Ticking Over

I don't really have time for a blog, probably those who read my blog have realized that. But it's my blog so I will blog as and when I can.

I notice that I have a regular visitor who sneaks onto my blog from twitter, which begs the question of whether they are hanging onto my every word on twitter as well as on here. I wouldn't bother if it was me, I am not the most interesting person, but I have this nightmare vision that it is someone from Blinking Anglicans, scouting out things to grumble about. I'm not obsessing, it's online, it's there to read. Some people do obsess. If the 'Thinking Anglicans' can really think, why haven't they quit the sinking ship rather than supporting is and thus supporting abuse?

Thinking Anglicans is a name that can be changed to so many other things, but I tend to think of them as the 'Whiny-Whiners'. Their twitter link to their blog page is corrupted and tries to send me to a dangerous hacker account, and their blog has the same whiny whiny commentators each post, people who haven't had the guts to leave the sinking ship and instead make their life round self-righteous whining on the comments section of the blog. 

Golly, I sound like a menopausal woman, no offence meant. But I saw them rip an abuse victim apart, and for that and then publishing my letter to one of the arses in senior church leadership without the courtesy of asking, I will never forgive them. Is that unchristian? Did Jesus forgive the Pharisees? 

This weekend has seen Premier, a broadcaster very similar to 'Thinking Anglicans' insipid crawlers, trying to make the trouble making of 'Extinction Rebellion' into 'Christian' work. Jesus spoke against anarchy and left the troublemakers of the day hollow. Anyone can use 'Christianity' as an excuse, and of course many do. Remember Jimmy Savile? He was a 'Catholic' and also an honorary Churchwarden in a C of E church. 

My previous post, Rule Britannia was just for laughs and was in response to someone in the telegraph imperiously demanding new lyrics, mine didn't have the right cadence though. Someone suggested the Sex Pistols version of God Save the Queen though. 

I haven't been too well since returning home, which hasn't helped my temper, and I was not happy to see some ex-clergy guy making fake claims about churches and mosques, so I lost my temper. The kind of weird ignorant Islamophobia is bad enough but making up an untrue story about the Catholic church to try to validate Islamophobia really got my goat.

The humanists were broadcasting a religion survey which indicated that 52 percent of British people are non-religious, while 12 percent are C of E, I asked them that surely a much lower percentage actually attend the C of E, and they replied that 2-3 percent do. This sounded like there had been a revival, as the census in 2012/14 indicated that the C of E had fewer than 800,000 worshippers, which as a percentage of the population of Great Britain, would be around 1.5 percent. It was interesting to see that the C of E claimed 12 percent, and the Catholic Church, whose congregations are large, had 7 percent. 7 percent but how many of those are worshippers?

 It's a misleading survey. They need to point out the worshipping percent. Anyone can put down any religion, like the man in hospital who was offered Holy Communion at his bed, and he said 'No thanks, I'm Church of England!' Anyone can claim to  religion without knowing anything about it, I just heard someone claim to a certain religion, a very short simple spelling, but they spelled it hilariously wrong, indicating that they couldn't possibly be a part of that religion. 

The other Christian Denominations were higher than the C of E, which is hardly surprising. The Free and Evangelical churches offer a variety of lively or solid services usually with better teaching than the C of E, more teaching, less of the rigid liturgy and waffle. I am Catholic, but I enjoy visiting Free and Evangelical Churches. Altogether, Catholic and other types of Christianity outweighed the C of E, while the C of E denomination percentage was largely in name only, people who went to C of E school and were baptised in the C of E, while Evangelical and other denomination would be actual worshippers, it would be rare for someone to claim to be an Evangelical or Free Church, Charismatic etc, without actually being connected to the church. 

I had a thought, the Church has now been associated with abuse and cover-up for many decades, but Humanism hasn't, Humanism and Secularism don't have any of the same abuse-related connotations. 

This was my highlight of the past week. My world isn't confined to grumbling about the Churches and the Cults and the Crazies.Life is too big. Among other things I like funny videos, and the one on here is one of the funniest: https://www.metaltalk.net/dave-joseph-falls-off-chair-video-goes-viral.php

The dog is the star, as far as I'm concerned, I love it when dogs talk, ours does. But if you get past the video, after your 10th view, there's a great video of some of Dave's guitar playing, he's good. 

It's been a quiet week. I think Jonathan Gibb trying to hold onto the elderly BBC 4 listeners by pretending that there would be any hope of a 'root and branch change' in C of E safeguarding was last week's news. Of course it is vital to pretend all is rosy, those old people leave legacies to the C of E. 

Some twerp did an article claiming that the government may become radicalized and dangerous when the C of E is gone. That must have been satire, the corrupt abusive C of E help to make the government and the UK corrupt and abusive. 

Too much going on, I'd better go. 

Bishops and Exam Results

 Dear Bishops,

It was hoped that you had learned something from the embarrassing spectacle of the C of E's interference in the Dominic Cummings matter. Remember how the Bishops are being punished for that dangerous offer to withdraw from interfering in government which the club who run the C of E of course hadn't agreed to? You had to do false death threats to take the public's mind off that hopeful promise.

The Church of England are a really funny little cult, trying to use news articles in order to recruit or gain favour, but it isn't pleasant to watch fake sentiments and crawling by the Bishops while safeguarding and treatment of abuse victims in the C of E is still a very serious issue, please leave the young people who have been caught up in the exams mess alone, they are potentially vulnerable to be preyed on, and preying is the C of E's speciality, but it is so open and so shameless and it is very unlikely indeed that you will recruit from those young adults, they have done A-levels, they aren't stupid or uninformed. 

The way Bishops try to latch onto headlines to try to get spotlight for themselves leaves a sick feeling in the stomach, that desperation for relevance, that effort to gain attention, that narcissism that doesn't take in their irrelevance and arrogance, that attempt to use vulnerable groups in the news to try to recruit for the dying cult, it's so blatant, so needy. 

Safeguarding should be first, attention seeking later. A number of Bishops still need to be removed for their harm to victims, as well as the Archbishops and their council. The current situation remains that Bishops are unable to respond well to complaints, and the new 'safeguarding Bishops' have to be forced to get an answer to letters from victims and concerned members of the public, if they answer at all, no change from the previous 'safeguarding Bishops'. But Jonathan Gibb had time to go on BBC 4 to reassure the elderly and naive who make donations and leave legacies to the C of E, that all is well in the world. Where will the Church of England be without their BBC 4 propaganda machine? 

Leave those poor students alone you silly Bishops, neither they nor any other group in the news spotlight want you fawning all over them.

John Carter 

The Stockholm Syndrome Crowd

 I wrote about them in my letter to the Charity Commission. They are a group of abuse survivors who are entrenched in and connected to the Church of England. 

https://johniancarter.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-letter-to-charity-commission.html

The petition itself was hard for us to access and sign, but the Stockholm Syndrome Group set up an email address to send signatures to, so we did, there was no acknowledgement and I can't see our signature on the petition. This is what I would expect of them, unfortunately. 

I am sure that the Stockhom Group feel that they are acting for all survivors, but they don't communicate well with all survivors, and as members of the C of E and linked to the C of E, they can cause a lot of distress. 

It was a matter of weeks ago that I first met the Stockholm Syndrome Crowd properly although I had heard of them from HG, the victim of the biggest unresolved cover up and abuse of power that I know of in the C of E. A matter hijacked by some of the most powerful men in the UK and perverted to suit them. 

Some weeks ago, at a time that I was feeling a lot happier than I am now, one of the survivors, Gilo, followed me on twitter, at the same time as 'Thinking Anglicans' another type of Stockholm Syndrome Group, who remain in the Church while constantly sniping at it, showed an interest in some of my work, much to my horror. 

Gilo was among those who ignored HG on the grounds of the defamation of her, so I was taken aback to be followed by him. I have a concern for all the victims who are not in the Stockholm Syndrome Group, who  have no voice. And I didn't really want the Church of England to reach and distress me through that Group. As I know they have other victims. 

