong, and yet, instead of you behaving like a genuine newspaper, instead of you doing journalism, asking questions, you TOOK PART IN THIS, and IT IS ABUSE. And if you or any peer or Bishop or Archbishop takes part in such very serious and life-changing abuse, you will do in other cases, the Haute de la Garrenne case of course being an example where you did. I seem to recall a suicide as a result?
Lord Faulkners inappropriate interference in this matter and his favour of the Dean publicly in the house of comons, and his favour of the extremely guilty Archbishop, indicates his unfitness for office and his outstanding lack of ability to analyse or see both sides, no impartiality, no professionalism, no regard for the victim as he wails his sorrow for a millionaire abuser who was given full legal representation and the support of conflicted States Members and judiciary within the church throughout while the victim was not provided with representation by the Church of England and was left to write, in anger and terror and collapse, a blog that the C of E tried to have her convicted over, even though she was simply answering in the only way she could, their/your horrendous depraved public attack on her.
All 'Church' related abuse survivor charities in the UK are conflicted by C of E members, and the C of E pervade all authorities and agencies, HG was left with nowhere for support, nowhere safe to turn, losing friends, work, community and life as this has gone on relentlessly with the cruel twist that her childhood was enough to cripple her life and relationships without this extreme cruelty, until Justin Welby and Tim Dakin and the 'National Safeguarding Team' forcibly expelled her from society 2 years ago for going on begging them for justice and a voice, three years after she rehabilitated herself from the streets because of the first effort and tried to gain a new life, the violences cost her her degree but she still owed the student loan, they treated her worse than a rapist or murderer and have left her destroyed and without life, and let Key leave under the illusion of a respectable resignation, and you have taken part in it all. Human rights are treat with total contempt here, safeguarding is absent, and even humanity is dead in the sheer cruelty, injustice and dishonesty of this abuse.
Lord Faulkner and yourselves, in this abuse of power, haven't reported on any of the criminal actions of the Church of England from their positions of power in the Lords and from the safety of behind their lawyers and their expensive disaster management firm, Luther Pendragon; no sign of the list of criminal activities and data protection breaches encompassing the States of Jersey, Jersey Judiciary, Lawyers, PR firms, clergy and laity, is Lord Faulkner completely without intelliegnce, or purely and openly complicit in upholding very serious and criminal misconduct? You haven't reported on the lack of accountability by the Church of England, where they, to the point of murder, could attack a vulnerable adult and drive her to death, with repeats of that abuse such as yours and Faulkner's. No, you really are a very terrible newspaper, reflecting the terrible state of lack of regulation in Jersey that was pointed out by the Care Inquiry, who raised the fact that people, including HG, made complaints and those complaints were not processed. HG complained about the abuses of power and defamation of her by Ian Gorst, who remains in a position of responsibility despite his serious misconduct, also the Bailhache Brothers, Jersey Police, social services and Safeguarding Partnership for serious misconduct and data breaches, Autism Jersey who breached data, judiciary conflicted by the C of E and abusing their power in the case and more. You are part of the 'Jersey Way' which harms and kills the vulnerable, and you are a disgrace. You are part of the unregulated 'Jersey Way'. Which is mirrored by the 'Church of England Way' the broad daylight sadism and injustice that is known to be suffered by residents of Jersey. And of course, Faulkner himself was an active part of it all for long time, and as it was highlighted by the Care Inquiry, Falkner's audacity in defending the Jersey Way and the serious and criminal abuses, beggars belief as much as your proud parroting does.
You repeatedly parrotted Willmott on his lies about the state of safeguarding in Jersey, with no proof, no figures, no reason, pure PR. And this harmed the victim further, the C of E held social 'safeguarding lunches' as a show, and no lessons were learned as not only was HG still destroyed and homeless, but Willmott was involved in a number of safeguarding incidents in Jersey and elsewhere that were never investigated. Now, as the PR you publish for the Anglicans is without proof, and my letter is evidenced throughout, why don't you publish my letter? Not conveniently cropped as Mr Hill's was.
You have a duty of care and safeguarding responsibility, and each time you publish lies about the million pound whitewash and the Church of England, you abuse and seriously harm the victim. Time for a new editor maybe? Time for an IPSO investigation into years and years of lack of journalism, and biased reporting. The behaviour of the Church of England in full public view is farcical and hypocritical and quite simply, evil, from peers who harm abuse victims and are not disciplined by The Lords, to Archbishops and Bishops the same, an unaccountable, dangerous and abusive organisation, after your own hearts, but not acceptable in this day and age. HG will never in her lifetime be able to recover from the sustained and serious harm to her, her life is to be shortened by the aggravation of medical conditions if she isn't killed by the police who the Church of England still intend to silence her with, without her story ever being heard in full.