I am a victim/survivor of the C of E, even though I myself remained a Stockholm Syndrome member of the C of E and non-stipendiary office holder for a long time, it isn't easy to leave a cult, not even for a grown man. I have heard the C of E described as a cult recently and it fits, a small body with very powerful and lawless leaders, teaching warped doctrine to suit the leaders and oppressing lower members and the general public. 

Anyway, at some point, Gilo demanded that I follow him, and as I wanted to be part of speaking up about the C of E, I was willing to give him that courtesy as he had followed me, smiling wryly at the difference between the demand for a follow from me and this group's shunning of other victims including HG. However, Gilo had shown no interest in my writing and work regarding the C of E, which is an interesting symptom of the Stockholm crowd, they feel that they are the first and last word on the wrongs of the C of E, in similar fashion to Thinking Anglicans, who in the past attacked HG heavily and viciously and based their attacks on the whitewash of her case published by the C of E. Thinking? No, not so much. 

In reality anyone who believes that the C of E are wrong, especially on something as serious as rape, will show that by leaving, not spending a lifetime on strenuous efforts to wriggle back up the C of E's butt or into their womb, or clever and 'insider' conversations which make them feel superior. Clinging to the abusive organisation is supporting them, it is the same as a child who was abused in a children's home sitting at the gates of the closed home and crying because it is closed and begging the council to reopen it as they love the place were they were raped and want to be part of it again, old staff and all. I can't begin to imagine choosing to be placed in the hands of my rapist or his associates again. 

We knew HG and her friends in the Catholic Church and heard about how the Stockholm Syndrome, who, being part of the C of E and heavily into the Church Times, blindly believed the slanders of her that were published to cover up for the many mistakes and misconducts of the senior leaders. 

We know how the Church Times published Gavin Ashenden whose hatred for vulnerable groups is legendary, and others, in attacking her. Ashenden wasn't even in the Deanery when HG reported a serial abuser whose vicar and wife instead of monitoring him as obliged under the order that he was restricted by which had forced him from his previous church, left him working alone with children and the vulnerable, and when approached by HG, were obstructive, protective of the abuser to extremes, and ostracized her. 

HG was diagnosed by a leading hospital as having Asperger Syndrome, her upbringing was a car crash of abuse and failure by the authorities that some people can't even read when they've met her, and her bewilderment and anger got out of control, and was distorted by blatant lies that no one questioned and the massive conflicts of interest relating to the Deanery, Diocese, Courts, Social Services and Safeguarding. HG's previous abuse at the hands of a freemason magistrate church officer who had abused and destroyed his own daughter and walked away was used against her by the church, while she was slurred as 'being unforgiving' over the arrest of her youth leader for serious paedophilia, as if that was a credible defence by the church, and yet all of this is unchallenged and there has been no justice. 

Ashenden's hatred and lack of understanding of abuse and the vulnerable is legendary. In Jersey, in the aftermath of the Haute de la Garenne case, he attacked 'victim culture' as well as victims, and he is now the chosen one of the Stockholm Syndrome Group. Ashenden abused his powers as a lawyer and public speaker to harm HG and other vulnerable people and to anguish Haute de la Garrenne victims. 

I followed Gilo as he demanded, and was surprised by his one-way-street of conversation,  so much mimicking that of the C of E to victims and the lowly general public, he would sent me tweets and expect them to be admired and broadcast, but he wouldn't engage in conversation. Being human is part of getting a message across, as well as being a courtesy. He even messaged me to say that he had broadcast a tweet, which was rather odd, especially as he left a number of questions from me ignored. So I followed suit and ignored him. What can I say? They won't learn but I am not a vessel to be used. 

Now I, and my family, as abuse survivors, know that we as victims have that overwhelming urge for justice and to be heard and to help other victims, but when I'm on twitter, I like to chat, banter and engage with other people's causes, it isn't all just about me. I am not the centre of the universe, and if I behaved as if I was, it would be impossible to help and care effectively. It is about each other, and about communication. I enjoy the freedom that twitter gives to support causes and each other. Humanity, one of the most notably lacking characteristics in Senior C of E clergy, is essential for care and change. I am far from focused singularly on the C of E, abuse is a worldwide pandemic which affects families and all institutions. 

There are many victims of the C of E who have been silenced, denied justice, given a criminal record or sectioned for persisting in contacting the C of E about justice or for trying to deal with their abusers themselves because the C of E shut them down. These aren't cases that people know about, because the C of E, wherever they can, dissociate themselves from the outcomes just as pedophile church officers who are nor clergy often have their association with the church omitted from the press. 

There are also many victims  who are shut down and do not have the articulation or thought or motivation to fight the C of E, the Anglican Church with their all-powerful protectors such as Bursell, Butler-Sloss, Faulkner, Nicholson, ? Handley and others and their loud falsehoods about safeguarding and abuse in the press. Voices and courage fail, many are angry and silent. 

The voiceless are very different from Stockholm Syndrome Core. Some are very angry and the anger comes out in other ways, vilifying them further; some despair, all are affected psychologically, there have been suicides but in the toxic UK culture and with an ignorant and badly-trained police force, these deaths are treated as the result of 'mental illness' rather than C of E abuse, injustice and failures by police and authorities. 

The Stockholm Syndrome Crowd are not an option for the voiceless victims, and as a victim/survivor without full justice myself, I have been knocked backwards by their obsessive and less than courteous behaviour and their persistent efforts to feed me the inside-the-C of E culture at the expense of my mental well-being. This would cause other victims to suffer mental harm. The Stockholm group are not supportive, they are obsessive. I am in no doubt that they mean well and feel that their actions are 'for the good of everyone' (very C of E)  but they are a miniature of what they purport to be against, because they are inside and linked to what they are 'fighting', and it gives them that Anglican veneer of callousness, indifference to suffering, self-interest, and outstandingly, blindness to the potential safeguarding dangers of their actions. 

Their letter to the Archbishop's Council is signed by two predators, maybe more. Peter Ould, who has basically used the Church as his sexual fantasy palace and never effectively been disciplined or regulated, he keeps his 'non-stipenduary' position as an insurance policy because the C of E is gagging for non-stipendiary priests in their current state. And Gavin Ashenden, a man notorious for his hate rants and ignorance in association with vulnerable groups, and of course his unchecked and unpunished hate attacks on HG. Ashenden, on the Charity Commission  letter, is still using his 'former chaplain to the Queen' badge, even though he was asked to resign from the voluntary role of serving in the Queen's chapel, which had nothing to do with the Queen herself but she asked him to leave because he kept using the title during his hateful rants. Also among the signatures are the conflicted Macsas and ThirtyOneEight, who are both partially run by C of E officers, thus ensuring the C of E can always be protected in cases that may damage them, such as the HG case, in which Macsas bent over backwards and broke the law to harm HG and aid the C of E. 

So it's funny paradox, this group fighting a church that they are entrenched in, seemingly for their personal needs, and this has been going on for years now, but the rest of the victims are left behind, or indeed forced away, with neither the C of E nor the Stockholm group listening or supporting them,  while the main change has been the C of E stepping up false safeguarding, false audits, false reports, false 'past case' reviews as a pretence for the IICSA and general public and worse of all, the false pronouncements in the media, which are iconic of Justin Welby and his 7 years of  ridiculous and vain abuses of the press.  The C of E think safeguarding and victims are a joke who can be brushed aside and internal letters and memos show complete contempt for complainants and worse. 

I asked Gilo if this was why former provincial safeguarding lead, Caroline Venables left, but I got no reply. Venables was in her post for about 18 months? And tried to reach out to some victims, seemingly more compassionate than the other leads, although her former police position would have been why she was chosen, to deepen the C of E campaign of being able to conflict every force and every local social services or NHS to protect them in multi-agency situations and ensure that victims have no support but the C of E is protected. 

The Stockholm Syndromes  like the Church, feel able to judge who is a victim and who isn't. Interestingly they never asked if I was, and never asked what my interest in the matter was, the few that have got involved with me just dragged me into all the nauseating policy and procedure, cult and culture of the C of E which I had left behind, and it has affected me, it will affect others, and that one way street of communication would be exceedingly harmful to the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable who should never have Gavin Ashenden anywhere near them as he has joined the Stockholms in his vengeful attack on the C of E that he left because of his own twisted behaviours. As the Stockholm Syndrome are a group, a body, dealing with very vulnerable people and safeguarding matters, they should be making some sort of assessment of who is involved in their cause, Ashenden and Ould are more than proof of that. Lets fight for safeguarding in the C of E, with predators and perverts with their own agenda on the team! 

At Canterbury in 2017, HG described the horror of what she encountered, it took her a long time as the Stockholm group nearly killed her with their actions on behalf of the C of E in which they are entrenched. She described this group insisting she stood outside with them as they smoked:  they, the leaders, the only protest members, the Stockholms,  called the shots, and as a vulnerable adult in a strange place and eager to help in any way, she did as expected of her, but they were smoking, these high moral Anglicans, and HG was unable to withstand cigarette smoke because the C of E's destruction of her by forcing her into rough sleeping had destroyed her lungs, but her pleas not to have to inhale smoke were ignored. One of the group, a guy with Alopecia and a bizarre attitude, tried to tell her that the C of E were Christian and above reproach, and he then launched into a bizarre rant against the C of E. He had the deeply entrenched Anglican attitude of 'Holier than Thou' which makes the C of E so repulsive to the general public, attacking and yet telling another person they had no right to criticize, think in terms of Simon Butler's recent letter to the Telegraph which I for some reason got a round of applause for my casual reply to. 

https://johniancarter.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-letter-in-response-to-letter.html

HG of course was horrified to be back in the atmosphere of the condescending C of E that she had been driven from and had realized was as Godless as the Devil himself. She was deeply shocked by this man's nasty attitude to her. 

This man had a dog that he was keeping alive in a pitiful and terrible state, and he seemed to put his identity into it, a creature with missing limbs, shaking and snarling and obviously hateful and terrified as well as very sick indeed, an animal in such a state would normally be put to sleep by a compassionate person but this man seemed to be using the dog as a kind of prop. Animals should never be used to meet human needs this way. This man trying to be a grand upholder of morals was a cruel man. 

HG, severely traumatized already, had been trying to keep her spirits up and see this protest as positive, despite harm to her on social media by one of the group who had been taunting her by making claims to his friendship with the National Safeguarding Team and their 'Instructions to him about her' as well as sending her bizarre rants about how he was recently raped and beaten in Cambridge by a group of Bishops who wanted to silence him; as he ignored her efforts to get him to speak to other male survivors about this alleged attack and her pleas for him to contact the police himself. she had contacted Cambridge Police with the DMs and sent them his contact details as well as ?contacting the Diocese of Peterborough where this stockholm syndrome group member was apparently an organist. 

HG requested to the leader of the Stockholm Group that she was put in a room well away from this 'organist from Peterborough' at the protest hotel and the leader put him in the room next to hers. His behaviour throughout was to create an atmosphere where HG was shunned, but HG was not what the C of E made her out to be, and this guy's behaviour was unstable and bizarre and he seemed to think that this protest was an opportunity for drinking and partying rather than demonstrating about the safeguarding failures of the C of E.

The Alopecia man with the desperate dog, who had done the hypocritical rant, leaving HG traumatised, tried to force HG out of joining the protest, lying to her, trying to intimidate her. Claiming she would be searched by the police. He must have been taken aback that she was willing to undergo that in order to highlight safeguarding failures, and he expected her to believe that unlawful searches would be carried out. This man was an Anglican Vicar, and he was dishonest, cruel, judgemental and plain nasty. This is the Stockholm Group.Making it clear with the group, that they believed the Church's hateful lies. They can't really challenge what they are fully part of. 

HG is a naturally timid woman, her anger and distress are conditioned from a lifetime of relentless abuse, homelessness and injustice, and she was hurt beyond belief by her treatment by the C of E, and was deeply upset. She was approached by a member of the stockholm syndrome group who was from Macsas,

Macsas the church-conflicted and very incompetent abuse charity who had aided the Church of England repeatedly in harming her, and are protected from the consequences of their less than charitable actions by their in-house lawyer, David Greenwood, mimicking the C of E's structure of in-house protectors.

Macsas man, who claimed to be a victim himself although his story, told drunk and of course inappropriately to the lone HG who was not drunk as she doesn't drink , seemed a bit wavering, he decided to raise the lies about her, he was drunk, and he tried to drown out what she told him about her injunction against the Bishop of Winchester with false allegations that the church had her convicted for defamation, which of course they couldn't and didn't as she had been entirely truthful and even in the conflicted courts that HG was flung into wouldn't be able to charge her with defamation, instead they charged her on lies regarding her quest for justice,  HG had to listen to lies about what she said and did, in court with no genuine defence or voicing of her side of things. She was even terrorized into what to plead. And due to the matter being hijacked throughout by powerful conflicted dignitaries, judges and lawyers, there has been no investigation. 

The man from macsas also caused huge distress for HG by raising the Frank Beck case and what he had heard about it, because HG's family were deeply involved in that case and because of the C of E destroying her, she hasn't been able to work through this in therapy. One of the reasons HG survived the attack on her by the Stockholm Syndrome branch of the Church of England at Canterbury is that the vivid and horrific flashbacks that the man raised, led her to go to Leicester and to her past there, where she felt closest to her father and was able to find comfort, she also came to us and kept phone and email contact with her church until she could get to them, otherwise the Stockhom Group would have achieved what the C of E have wanted badly in order to protect themselves, her death. And the Stockholm Syndrome group wouldn't have cared, which is why they, as 'safeguarding activists' are a safeguarding risk. 

The Macsas man had no idea about HG's real story, having only shared and taken part in slander. He expressed astonishment at what she told him and drunkenly, alone with her, said that her story was 'the worst he had heard in his career as a social worker, and the worst outside of war zones', she didn't believe this for a minute and felt intimidated by being alone with this swaying man and asked that they went back to the others, and by morning he had reverted to the hostility that would be usual of Macsas, the C of E and the Stockhom Syndrome Group, who went as far as trying to set the police on her without charge or reason or further information, destroying her because of the decade of the police being used to brutalise and imprison her and try to to brand her as mad by the C of E, while the 'organist from Peterborough' member of the group stood there laughing, until HG showed them his disturbing twitter DM's. 

They expressed concern at his behaviour and asked the managers of the hotel where the group were staying, to move HG to the other side of the hotel, safely away from the abusive man, although she was put on a top floor without a lift and she has a broken spine from previous police violence used to try to silence her over C of E abuse and cover-up; so three flights of stairs were a torture for her. She left quietly and quickly because she was afraid of further police violence against her. 

HG went to commit suicide, but instead came to us, and asked her church to support her in prayer and word, which they did, blessing on them, and went home to resume the normal hellish life that had been destroyed routinely by the actions of the C of E. She was living in unstable and hellish dangerous conditions after the C of E had forced her out of her home by another police attack without charges or explanation. The damage to HG was so severe that she no longer trusted her group of supportive survivors and friends on social media and did not want to endure the jeers of the cruel Stockholm members and she quit social media and was further bereft of support as the C of E continued to destroy her, leaving her seriously injured and homeless. 