Sincerely,
Mr John Ian Carter,
Friday 17 July 2020
Another (Unanswered) letter to Lambeth Palace
Good morning,
Just a query. After a week of appalling press coverage for the 'General Synod' where the C of E looked really bad. From trying to change the colour of Jesus to suit them, to domestic abuse and the flawed CDM, closing churches without thought for the congregations. an unsuitable new Archbishop, a man after Mr Welby's own heart, and in-fighting and even calling themselves 'Tribal and Divided' and bringing disciplinary action over Bishops who threatened to end the church's interference in government, shouldn't the C of E have then bowed out of their routine nuisance of inflicting their private affairs on the nation and reconsidered the bad reception that they get for their personal business inflicted on us?
Instead, they are using a European Newspaper to try to fantasize that they have some say in what other countries do, and also trying to change the way Bishops are consecrated because not all Bishops are into virtue signalling and lunacy. The nation and the world don't need to know about the dying C of E's delusions of grandeur, international affairs are no more the domain of the C of E than national ones, the general public just need to know when the C of E will stop abusing its congregations, and when Welby and Senior Bishops involved in covering up abuse will be disciplined and removed.
Please keep it down, unless it's real news, it is an imposition on the general public to inflict the C of E's personal business on us.
The bottom line is that the C of E, irrelevant to a majority of the nation, is now a national joke because of the weird press releases by Welby during his tenure. Whether his PR assistant deliberately writes joke scripts, whether he is unwell and unmedicated or according to a majority, being sponsored to destroy the C of E, is unclear.
In light of the fact that Justin Welby has been involved in serious harm and at least one of his victims is homeless and in a serious state because of cover-up of his and other senior leaders misconducts, the shrieking desperate boasts and the use of BBC 4 as a brainwashing platform for the elderly should really be on hold until these things are addressed. We, the general public, do not like the C of E or their behaviour, as you would see if you observed the hundreds, even thousands, of comments on each press article, and the C of E are showing how out of touch they are by ignoring the opinion of the population. If the nation hates the badly behaved Archishop, and the C of E aren't just a one way street, why is the Archbishop still there? He stands for nothing in his hatred for Christianity and the vulnerable.
Regards,
John Carter
Monday 13 July 2020
St. Margaret's - The Commons Church closure
It has been a turbulent and divided week for the Church of England. Their synod PR seemed to spectacularly backfire on them with the main news being negative, and the appointment of a less than suitable Archbishop with a history of complaints and unfitting behaviour against him installed. A man who thinks like Justin Welby, so when the 'Make the white church Black' chorus kicks off, he takes part and the same with the other virtue signalling.
Among the press releases the abuse by clergy and failure of the disciplinary committee seemed the most prominent, and was not a synod release as far as I know.
In the past, with the Telegraph advertising Justin Welby's every bowel movement - and indeed they still do, I thought that they were on the C of E's team, until recently.
During the week, the Evening Standard advertised that the Commons Church, St. Margarets, full of historic names and memories and containing a stipendiary choir, was to be closed, for financial reasons.
The headlines also read about 24m being pledged to 'worship in deprived areas'. It didn't make sense.
Looking at the website, the notice is misleading, not talking of ending services but typical Anglican words about the worship being more done more broadly' someone needs to write a book on what Anglican PR actually means: https://www.westminster-abbey.org/st-margarets-church
I was pleased to see the Telegraph giving the congregation of the Commons Church a voice, and the 'financial' reason for closing the services at the Commons Church had been withdrawn. It is not often that the common people get a voice against the C of E's senior leadership, especially not in Synod week but the closure of the church still doesn't make sense, nor the callousness to the congregation and choir.
Sorry, the Telegraph requires subscription for some of their articles including this.
I admit, as a former Anglican, I still love the buildings and the choirs, they are gems in a broken crown of a broken church. Even in my last years in the church, despite buildings, choirs and atmosphere, I could see the deterioration of the C of E as a body.
Last week one of the typical figures who keep the unsustainable C of E running through their money and powers, tried to 'put me in my place' using a boast about the 'good works' and I explained to her, with an equation admittedly picked out of the air, that the church's boasting and bad works cancel out the showy 'good works' which, used as a boast are not valid in Christ's Eyes. I spoke up in response to her pride, although reason doesn't reach such people:
Today one of those very talkative guys who needs us all to accept his opinion, started attacking the congregant who had the article in the Telegraph, telling her that she had no right to attend the Commons Church at all and she was obliged to attend her parish church, whether she has one or not, he launched into an incredible amount of dogma and C of E red tape dogma, with no respect for the viewpoint of the congregant, and finally admitted to being a retired C of E dignitary.
No wonder he was callous and spouting money and figures and outdated archaic dogma, why didn't I guess he was an Anglican position holder? The cold hatred for fellow man and the delight in figures, money and controlling, should have given the game away. Mammon, money and power, were, to him, more important than human wellbeing and intimacy with God; and the congregants of that church, 180, were in the spiritual home of their choice and have lost that spiritual home.
Although he was trying to be a loud proud, boastful, controlling figure, the poor man's words were flawed and he needed to have the last word. That is how he represented the Church of England and that widening chasm between Anglican and Christian.
The little man needs the last word, and he has it, that he and the C of E have no soul, their 'good works' and 'care' are all a show, they rely on clever words, especially for us plebs who they hope cannot think for ourselves. They don't give a damn about the ordinary congregation, much less about the general public. Cruel and senseless and very proud. I already knew this.
I never intended to be a commentator and have the tiring job of these proud Anglicans hurling slurry at me. It isn't very amusing because of how deep the Anglican delusion is, they are beyond redemption. I am not talking about ordinary worshippers; the worshippers and parish priests still have some integrity, but above that is the bad stuff.
Let me do a 'urgh' Welby impression, I apologize for the sins of my former church against their congregation and the general public. I am sorry I ever believed in the C of E or paid into the coffers or carried out church duties.
Sunday 12 July 2020
Synod Week
There are clergy redundancies looming. Parish Clergy, Vicars, Reverends, Rectors, those who preach in parish churches. But why? If these are the people who reach the congregation?
Is the Church trying to only be the higher clergy and not the on the ground in the community clerics?
If so, how will it survive? Just on the money made from property and high tourist fees?
Traditionally the Synod week is a free for all slurry of the Church of England's personal business in the press, broadcast to a nation who either don't care or dislike the situation intensely, as I told Baroness Nichols when she got on her high horse about the C of E's 'Good works'.
This synod seems to have been a backfire in the press in general. Headlines of 'Tribal and Divided' church, and the failure of the church to deal with domestic abuse against clergy spouses. Then there was a grand display of the church 'investigating' the Dominic Cummings PR by some Bishops - presumably the threat to withdraw from government which wasn't fulfilled, was very dangerous to the C of E.
The new Archbishop of York, whose behaviours so far do not qualify him well for Archbishop, has done his PR slurry on BBC 4 (The old middle class station which goes out of business this year), and you can imagine the old people listening and saying 'What a great and righteous man, aren't we lucky to have two Christian Archbishops! While the rest of us know the score.
I mentioned the Commons Church in my letter to the Synod, and a Daily Telegraph article about that is out. Funnily enough, although I commented that the Evening Standard claimed that the closure was due to finances, while the Church of England at the same time pledged 24 million to 'worship in deprived areas' for show. This article in the DT is by a congregant:
Another article not showing the C of E in a good light was one about domestic abuse by clergy and how it isn't dealt with, which is something I know to be true.
As well as knowing that the Diocese do not deal with domestic abuse, I know that the CDM is/was a joke run by the in-house protectors of the church and its reputation.
The other 'news headline' of the week was Welby's usual ravings, shot down by thousands of comments by the general public about his idiocy.
Wolves in Sheep's clothing is the best description for the C of E. While they rely on elderly Lords and Baronesses trying to defend them to us commoners by raging about their 'good works', which make such good works null, because Jesus taught us that such are only valid when done quietly, there is very little to hide the really nasty, calculating and power/money-interested side of the C of E.
I think this synod is their first complete belly-flop in PR terms, although I don't know for sure, I haven't been reading most of their nonsense during the last year, but this week has obviously gone catastrophically, from an unsuitable new Archbishop to the negative articles.
Friday 10 July 2020
A Full Response to Baroness Nicholson's Tantrum regarding the C of E's 'Good Works'
Dear Baroness,
I think that your outraged shrieks about the Church of England really personified what the Church of England really is.
Your tweet was so immature, so arrogant, so incorrect, a representation of the REAL Church of England. I am sure your breeding and education means that ignorance cannot be used as an excuse, and I am sure that this letter will be within your understanding.
The use of the word 'Humble' for the Church's 'Good Works' which are advertised proudly and incessantly in every local, national and international press, or were until recently when it became apparent that the press and public were sick to the eye teeth of the C of E stroking themselves, made your use of the term hilarious. 'Humbled' is a word routinely used by incoming and departing Bishops/Archbishops equally hilariously, but the Church's use of such words ad nauseaum exhausts those words.