The Canterbury Stockhom Syndrome Protest wasn't even the protest HG had expected, it was simply a few Stockhomers expressing themselves silently and unnoticed, exclusive and unwelcoming of anyone outside the core group, a self-interest spree basically, with the effusive fake empathy of church safeguarding officers sent to mop things up as Church PR, , these who advised for HG to be harmed and treated as a pariah, because if her story got into the hands of the news, the C of E would suffer the consequences very severely, that is what most of the violence of the last decade of cover-up have been about, the damage of the reality of HG's case, which must be hidden even if killing her is the only way. Because if the failures and corruptions of the system right up to the Archbishops and the core cover-up team, Bursell, Sloss et al, was really to be exposed, the C of E would suffer lasting damage at a time where they are weaker than they have ever been, and those old men want to keep their lavish and glorified ways of life, dining like kings and telling the government what to do and pretending to be superstars in front of the world's media; it has even been said 'what does one person of no real worth matter as a sacrifice to keep the C of E being seen as a great and Godly institution?' 

The Stockholmers more than failed to safeguard the vulnerable at their protest, they enabled serious harm and nearly caused death. And they are misleading people by being exclusive and self-centred, not operating to include all victims, only those entrenched. 

So their campaign against the C of E is not fully credible. HG had arrived there happy and in hope and trust, thinking that at last there was a glimmer of light,and that she would meet others finally, who knew the evil and the cover-ups she had faced, and was destroyed over again. She had no idea that the protest would be a small Stockholm Syndrome Group who would focus on alcohol when her circumstances and background would make that purely terrifying for her. There were no other females at the 'protest' during the time that she was there, no safeguarding at all. There wasn't a single person who HG could trust, the group even turfed her out of the initial meeting so that they could 'talk privately'. She wasn't welcome. They behaved shockingly and without remorse, buoyed by the C of E's pats on the head. One of the main aims of the Stockholmers is to get a reaction from the C of E of any kind. 

An interesting consideration is, Bob Hill, http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/ despite getting many facts wrong, spoke up many times before the violence of the HG case haters felled him, even after a very desperate attempt by the C of E to force him and HG apart in their fight for justice but the C of E couldn't make him out to be insane as they could with a distressed vulnerable adult, so they had a strict 'ignore him' policy where all emails are sent to spam, they are already trying this with me, and they ignored his blogs, letters and calls. But they couldn't make a former police officer of 30 years service and 20 years in government, out to be mad as they did HG. And me? I would say the Stockholm Crowd will happily attack me as they attacked HG, on behalf of their masters in the C of E. They aren't too bothered about the destruction of those who speak on behalf of abuse victims, it's not in their remit. 

Richard Scorer is an abuse lawyer who was among those who scorned HG, refusing to look at her case and using the wrong name for her, a throwback jeer from the C of E whereby HG legally changed her name to try to protect herself from C of E harm, but the C of E, police and others who have harmed HG insist on using her old name even though they found her new name for the sake of tracing and destroying her, which she describes as 'a slap in the face as well as illegal'. Scorer claimed that HG's case wasn't child abuse or in the UK, neither of which were true. What a prat, sue me if you will, Scorer. 

Scorer is a kind of highly paid pet to the Stockholm Syndrome circle, he, as they do, skates over their dear church's faults, gives the Stockholmers  fodder for excited yammering, and recently tried to put Rupert Bursell, one of the Butler-Sloss Core Cover-Up Group in good light to me, much to my astonishment. Bursell, along with Sloss and other similarly conflicted church members, uses legal and judicial positions to protect the C of E and has harmed several vulnerable people with his involvement or failures. When I asked if Bursell's PR lies were not the same as Welby's, same lies, different man, I was assured it wasn't the case. And yet I know Bursell has harmed the vulnerable in his place in the cover-up group. 

Unfortunately my objection set the whole pack of Stockholmers off yapping. As Anglicans, they don't expect anyone else to have an opinion contra to theirs. It is vital that only anglican PR is heard, not dissenters, which is funny because as I said to Baroness Nicholson something along the lines of:

'Here are three C of E articles, with up to 5,000 comments on them, there isn't a single comment in support of the C of E'. 

 And my request on twitter in response to Scorer and the pack to be left alone as I was unhappy, was ignored, especially by Gilo, who started to spam my twitter with C of E dogma papers, articles etc. No means no, from a C of E abuse survivor to the Stockholm Syndrome Group. When an abuse survivor says no, when anyone says no, respect that, or you are no better than those you challenge and speak up about. 

I am suffering deep sadness from being drawn into this in the past few weeks; my life is better without it. You can't defeat what you are part of, and you won't sway me from what I know and experience by drawing me into the C of E environment which I formally renounced to the Archbishop and the Diocese when I left. Although I speak up, I use experience rather than delving deep into the C of E's dogmas and articles myself. I am chilled by even having to go onto a C of E web page, the coldness of whatever Spirit runs the C of E emanates goes very deep. 

While I want change, I am not prepared to compromise to become part of something that I despise or in a group who have harmed victims, in order to see that change. I am not joining any branch of the C of E in order to hold the C of E accountable. 

If any of you Stockholm Guys read this. I don't really want to hear from you any more than I want to hear from Thinking Anglicans, their interest in my work was a blow to me and an insult, and my stomach churns to think of the mini church such as yourselves and your lack of respect for me and others. Sorry to be so blunt but you are a big false hope to some, you are part of what you are challenging. You aren't going to create a significant change when you have linked arms with the likes of Ashenden and Ould or are not willing for dialogue as a two-way thing. Just keep the voiceless in mind as you strive for your own needs. Don't hurt anyone or put them at risk. 

A Tail Note: 

I'm just adding this because someone has just shouted it out and it relates to the Stockholm Syndrome Group. 

Lets call this guy MS. He was an alleged victim of John Smyth. HG didn't know that until she was set upon by the Stockholm Syndrome chaps at Canterbury in 2017, but she certainly knew about him, had met him in fact. 

The reason HG knew MS was that he was heavily involved in the extreme evangelical churches in Jersey. As he is a very high profile religious figure, they are very honoured by his part in their dangerous cult and manipulation games. Which have remained hidden because a lot of the violence from the Jersey Deanery over the HG case was to hide what she reported about this, and it has effectively been covered up. MS was part of the dangerous cult games in that group of churches, where children were made to lay hands on adults or form an archway for adults to crawl through, and much more, basically a paedophile's dream and that was the undercurrent in the Jersey Deanery which has been effectively preserved without any misconduct proceedings because HG was effectively silenced and destroyed.

HG met MS personally when she was sedated because of the abuse of her by churchwarden ER, who was the one who was dismissed from a previous church, under a supervision order, but was protected by the Deanery and his high profile inter-meshed government, law, press, judiciary and other friends and family. Jan Korris tried to make this into HG being insane rather than the proven reality that it is. HG met MS, sedated and in and out of lucidity after she stopped coping because of the level of not just sexual abuse but more prominently, emotional abuse - it is not recorded anywhere that HG's childhood, told in brief in her book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07MLPDHCH was how she was left vulnerable to what ER did to her. ER regressed her to a childhood state and told the police that the sexual grooming and misconduct that he committed was part of his regression and healing of her. ER was not cleared of abuse, he was simply not convicted. Jersey Police's misconducts in this matter were not recorded by Korris. ER admitted some of his behaviour but as many abusers do, tried to make it out to be something else. 

HG spoke up when ER made it clear that his vicar and wife supported him against her. She knew from ER's boasting that he had abused before, and from his cocky jeering, that he would again. 

At one of the worst Anglican-Evangelical cult churches in Jersey, the one that ER had been dismissed from for misconduct but still hung around, much to the concern of some members, HG was there for a conference, she and friends had attended some services there from early on in her time in Jersey, and her best friend usually attended with her. However, this evening HG was alone, and the churches were already treating her as a pariah for speaking up to the vicar about the abuse. 

HG sat alone at the conference and drifted in and out, whatever she had been prescribed to cope with being regressed to childhood and the severe consequences because of her real childhood, it was too strong for her, and what she needed right then was psychological support, but Jersey Psychological Services turned her and other people diagnosed with autism away, discriminating against the autistic because they could, Jersey being archaic, and with the excuse that 'they had no specialism in autism' (sadly HG was about to see the new autism trained psychologist when the church destroyed her, imprisoned her and left her homeless, she had helped to ensure their installation by speaking on BBC Jersey and in the JEP about the situation). 