The Church's 'Good Works' are carried out equally by secular and other denomination churches without the level of pride and publicity that the C of E forces on the general public, and currently there is a situation with a rapidly declining congregation being forced out by the behaviour of the senior leaders. This is not an illusion or a joke, as you will see if you read the increasing concerns of the general public as expressed on the comments section of the articles published by the church, examples include 1300 comments on the Daily Mail's article, these may be the 'common people' who you look down on from your lofty height and try to shame as you tried to 'shame' me this morning with what you think is an infallible boast about 'helping people' this is 1300 members of the general public who your 'humble works' claim to help, and they are not alone, similar on the Daily Telegraph and other news articles of recent. So, do you think that these thousands of ordinary people are wrong? Have your 'humble works' helped them? It is hard to write because your archaic attitude is leaving me giggling, which isn't manly at all. The gap between the self-holy C of E and the real world and people of the UK is one of the greatest wonders and illusions of our time.
The Church of England are down to their last bastions of useless press reporting, the Mail and the Guardian, who seem to report Welby's madness for ridicule rather than news now, so many didn't even headline the Archbishops' show yesterday/today. Read what the general public are saying, even if Lambeth Palace have been hiding the hundreds of letters, emails and phone calls of complaint about the behaviour of the Archbishops and Church:
Conservative Woman: https://conservativewoman.co.uk/the-c-of-es-second-in-command-who-doesnt-understand-christianity/
Telegraph: telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/06/29/letters-nation-needs-church-unite-justin-welby-divides
The C of E's divide and conquer approach means that they do as you have done today in your tantrum, tried to place the blame on me. Place the blame on the whole of the population, when you have heard their opinion! The C of E is a one-way street of incessant public shows and ignorance of public opinion. When Rowan Williams was in power, the comments sections above would have contained a few positives, now you are trying to stamp me out when in total, probably 5,000 commentors on the articles above agree with me, and they are valid and thinking people, you cannot stamp me, us out, if the C of E want to play, they need to listen to the response. The divide and conquer singling out critics is how the Church of England destroy vulnerable abuse victims who have no support in a country where the church's 'humble good works' infiltrate all support services and authorities for the church's own uses, ie for cover-up.
Tell me, what is a human life worth? How much is the destroyed life of Anglican abuse victim worth against the lives of those 'helped' by the Anglicans, and how many 'helped', I am speaking from experience now, pay the Anglican price for that help? If you don't know what I mean, then maybe you shouldn't make the kind of proud and blind statement that you made on twitter this morning.
If I as a representative of abuse victims who have been seriously harmed by the Anglican church, including those left dead, homeless, ruined or silenced, offer an equation, a life lost is worth 10,000 helped, so if we go for the hundreds of abuse victims ruined, destroyed, dead, homeless, suffering intolerably for life, the C of E is in serious debt. Bluster about safeguarding when the C of E's safeguarding gatekeepers actively aid the C of E in cover-up is not an acceptable excuse. Considering the level of abuse by Anglican priests and laity, and the very serious involvement by Anglican leaders, never mind 'humble works' in the UK, each Anglican involvement is a safeguarding risk, the situation with schools is ludicrous, and from experience, Anglicans going abroad for 'humble works' are a serious risk and from experience have used their trips to poor countries where children are very vulnerable, for despicable acts that are not easy for the citizens of those countries to bring to justice. While we see the daily boasts of the Church of England in the media, we do not see the full extent of the abuse and criminal misconduct, which makes the carpet so bumpy that it can no longer be hidden, unless you can disprove this, your behaviour towards me on twitter is completely unjustified.
The current situation is that the people of England think, this is not the dark ages where you and your peers are unquestioned in your lofty height and are met with complicity and submission. The churches are emptying because the Church of England has very little to do with Christianity and those who truly seek Christianity are doing so elsewhere, the elderly who cannot leave the church are not a strong enough reason for it to continue to exist, nor are you and your powerful and wealthy colleagues who use the church - as you displayed on twitter - as an ego-stroking, conscience soothing machine, you feel really really good about yourselves for your virtue-signalling and pride in the 'good works' of the Church of England, but what was the headline once the church had stopped boasting about closing their doors, as if no one else had to? Hiding their valuables in the Tower of London, very proud, as if that was justified at the time that they most needed to sell all they owned and give it to the poor as required by Jesus. How many people did the C of E help during the crisis? They did nothing but make empty noise in the press, wasting time and funds that should have been used to help others.
The Church of England has 7 billion in assets, why is that not being sold to do as Jesus commanded? Why is the Church a massive top haven for the rich and powerful, while the Churches are a graveyard and sparse congregations of elderly people? Is it because of the church's 'humble works'? I admit I wondered if you were delusional or really believed such wild and arrogant propaganda. That time of false illusion being used to protect the C of E is pretty much over, you won't mislead many. Your hysterical reaction to me was in itself unchristian, arrogant and with the trademark C of E defense of the indefensible by illogical reasoning. The 'good works' that Jesus told people to do only modestly and not for show or acclaim, are a passing nod at Christianity which no longer exists in the C of E. Satan would be proud of you, my dear, indeed he is proud of his 'Church of England' from the Godless Name to the Godless behaviour, the pride, the arrogance, the lies, the showing off, the way you saw my criticism as something that you from your lofty position could attack, scorn, destroy. Until the Church that you represent is truly humbled, and does 'good works' on the same level as the rest of us, it is worthless, from the dark ages.