As HG sat alone, ER, the abusive churchwarden came to sit with her. HG was still confused and lost, ER had groomed her to love him as the father she had never had, he had taught lavished her with cuddles and attention and she had forcibly broken away from him and his wife, the wife who knew he was a serial abuser and was grooming HG had called her some terrible things and HG had suffered shockingly. But the wife wasn't there, just ER and HG. The conference was a 'healing' seminar by MS.

ER cuddled HG openly as she drifted in and out, she fell into sleep for a while. ER showed no real concern about that, but pulled HG to her feet at one one time, insisting that they joined those going up to MS for 'healing'. 

MS asked HG what was wrong. She told him that she was in agony with her neck. 

At the time, the negligent NHS had never examined HG for injuries stemming from her childhood, they never even recorded her background. And she had suffered injuries as an adult that they had sent her home with painkillers for, leaving her permenantly injured, a common action of the worshipped and revered NHS. HG's neck is severely damaged and will affect her for the remainder of her life. At the time, MS tried to do the cult magic trick of forcibly healing her neck, which was similar if not as appalling as ER trying to forcibly heal her from her childhood, although he did so with a predatory motive. 

In the time around then, 2008/9, HG witnessed MS leading and taking part in dangerous practices in the extreme cult Evangelical Anglican churches in Jersey. She included these in the complaint to Jane Fisher, who took no action and indeed helped the leaders to attack and harm HG. 

In 2017 at Canterbury, one of the Stockholm Syndrome group said to HG that MS was his friend and a survivor of the John Smyth sadism. HG's heart sank as soon as she heard that, as she knew that this wasn't a safe or neutral environment. HG sees MS as an abuser, a predator himself, even if his predation is limited to psychological manipulation and harm of those who are vulnerable through cult evangelical beliefs. And of course he is strongly linked to the abusive and manipulative church group and clergy in Jersey. 

The whole of the HG case is full of high profile confliction of this kind, which wasn't recorded by any 'investigator' or party involved in the case, much less the press, who avoided the facts and simply slaughtered HG. 

This concludes a demonstration of how the Stockhom Syndrome group can't really fight what they are part of very effectively. They show in miniature the same lack of regulation and safety as the Anglican Church. 

Mechanisms

Well here we are, in vacation time, and I am still tapping away at the computer. 

The weather, after being hot for so long, is now cool and cloudy, and there has been a rush by British people in France to return to the UK, sparking funny stories about dinghies crossing the English Channel. 

With the recent IICSA hearings, and I don't have much faith in the IICSA to fully deal with all abuse, I was observing the account of the JWs blocking access to safeguarding policies and records. It's that infuriating situation where protecting the institution is more important than protecting the children and the vulnerable. I can imagine that blocking, that closed ranks, I can feel it, I've been there. 

I once read a book by a choir boy in Ireland, and I can't find a copy, we must have sent it to the charity shop during one of those heartbreaking clear-outs. The book tells of how the boy, innocent and helpful and devoted to the church, was groomed by a Catholic Priest, much to his horror, and it affected his whole life, but he didn't dwell on it, but kept his devotion and was aiming for Catholic Priesthood. Although there he had no evidence of a link between his complaint against the priest, who remained in his position after the complaint, and his being turned down for ordination. He suffered, both from the abuse and from being turned down by the priesthood. 

Religious bodies seem to constantly go against their own ethics when it comes to abuse, Christian Churches seem to forget the teachings of Jesus completely in their scramble to protect the church's image. A God that is more important than the suffering of the innocent and vulnerable is not a God worth worshipping. Religion is supposedly a set of ethics on how to live, and if living that way means criminal activity or complicity, it is not a viable way of life. 

The book by the victim of the Catholic church exposed poor safeguarding and poor responses to abuse by the Catholic Church, and showed the affect of abuse on an innocent boy. He was a forgiving man and when his abuser was convicted for other offences, he didn't join in protests and threats relating to the priest when he was released. 

There should be a neutral body. Back to the CofE, so-called neutral charities are conflicted, Macsas and ThirtyoneEight for example, are both conflicted by Church of England safeguarding members, and church of England safeguarding is a car crash. 

The matter of 'Core Groups' has been raised recently regarding C of E abuse. Apparently, in a very conflicted and incestuous church, a complaint is investigated by either local or national groups chosen by the Bishop of Archbishop. As you can imagine, these groups would be so incestuous and so conflicted, that friends, enemies, acquaintances and fellow Masons would be investigating people who they knew or knew of. How ridiculous. What an opportunity for revenge and corruption in the so-secular and corrupt Church of England. 

The Church of England has a technique for being untouchable, as well as ignoring or failing to process allegations unless the police convict the abuser, they cover up at parish level, with disastrous consequences, forcibly silencing those who question. And at the top they have all the judges, Lords and high powered lawyers and dignitaries, some hold several of those roles and abuse these to protect the Church of England.

The most famous of the church protectors who make a mockery of Christianity and show that it doesn't exist in the C of E is baroness Butler-Sloss. She has interfered in more cases than is realised. Her famous work was telling a victim of Peter Ball, Graham, one of the Stockholm Syndrome Group, that 'She didn't want to give the press a Bishop', ie she would rather protect Ball and the C of E than bring the horrendous abuse by Ball out into the open. 

Despite this and other harmful actions against victims, she went on to head the IICSA, the rather farcical child abuse inquiry, and resigned because of other conflicts of interest and not the Ball case. No one spoke up loudly about her unsuitability and conflict regarding the C of E, which is a patter that the C of E rely on. 

The next head of the IICSA, Fiona Woolf, was also a C of E dignitary. Both would have been able to destroy evidence to suit them. Not a murmur and no investigation. Shambles.

Further to that there is a group of repeated names in this 'Protect the C of E' game:

• Rupert Bursell QC, well known for intervening in abuse cases and allowing harm or failing to prevent harm to vulnerable people involved.
• Lord Carlile - fraternizer with some of the worst historic paedophiles such as Greville Janner, Cyril Smith and others, left his wife for his mistress and made shocking public insults against his wife, sympathiser with abusers and has whitewashed cases where abuse was later evidenced to have occured. 
• Lord Faulkner, part of one of the biggest cover ups in the C of E history, sits on the Ecclesiastical Committee who enable the C of E to behave lawlessly by corruption in the Lords and Commons he works alongside Butler Sloss on this mission despite both being guilty of serious misconduct. 
• John Gladwin, conflicted Bishop who deliberately failed to protect an abuse victim from harm and tried to deny that they were being harmed. 

There are a number more in this group but I am tired and distressed by what I have seen and heard of the IICSA this week and I need to quit for the night. Basically Justin Welby thinks or knows it's all a joke and is already planning his sickening fake apology run. 

Unless the invincible church protection gang of thugs is dis-empowered, the dictatorship and the sadistic treatment of victims of all kinds in the church will continue. 

A letter to the Charity Commission regarding the Archbishop's Council

The Petition to have the Archbishop's Council Investigated is here:

https://www.change.org/p/the-micah-6-8-initiative/c

My deepest apologies for omitting it. Sign if you feel moved to.

Regarding the Archbishop's Council, Registered Charity Number 1074857. Church House, Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3AZ

12/08/2020   

Dear Charity Commission, 

I hope that you have been made aware of the letter from victims and members of the Church of England and the petition relating to the Archbishop's Council and accountability. 

I hope that you will take it seriously, as the situation in relation to safeguarding in the Church of England shouldn't have got to a point where people are having to go to these lengths. The Church of England has nearly 7 billion pounds in assets but they are unable or unwilling to regulate safeguarding, while they have a rather surprising amount of time and money for PR and self-advertising  displays which reach the media weekly, even when these PR displays are meaningless, ridiculous or unhelpful. The senior leadership of the church are out of touch with the general public and fail to accept or respond well to feedback, and with only a small percentage of the British public still worshipping in Anglican churches, the growing concern over the Church of England's privileges and their interventions in government and politics while failing to handle their own affairs or avoiding responsibility as a result of their connections appears to have escaped the notice of the Archbishop's Council. 

While I am willing to support the letter and petition being raised regarding the Archbishop's Council to you, and I support it as a former Anglican who held numerous positions in the Anglican Church and witness a lot of wrong, I would like to highlight a few matters that the petition and its signatories may not raise. 

Firstly and very importantly, in the past and undoubtedly to this day, you have members of the Charity Commission who are in dual roles with you and with the Church of England. It is noted by an abuse survivor that an officer in the Diocese of Bristol was using their Charity Commission email address as their Diocesan Contact email address, such matters would be enough to intimidate abuse victims from contacting you, although a number have and their concerns have yet to be addressed. It would be important that your employees who also hold roles in the Church of England are not involved in any investigation regarding the Church of England.

I am rather concerned about the Charity Commission's conflicted status and the unresolved complaints already submitted that I know of. One by an abuse victim who was preyed upon by serial abusers who the Church of England were aware of and failed to regulate, one by a female member of the clergy who was assaulted by a colleague; as no action appears have been taken, and other complaints about charities relating to the Church of England who have also been involved in concerning actions. 

One of the reasons it has come to the point that you are being petitioned and a letter produced and signed, is that the Church of England, despite their ever more rapidly vanishing congregation, are in a position of total lack of accountability. Even the Queen, the head of the C of E, has not responded well to concerns raised with her. The Church are not regulated by the government, indeed they appear to be using government for their own ends and needs, passing their own law regulations to protect themselves, via an Ecclesiastical Committee who have behaved appallingly in relation to abuse victims and who have directly harmed victims. 

Victims have no assured route to neutral or supportive action against the Church of England, because as I explained earlier on about you as a commission having Church officers in dual roles, this is also the case with victims turning to police, law, judges, politicians and even charities, members of the Church of England are in all walks of life, and while that is certainly not illegal or even untoward in its own, when it comes to victims seeking help and meeting with (often undeclared) conflicted sources of help where they turn to for help, this is where problems arise. This is why the only outcome that will be satisfactory and sustainable will be a safeguarding body that is not conflicted by the Church of England, or even it's victims, although their insight will be essential. 

This is not a simple letter to write, and I feel that it will throw up controversy no matter how I word it, but I can foresee a problem arising from the current situation of victims having to fight for a voice to the point where they petition you or picket the General Synod, and the problems have already arisen in some ways. 

There is a group of victims who shout loud while thousands don't have a voice. Some of these are the John Smyth victims, one of whom described the situation to me as 'We have some money and power behind us of course, we were Winchester College Students after all'. The others are victims who are still in position in or linked to the Church of England. These are the group with a voice and who know who to contact and how and what is going on within the church, (known rightly or wrongly as the Stockholm Syndrome Group) while other victims can feel intimidated by the victims with a voice and what they do. I am sure it is unintentional, but it creates two sides and the third, the quieter victims who are not in the know and do not know who to contact can only look on. If, in an ideal situation, the militant group who have a voice, manage to make a change, then that is well and good, in the meantime, there are people suffering in silence. It is important that other victims aren't overshadowed by the militant group or treated as not being credible because they are outside of the church and in the shadows and do not have the connections or do not want to be linked to the Anglican church. 

I need to be clear in my concerns. I am former Anglican, I left some time ago after a long period of voluntary roles in C of E, I left because I didn't like what I witnessed, although not in terms of unreported abuse;  and a few months ago, after another increasingly bizarre run of press releases by the Archbishop of Canterbury, I was drawn into a website where the Archbishop and Church of England were being criticized, and I decided to add my voice by blogging some of my experiences and concerns. I was surprised by the attention that my work received, alarmed in a way, and how strong the weight of concern and anger is among the general public, while the coldness and anger of the Church of England and their associates in the House of Lords, unchristian to say the least, was in reply to criticism. 

The general public against the church is a powerful, terrifying but almost comedic situation. Anyway, as a result, several of those victims who are in the know in the Church of England, the 'Stockholm' group, followed me on social media, which is okay by me. One of them asked me to follow him, and I did. I was a bit surprised when he started sending me information about the situation from his and the Stockholm group's perspective, now including the letter and petition, but when I asked him questions, he failed to respond. For example he sent me a direct message saying that he had posted a tweet about the C of E, obviously wanting me to read and share it, but he didn't respond to questions I asked him. I am very keen to see change, and to see this petition by the group succeed, but I am concerned about outcomes and what outcomes there might be, because all victims and their advocates should have a say and not be drowned out in the end, communication isn't a one way thing and the situation in the Anglican Church isn't limited to those with a voice. There is every possibility that I am not the only person being left on the sidelines but wanting to have a voice in the matter.

If you look at the letter from the Stockholm Group, for want of a better way of describing the victims who hold positions within the C of E or are connected to it, you will see that many members of the Church and associated groups have signed it. But even so, this is one voice, and what is behind the signatures? And will those people who signed be the ones to lead, mediate or be the voice to or for any future regulation of the C of E's safeguarding? If so, there is still the possibility that there will not be a voice for all. I am very sad to say that but I feel that I absolutely must. 

One of the signatures on the petition to you is Gavin Ashenden, who proudly signs himself as 'former chaplain to the Queen'. His title sounds very grand but all it meant was that he used to be a volunteer chaplain in the Royal Chapel for services, no contact or counsel with the Queen, the title is the illusion which saw him removed because he used the title constantly in press-based hate and ignorance attacks on minority and vulnerable groups under the guise of his 'Christianity' which included xenophobia, racism and archaic and dangerous statements about people with mental illness.

 Ashenden was asked by representatives of the Royal household to resign his position to avoid the upset of his dismissal. He was involved in direct abuses of his power and position in media attacks on a vulnerable adult who was an alleged victim of two serial abusers protected by the Church of England when the case was dangerously put into the press spotlight by Archbishop Welby as a PR stunt that went wrong; and despite Ashenden's abuses of position in this case, he only left the church of  England later on in protest when a Black female, also a former Queen's chaplain, was elected as Bishop of Dover. Ashenden, who is racist and sexist, objected to this by becoming a Catholic and then hilariously demanding of the Pope that married men should be able to become Bishops (Ashenden is on his Second Marriage). 

Ashenden was studied by a psychologist who blogged that Ashenden appeared to be having psychosexual problems, based on some of his bizarre sexually-based sermons, and it makes one wonder, especially after his heated untruthful and spiteful attacks on a victim who had no voice in reply, what his interest in helping victims is, aside from trying to get back at his old denomination, the C of E, who his rants caused much concern to. 

So, considering Ashenden's behaviour, it is astounding that he claims to be an advocate for victims, considering that he nearly killed one with public lies and defamation and it isn't a great portent for this petition that he is a signatory and he, along with others who I will mention, will not be the people to take forward any safeguarding plan for the C of E, it is a bit like replacing one broken machine with another broken machine and saying that the new broken one is better because it's new.  

Peter Ould is another signatory, a man who used repulsively to blog about sexuality and who has a perverted obsession with the subject that with his blogs and twitter has tried to parade as an academic interest, and he attacked the same victim as Ashenden in the Church of England's dangerous and sightless attempt to use that case as a PR pretence of safeguarding, which backfired badly, destroying the victim and other people, while not a single member of clergy or laity, including Ashenden or Ould, were disciplined for their appalling behaviours in a farce which became simply and purely an all-out defamation attack on the disabled victim, for three years, with aftershocks still occuring. Unresolved and with no one disciplined or suspended. It is interesting to see Ould and Ashenden back on the same team and this time purporting to care about victims, penance? I doubt it,  but it rings very loud alarm bells to see them close to abuse victims and with a future ahead of them working with abuse victims when they would be standing between their own victim and justice if they did, this would sadly not be an improvement on the current situation. 