The Lent farce of Making elderly congregations talk about being environmentally aware for lent as a nationwide local media stunt says it all. Or are Mr Welby's ridiculous efforts to make us carry sins that are a) between us and God or b) not our sins, when God has forgiven us if we truly repent, a better example? While Mr Welby, yourself and others don't repent, don't sell all you own to give to the poor, you do not represent God, Christ, or the Church to us and you are in no position whatsoever to try to criticize me or make judgement. One of the things the Church of England rely on is no follow up or investigation of their press and media doings, no investigations, no facts or figures, remaining unregulated, lawless, and with a vain see-through show of social justice, not Christianity, that illusion has long since been abandoned. When the Church of England is under regulation so that the evil doesn't outweigh the good, you can be proud. Until then you sound like a petulant four year old.
Do you think that the plebs and atheists and other denominations do not do good works? Because in all, they outweigh the good works of the C of E 100:1. Despite your huge pride, the C of E would not be missed and the gaps would rapidly be filled. My own lifelong work in the voluntary sector has been within the C of E, seeing the price they extract from their vulnerable clients as well as their unchristian pride and self-stroking for each vulnerable life interfered with and harmed, and my voluntary work continued after the CofE when the decline became alarming during the past decade.
The new Archbishop of York has been notorious for swearing at his clergy, for alienating his clergy, for behaving in offensive ways. It is small wonder that the Archbishop of Canterbury sings his praise, they are both Godless and cruel and deceitful men, the Archbishop of Canterbury's unresolved conscience for his serious and unjudged wrongdoing spilling over into the press and his efforts to force the general public to to become carriers of his conscience is offensive to me and others, if you find my response to that offensive, then find yourself a less lawless and cruel and delusional organisation to work for and try to defend. Paying lip service to Christ does not make anyone or any body Christian, and good works for Christ can be judged by Christ, not proud wealthy Baronesses in a 'Church for the elite'. You have effectively yet again cancelled out the 'good works' of the Church of England by your frantic defensive boasting and shown your total ignorance for the supposed purpose of the Church. Your flailing would possibly work on someone ignorant of theology, which is another thing being relied on by the badly behaved leaders of the church who no longer teach or understand theology, but as a former Anglican and a Believer myself, of the True God, not the 'England' God that your organisation is dedicated to, I can answer back.
You are one of the reasons that the Anglican Church is declining and ridiculed, but don't bully too many people in your efforts to be right and to defend the indefensible, it reflects badly on you.
I will post this letter on my blog.
Yours in Christ,
Mr John Carter
Thursday 9 July 2020
A letter to the General Synod
Dear Synod,
I would like to raise some concerns which shouldn't be left on a backburner any longer but should be priority. Excuse my way of putting things, I am a workman not a scholar.
If you care about safeguarding or the Church of England you will read this rather than let any gatekeeper tell you that the opinion of a member of the public doesn't matter. They do matter because the C of E is the state church of the UK and the voice of the people do matter. I am one of a growing number of concerned individuals. Today I saw concerns raised by someone who had been attending the Anglican Church for 75 years, which indicates that even the older people entrenched in the C of E are concerned.
1. The Church of England doesn't safeguard and needs to be under regulation.
2. The Archbishop and Senior Bishops are seriously harming the remaining congregation with their use of the national media. (This includes overuse of news headlines for C of E PR during the Synod. The Church's personal business isn't national news, and a lot of it makes the C of E laughing stock.
3. Matters swept under the carpet should be priority over the ongoing irrelevancies in the press.
4. Senior Bishops acting in ignorant and prejudiced ways should reconsider their positions.
5. The Church PR representation is seriously awry and is making a struggling denomination look terrible.
I am a former Anglican, who alongside many, has watched the C of E rapidly decline while the senior clergy have escalated their use of the Press for pseudo-celebrity status in an attempt presumably to keep the church relevant, but sadly doing the opposite, as the senior ladies and gents involved making themselves into stars leads to the opposite of making church inviting, especially when those press releases make the church look eccentric at best. The senior men and women are not rock stars, they are ministers of religion. (who have lost their way a little). Currently the headlines are being flooded with set-up cat videos and Bishops breaching health and safety to show off about solar panels (part of the fake environmental awareness PR stunt that dragged naive and elderly congregations to pose over Lent). The best headline response to all this as the general public suffers, is, 'Idiots'.