They would argue, as the Stockholm Group might even, that the terrible media based hash-up of their victim's case proved the victim to be fake and the church to be right, but that is not the case nor are they in a position to judge, no one who claims to be a victim or advocate and wants to be taken seriously in this current situation is; it was a whitewash unparalleled in the history of the C of E in abuse of power by senior clergy, laity, and those conflicted C of E members in judiciary, police, press, government and law, and it awaits investigation while all involved remain unpunished, but how can such a case be brought to justice with the petitioners to you including those who have harmed or disbelieved the victim? We are looking at one conflicted group, including victims who are within the C of E, who may prevent a voice for other victims, against the conflicted C of E, and that is not the fault of the Stockholm group, the militant victims who have somewhat of a voice, but it is a real issue. 

The Victims outside need a voice too. They shouldn't have to be re-traumatised by talking shop with the well-meaning victims who are in the Stockholm group, who are members or linked to the Church of England still, victims who have left the Church of England and are traumatised by it, need a voice and a place to turn that doesn't involve having to be back in a C of E environment and using C of E language and knowledge, or being overriden by the desire of the victims still within the church to talk about their actions but not listening to the quieter victims in reply. There needs to be independent intervention and a voice for all. 

There are other signatures on the letter  which would be of concern. Representatives of ThirtyoneEight, whose bizarre and hard to spell name does them no favours, they are, although they do not declare it, partly run by Anglican Safeguarding Officers, making them part of the confliction problems. If their friends and acquaintances in the Church of England are reported to them, what will happen? What usually happens within the Anglican church when a man is reported for abuse to his friends and acquaintances in the synod? Closed ranks. And this is unlikely to be properly raised to the IICSA and even by this petition to you, ThirtyOneEight, and Macsas as well, are conflicted and will and have, ignored or failed to act on, complaints raised with them. I know quieter victims intimidated and turned away by these groups whereas the Stockholm group have included them on the letter's signatures. 

Three years ago the victim who Peter Ould and Gavin Ashenden abused their position to harm and defame, went to join a protest run by some of the 'Stockholm' victims, she was harmed by an abusive member of the group, as well as another member trying to force Anglican ideology on her and confusing her by trying to tell her she couldn't criticize the C of E, while he himself criticized them. She was in a broken state as it was, physically and mentally, from years of conflicted whitewashes of her case, vilification of her, violence against her and the horrendous press coverage, which Peter Ould and Gavin Ashenden had amplified. 

She travelled a long way to the 'protest' against the C of E handling of abuse, only to be set upon and seriously harmed because members of the 'safeguarding representatives' from the C ofE were also there and able to silence her through the other victims,  to the point where she nearly committed suicide. The 'protest' itself didn't appear to really exist, and she was warned off being there, while she had been told in advance that she and other victims should find and wear purple clothes to the protest, and although  broke and homeless, she had purchased purple shirts to wear from a charity shop out of her limited food money, all for nothing, she was driven away, abused, and one of the Stockholm group, a 'former Vicar' if he was to be believed tried to set the police on her without charge, when she was in collapse, while the abuser who had trolled and abused her, stood and grinned, until she showed the police some of his extremely concerning social media messages to her. She attended in good faith, and left, suicidal. The victims who are complaining about safeguarding didn't safeguarding the non Stockholm group victim. 

The victim, diagnosed as autistic by the Maudsley hospital in 2005, although the C of E tried to deny diagnosis and use their persistent ploy of making her out to be insane, led the victims at the 'protest' trying to echo that her autism and distress were madness. It is thankful that instead of killing herself she came to us and then went back to her own church, an independent church who supported her until the slander against her by the Church of England National Safeguarding Team which was very open and very untruthful

 reached them soon afterwards. 

A key player in this 'protest' scenario was another abuse victim who was also a representative of Macsas, the church abuse charity who were conflicted by one of their leaders also being a member of the Church of England's safeguarding board. Macsas had also been involved repeatedly in the high profile case of this victim, in harmful ways. Indeed aiding the Diocese of Winchester in defaming her and trying to silence her, overstepping their boundaries as a charity. At the protest, the member of Macsas, drunk, repeated to the victim who was being attacked by her fellow victims from the Stockholm group, all the defamation of her that he had heard from the news and from his colleagues in Macsas and the C of E. He then advised the other victims to shun her. 

As the victim did not commit suicide, she made another complaint regarding Macsas, the complaint was answered by...guess what, another signatory on the petition being brought to you. David Greenwood from Switalskis, one of the leaders of Macsas but abusing his legal position to protect the culpable and conflicted Macsas and intimidate the victim. I am not sure if this is correct, but I think this victim or another, referred Macsas to you as well. 

This victim and others are in danger of being bypassed or left helpless if the voice remains only with the militant group and their inter-meshed friends mentioned above. There is a situation whereby those involved decided on what they had heard, and not on the victim's full story, which was forcibly silenced by the Church, that the victim was wrong and that they could abuse and punish her and fail to safeguard her from a predatory member of the group, despite having been made aware of the predator's conduct. In fact, the Stockholm group of C of E victims who are trying to represent all in the current very unstable and unjust Safeguarding Situation, could even be seen as  a representation in miniature of the Anglican Church and their stance towards the vulnerable. From making conversation one way, as the chap on social media did with me, to failing to safeguard within their own efforts, to blaming and condemning, to being conflicted and inter-meshed by people with questioning behaviour and motives. I am increasingly concerned about Ashenden and Ould's involvement as I write this, although I am aware that they have taken the bizarre and unjust treatment of Martyn Percy, the Dean of Oxford, personally. 

The victim mentioned above remains homeless and destroyed, her whole life taken off her and the Church of England have no intention of restoring her, and appeared to be hoping for her suicide or imprisonment on false charges that they brought to silence her,  and as mentioned above, the victims with a voice are not people who she can turn to. Others will feel the same if communication is the same one way street with the Stockholm victims that it is with the C of E.

The victim mentioned, who suffered a childhood of relentless abuse and neglect and horror within her family, was abused as a very vulnerable adult as soon as she escaped her upbringing, and therefore has no access to the IICSA or most other forms of help, and has been failed by the NHS to extremes, for example left struggling with injuries including a broken spine from a beating she took as a result of reporting the C of E abuse. 

I really want to see you accept the petition, and I want to see the Church of England held accountable, but the solution isn't for those signatories to become the replacement in safeguarding or representation of victims. I also want you to be aware, no matter what actions are taken, and action of some kind will have to be taken before this becomes much more serious, that the conflicts of interest that I have mentioned, exist and there are more, and the voices being heard is what it is about. 

I have no doubt that the Core group, the Stockholm Victims mean well and mean right with all their hearts and have been wronged, there is no doubt in my mind of that, even those who aggressed the autistic victim; but the change and the future need to be safe and to be inclusive, and the fault lines are more visible to me than they may be to either you or the signatories of the letter and those involved.

As for the Archbishop's Council and Senior Church of England leaders, they don't care, they won't care until they are made to, and who is going to make them? One and all, they need to be removed, and as the C of E shrinks, a system such as that with the Church of Scotland's moderators would be more appropriate, with a new election of senior leaders every year so that no one is comfortably entrenched and able to feel unaccountable, but instead those elected would feel more motivated to make a positive impact during their time in power. First and foremost though, a lot of senior leaders in the C of E who have been involved in the current appalling situation, should be barred from leadership and jobs involving vulnerable groups. 

There are enough signatures from clergy and church members on the letter to you, as well as enough outcry from outside the church, for the complaint against the Archbishop's council to need to be taken very seriously indeed. I understand that you have dragged your heels on complaints from individuals, but the Archbishop's Council and senior clergy have become complacent with their unchallenged and unregulated status and feel that they can behave as they please and answer to no one despite the waning congregation, and it is not just offensive or awful, it is a risk to vulnerable lives such as the one used as an example. 

I trust that you will consider this matter with the seriousness which it deserves. 

Kind regards, 

John Carter

Catherine

This story came to my mind because I met the alleged victim during similar stormy weather to that we have now. 