Calling the whole of the C of E in the UK institutionally racist is a massive generalization by the Bishop of Dover, who has been described by onlookers as 'race baiting' and each time she does this, the ABoC/Y and friends parrot her without question. Who is the real Archbishop? It isn't to do with race in reality, and it looks bad. White people aren't all racist, the Bishop of Dover needs to name the people who she feels are committing race crimes, and make sure they are referred for disciplinary or legal action, and it really doesn't need to be a headline again, does it? Look at the damage that the ABoC has done to the national congregation by his lines prompted by this. The Archbishop is obviously struggling with ill health, but his comments regarding the colour of Jesus, and removing statues were horrifying and unacceptable. Jesus' skin colour is not a relevant topic and wasn't made so by the recent racial headlines, Jesus' Word is the only thing that matters. The statues, our history, do not belong to the ABoC. Many many people have been horrified. And after the recent crisis has reduced the national congregation, it is unclear why there seems to have been a press-based effort by the AB to further reduce it. I have seen and heard, over the past month, thousands of people voicing concern about the ABoC and the C of E. The debate seemed to be whether he had taken leave of his senses or was being sponsored or egged on by former school chums, to ruin the C of E. If such things are being said, surely it is time for him to reconsider? Although he appears immune to concerns raised via email, phone and letter as recorded in the press by those trying to contact him with concerns and being rebuffed.The BBC and Guardian, the last stand in the Church's PR storm, are predominantly white, have the Archbishops criticised them or accused them of racism?
The term 'Virtue Signalling' is used for the senior clergy with their wealth and palaces, when they make a show of caring about the poor and vulnerable who their own actions often hurt. The show is presumably a passing nod at Christ who gave the C of E an excuse to exist for the purposes of the senior clergy who have free rein to interfere in government. The Dominic Cummings show was a good indication of how bad the situation is, the Bishops offered to withdraw from influencing the government, and didn't do so, they alleged death threats instead, a bit like Baroness Butler-Sloss also did. Another unpunished wrongdoer in the C of E.
The Archbishop's repeated comments about the nation/church needing to repent aren't backed up by his example, his actions in certain cases are far from repentant. If we are in Christ, we are forgiven by Him, and that is between us and God, it has nothing to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury to judge who needs to repent. If the Archbishop feels guilty and needs penance (unlikely in light of his safeguarding breaches and psychopathic refusal of responsibility) then maybe he can answer calls to provide redress as the C of E was a major player in the slave trade, otherwise his scratching of old wounds is pointless. Empty Vessels. The Archbishop of Canterbury is singing high praise of the new Archbishop of York, who apparently thinks that swearing and driving his clergy out are Christian. The situation is as incomprehensible and baffling as the current governance of the UK.
Clashing headlines such as 24 million being granted for worship in deprived areas (why not to abuse victims?) while in the same 20 headlines, the Commons Church has been closed due to lack of funding. The Anglicans have this opposing headlines game down to an art, much to the bafflement of the general public. Presumably the C of E have to make an image of actually spending some of their 6bn after doing nothing during the recent crisis? No follow up and no questions asked, as per usual. But you can't save a wonderful historic choir and church? If the C of E were made to account for the 24m in a year or so, would they be able to? No? How about an account of how much the C of E are paying for the PR/Disaster Management firm who have been essential during the past seven years to create this false illusion of care and inclusion as the C of E collapses?
I wonder, rather than a synod week of insufferable irrelevancies from the Church of England, maybe we could have a week's holiday and they could conduct their business in private, after all, Anglican business is only relevant within the church, it has very little relevance to the majority of the nation, and is an annoyance and a distress to those who have been hurt, forced out or have left because of the decline, and it is certainly a burden to victims of the C of E, which is why they protested outside every synod while inside, the synod released falsehoods about safeguarding and abuse to the press, so transparent, so unchallenged. It is also cruel to mislead the unknowing and vulnerable with falsehoods in the press. The C of E is dangerous to anyone misled to join because of PR falsehoods.
The ABoC has made a big show of removing Dr George Carey from church positions several times, but Baroness Butler-Sloss, who took part in the Peter Ball cover-up, has remained and remained, and as a result took part in a further cover up that Justin Welby himself was part of, maybe more than one, but I mean the 2010 onwards matter, and Butler-Sloss has remained, on the Ecclesiastical Committee, aiding cover-up in the C of E by slipping laws into place that protect wrongdoers. Did the ABoC simply overlook such a serious matter? He and others involved have not been made accountable and his actions were as serious as those of Dr. Carey. Butler Sloss and another church leader, Fiona Woolf, were allowed to head and sabotage the National Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, sabotaging it, without anyone within or without speaking up and with the church well aware that it made the IICSA null, and even with new leaders, the two C of E dignitaries had plenty of opportunity to affect the Inquiry and its outcomes to favour the C of E. And this was after it had been clearly proven that Butler-Sloss acted corruptly in the Bishop Ball case.
It has astounded many that the senior leaders have so much time for press releases which are harming the church. There are many issues which need addressing within the C of E that they could be improving the church's image by finding solutions to, and it would give the church a better press. John Sentamu finally went, leaving his negligences unresolved, and the new ABY made a PR show of one of those negligences, with the standard 'Apology for the Press' that has become so familiar despite it being gently explained to the Archbishops and senior Bishops that apologies to the press are meaningless glory stunts and the victims should be put first and receive those apologies in person. The press, having had nothing to do with the incidents that the senior figures keep apologising to them for, are undeserving of apology. Privately or not at all should be the rule, after all, didn't Jesus significantly speak out about the Pharisees public doings for public acclaim?
Rather than apologies, regulation and true independent inquiries are needed, not 'independent within the church and for the church, paying for the outcomes the church requires' as has been done repeatedly. Bishops and Archbishops not being made accountable for crimes and misconducts and leaving them as PR stunts for their replacements is a terrible state of affairs.
Jesus isn't black, and the CofE have just replaced a black Archbishop with a white one who claims that Jesus was black and who appears to have no theological or Biblical training. As I have explained to the Archbishop, such ignorance comes over as antisemitism to me and to other Jews, and racism to many as well. This 'institutionally racist' and 'changing the colour of Jesus' game in the spotlight is needless, and if the C of E have evidence of racism, they need to discipline, expel, or take legal action against those involved, and not inflict it on the general public.Onwards they need to stop being anti-white for PR, this goes against the majority of their congregation, and for no reason.
The culture that has been rising in the C of E and pushing Christians out is toxic, but who has arranged and sponsored it? It was already around before Justin Welby took it upon himself to tear the church down, his installment was when this started in earnest. I think each week of irrelevancies in the press speed up the death of the C of E, and presumably those doing this are not worried as it is their intention and they have already made their power and fortune from the church.
The worn out use of words such as 'humbling', 'shamed', 'sorrow' and 'apology' should be replaced by words such as 'resignation', 'conviction' and 'prosecution'.
The Church have made a very big public show about the matters at Oxford, and have circulated 'safeguarding' letters to be discussed.
The AboC has seriously breached safety by breaking lockdown to interfere with Coronavirus patients as a public glory display, when he claimed to have had pneumonia and should have been shielding for his sake and others. He has a long history now of using the vulnerable for his personal glory as well as harming them. The 'show' investigations into abuse where a heavy use of the press turned investigations into a kind of warped advertisement for the C of E and the ABoC but victims were left publicly harmed and without justice, such things are priority matters and should be more important than this current charm offensive (sic) by the Church of England. The 'National Safeguarding Team' are evidenced to have seriously harmed abuse victims and put the image of the C of E first as well as breaking the law. Both they and the ABoC should not sit in on any judgement of the Dean of Oxford before they are removed or convicted. The Oxford matter is one which should be dealt with by a neutral outside body - obviously not SCIE or Skills, as those have acted as 'rent-a-body' agencies to mislead the general public about the state of safeguarding within the church just as the conflicted judges and dignitaries who whitewash mercilessly do. For example Lord Carlile.
The matters mentioned should be under urgent investigation. Safeguarding is not an advertisement or publicity stunt, fake safeguarding used as both is beyond the pale. That enormous amount of time used on publicity should be used to address internal matters.
The Anglican Church will have something to boast about when they return to Jesus and are also placed under regulation, which in light of these matters would be the only Christian option; the current situation of the church giving the image of being able to interfere in government and gaining income as a charity while spewing ridiculous and irrelevant headlines into the news and causing harm, distress and confusion, is nothing to be proud of. The C of E's congregation no longer merits the senior leadership and the government interference, Lambeth Palace and Church house aren't viable any more, and most of the staff are not needed. The Commons Church and choir shouldn't have been lost, the needless senior leadership should be being stripped down, starting with those with unresolved safeguarding complaints against them which indicate why the C of E needs to be regulated.
This letter will be posted as a blog. The more that the unwary vulnerable in the general population are aware that the Church of England is a risk rather than a caring place, the less likely people are to be drawn in and hurt.
Yours in Christ,
Mr John Carter
Tuesday 7 July 2020
Dean of Canterbury's Cat
'Let's leave some milk on the table with the cats around, after all, the last 'funny cat video' got us more views than we would ever get normally'.
Now people will be expecting funny cat videos from the Church of England. Not safeguarding or proper care for the Church's victims, no, cat videos and with the Dean conveniently leaving his tea tray next to him etc.
Most cat videos go on YouTube, they don't make local headlines, but the C of E, having been irrelevant in the recent crisis and having prioritized silly vanity PR releases throughout and since, are desperate for favour and attention. Presumably the popularity of cat videos on YouTube is encouraging this current run of stunts to be set up, appealing to cat lovers and cat video lovers, and making the news when it isn't news.
You can call me stuffy and pedantic, but as a believer and a cat owner. If I'm praying or leading prayers, letting a cat gain the full focus, not preventing a situation where the cat can gain the focus, and then making it headline news is not Christian, it is irresponsible and is a publicity stunt, and it is what the Church of England do, constantly, they release not news, but stunts to try to gain favour, they show their shallowness and their separation from God. Any chance at a charismatic stunt to desperately try to convince the population that they are human, trying too hard, too staged, that is the norm for the C of E now.
So will the reporters start taking cat videos off YouTube for news headlines now? No, the Dean of Canterbury has a PR team to set these things up, to show off while victims silenced by the same Diocese are left suffering. The only people drawn into the dying church by their shallow stunts and mockery of prayer through cozy videos with trays of tea are people who are happy to be as shallow and as cruel and as pretentious as those running the church now.
As pet owners, we know what our pets will do, which cat or dog steals food etc, so the pretentious and unnecessary tea tray, nothing to do with prayer, could have been elsewhere, so could the cats, after the last big jolly show. Once might have been amusing but the second time, immediately sent to nationwide media, was the Church's current trademark desperation for attention. The Dean appears to be totally irresponsible and without respect for God or prayer in his use of the press for 'funny cat videos' with prayer as a sideline/excuse, because public attention is more important to the dying church. He could quite easily firmly put the cat on the ground and ask those hanging around out of view to take the tray so that prayers could be focused on, but that might have spoiled the launch of the show into the press.
The Dean is knowingly part of what has been going on in the Diocese, so maybe rather than praying on street corners and cute cat videos and other attention seeking charisma and sympathy shows, he could be a Christian and challenge the cover-ups involving Canterbury.
You can't build a congregation of true believers from set-up cat videos and the big pride that the public acclaim gives you, even the iconic false saintliness for the camera is barely skin deep.It's all a show, but forced comedy only says the same as the C of E's other shrieks for the press and media 'Look at us! Please look at us!'
Without his 'Clergy' role, would the Dean's cat videos make it to the mainstream or just be on YouTube with the rest? In order to be credible and engage thinkers rather than those who just flock to what they are told is funny or popular, the Church need to clean out their own house, including most of the senior clergy, and reform, as Graham Wood suggests:
That desperate shriek of a dying church who will use anyone, anything, to try to still be relevant, and God is but a sideline now an excuse for existing that they can't use for much longer as their words and works are so opposed to him. The Dean isn't going to build a congregation of non-thinking cat lovers among the old and wealthy who dominate the Cathedral, the church as a whole don't seem to have considered how their target audience don't mesh with their current one.
Finally, usually the Diocese making the loudest shouts for attention is the one most afraid of big news breaking about crime or abuse within their Domain. I will be keeping my eyes peeled. The Archbishop himself appears to be above the law, but who knows? Others involved could be unexpectedly held to account as happened in another high profile abuse case recently.
Keep the Faith.
Sunday 5 July 2020
Archbishop Wokeby and the Reopening of Churches
Good evening,
That was an extremely substantial roast, and I may not need another meal this week.
I think that while I am very busy, I should at least post some updates and odds and ends as I wait for time to produce a longer post, if such a time should ever come.
A few people have shown interest in my early work. One person has given an unconfirmed account that Justin Welby is being sponsored to destroy the C of E as he is doing - by wealthy persons in the UAE, United Arab Emirates, not University of East Anglia. Hehe. On a more serious note, someone is paying for him to be in power, that much is obvious. An Archbishop who stays when thousands tell him to stop harming the church and go, and who hires a full time expensive PR firm to make a very bumpy carpet, isn't acting alone.
New Articles/Letters are out from the ConWom and Telegraph, making this a week of continuous messages related to the state of the church, Anglican in particular.
And
When I saw the article about the Dean of ? St. Albans and the Black Jesus, my immediate thought, nothing to do with race, sexual orientation or anything else,was 'Why do these plump-faced grinning men posing in front of churches/cathedrals all look the same? And why don't they display the modesty and humility that would be fitting for clerics?'
Welby and his 'mates' have made another series of shows, one about prayer, private prayer with the eyes of the whole world upon them, you couldn't make it up, a chuckle brothers show in real life.
And after obviously having hundreds of phonecalls and letters of complaint to Lambeth Palace didn't stop Welby from a ridiculously worthless headline about him 'leading one of the first services' after churches were allowed to open.
The comedy of the CofE continues, sadly under the Chuckle Brothers surface lie some very dark and nasty things, swept there by the CofE's expensive PR/Disaster Management firm who are paid a lot of money which originates from the pockets of the unknowing and trusting congregation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)