Catherine, no her real name, lives in a state of confusion, she lives in a small flat on her own, and battles with mental health issues and fear, she has nightmares and flashbacks and is afraid of being alone but has no choice. She tells me that the Samaritans can be very clumsy when she phones them, and sometimes they make things worse. 

For many years her family were connected with a local C of E Church, but not always in a good way, after one family member stumbled across something that was going on in the church. 

I have no proof for this story but I did witness Catherine's mental state, and it didn't come from nothing, she had the symptoms of trauma. 

Some of the family remained in the church after the family member discovered what was happening there, and as a result, Catherine allegedly suffered harm. 

The family member who spoke up, along with others who spoke up, were apparently afraid for their lives. 

What was apparently going on was occult or Satanism, and babies and young children were involved. This was being carried out by senior church figures. 

Catherine told me that if I looked round the churchyard, I would see that there were a number of graves of babies and young children, on the other hand she advised me not to go near the church as she felt that things were still going on, and snoopers would be at risk.

I could see no reason not to look round the churchyard, anyone can go in and look; it was a historic church, but still with space for continued burials and interments, unlike many historic churches, which run out of space if they cannot extend their burial grounds. 

It is true that there were a number of baby and child graves in the period that Catherine described, but nothing to indicate anything untoward. It would also be hard to understand how any children could have died as part of rituals and then been buried legally without any questions or queries, although Catherine indicated that a doctor was part of the circle. 

There is no conclusion to be honest; a traumatized young woman who herself had an interest in the occult, whether stemming from her experiences, as she told me, or not, and my knowledge that all is not well in the Cof E, and that eerie and chilling experiece of hearing the story. Elsewhere I have seen stories of occult and Satanism and some thoroughly bad things intertwined with the C of E, and have witnessed some of it. In the 90s I fleetingly caught sight of a book by a Vicar, who told of how his church was repeatedly broken into and used for black masses, and people in his village tried to interest him in the occult, but I can't remember his name or find the book. 

Nothing has ever reached the news regarding that particular church and Catherine, but again, that doesn't mean much, only a fraction of abuse in the church reaches the news and the C of E try hard to prevent it. As I have witnessed. One case I witnessed was so high profile, so serious, but the fact that the prolific paedophile was a church officer and worked with the church's children was forcibly omitted. This case was part of the root of my decision to abandon the Anglican Church. 

All I know about the Catherine case is what Catherine has told me. And the Diocese were apparently made aware but the cases were 80s, 90s and earlier, when complaints were even less well received than they are now, indeed the relative who was allegedly afraid for speaking up, was afraid of the church itself. He believed himself to be in danger from the church for speaking up. He apparently carried a camera with him to photo anyone who attempted on his life, this was before mobile phones or camcorders or body worn cameras etc. 

It is an elusive and misty case, which touched me briefly and chilled me, and yet I know very little, and Catherine was deteriorating when I met her, so I don't know what became of her or what might have happened with that church. 

Monday Thoughts

I went to Mass yesterday, wore my mask, didn't care apart from how hot it was and how I struggled to breathe. For some reason some of the words of the C of E creed were running around in my head:
'God's Church, Militant here on Earth', it made me think of those aggressive C of E Senior figures who are part of the major systemic cover-up of abuse and protection of abusers.

This morning's Telegraph has a letter about one Vicar having 9 churches to manage. Angry from Wilton says 'No wonder no one is lining up for the job'. And yet the C of E are still ordaining record numbers of clergy, including many young women who think that they will 'change the church' whereas they soon learn to keep their mouths closed and their bellies up if they want to be anyone. Others who are ordained like the idea of the house, the expenses paid, the dignitary side of it, the respect, etc.
The reality is, some will be driven to a breakdown by the workload, the reality of the work, the red tape that chokes, which was exampled well by the recent forced closure of the buildings even to their own clergy.

The BBC decided to make a headline of a Vicar using chopsticks to distribute communion. The C of E's abuse of the media never ceases to amaze, they turn worship into a joke, not just in their actions but their immediate running to the press. What should be in the media is the extent of cover-up by senior figures, where they accuse abuse victims of being 'mentally ill' to rebuff victims and interested parties. The coldness of some of the leaked emails I have seen from two cases now, is astounding. And sadly safeguarding boards, social services and others, do not dare to question these cold high and mighty religious figures, they tend to collude instead.

A chap on twitter spoke up about how he had been called all kinds of things by the Diocese for asking for safeguarding reform and transparency, the Diocese stated that 'It might damage the church'.

What is really needed is an independent investigation, not the IICSA, too look at the corruption and protection of abusers and treatment of victims. SCIE were used to fake a safeguarding review at one point, and of course hired to do so by the senior leaders who are the most guilty. What a ridiculous thin veil there is between the general public and the C of E's terrible behaviours.
Would you believe that C of E safeguarding is headed by their PR guys? It's true.

I've got a nosebleed, so I will stop there.

A letter in response to a letter

Dear Canon Simon Butler, 

I am writing regarding your letter in the Telegraph. Unfortunately I don't think it had the impact that you desired, instead it compounded the growing concern about the Church of England leadership that is quite strong in the general public, although the Senior C of E seem  oblivious to it. I am not an angry man normally, but I am furious about the current situation because it is harmful to many. 

As you have used the Telegraph for your opinion, I will assume that you are a subscriber and ask you to do as the C of E systematically fail to do, look at the response to what you have said. Look at the comments in response to your letter. The C of E use of the press has been one-way for a very long and miserable 7 years, ignoring feedback and acting as if the press are there for the C of E's personal use. 

Giles Fraser based his article on facts. He wrote well and reflected a concern that is there among the general public and the remaining congregation. Your letter in response appeared bitter, attacking, and completely devoid of any relationship with Christ, and presumably you hold your position because you profess to be a servant of Christ, although the general public and congregation are increasingly wondering about any remaining relationship with Christ among C of E leadership. 

It would appear that the Archbishop and his council are either unaware of, or ignoring the fact that the general public and congregation are being turned away from the Cof E by the leadership. Even elderly and lifelong congregants are considering leaving or converting, and a number have, as Justin Welby's press releases have become unthinkably bizarre and desperate, and his, and the senior Bishops' interferences in politics are disliked universally and intensely. I am sure that you will recall that even the biased 'Yougov' carried out a poll worded in Welby's favour, asking the general public if his interferences in politics were accepted, and the answer was no. 

Your article attacks the decline in Gile's Fraser's parish. But with no figures relating to the decline of surrounding parishes or parishes in other areas. If you were not too high up to see the response of the general public to the C of E's press releases, maybe you would see that people are leaving the church because of the senior leadership and their behaviour. 

Many elderly and isolated people have no access to 'Zoom' whatever that may be, the crisis has pushed some people over an edge whereby they have lost their internet and landline. So the C of E seems even more exclusive than usual in those circumstances. Traditionally being for the better off, and with a policy making the vulnerable into a liability as it is, for insurance purposes. The C of E, more than ever is at odds with Jesus' Work and Example of inclusiveness. 

You proudly talk of having been in so many meetings, but if that is the case, why has the C of E's response to the crisis been so abjectly appalling? What meetings? Meetings about Justin Welby's serious misconduct and refusal to resign? The general public is aware of that too, and the reality of how Welby being investigated by his gatekeeping safeguarding team for only one incident of misconduct, when they have aided him in so many is a sick farce. Justin Welby has caused loss of life through his misconducts, Bob's for example: http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/  and yet he remains, praising the politicians who protect him, allowing them to harm victims of cover-ups, for example allowing yet another attack on the victim who he publicly destroyed in the Jersey Safeguarding Farce, by Lord Faulkner recently, when all involved should have been removed, including Faulkner and Butler-Sloss and their friends from the Ecclesiastical Team, the unregulated church cover-up machine. 

Welby's victim is still homeless because of the biggest cover-up in C of E history where every wrongdoer was allowed to abuse power in law and law enforcement, social services and safeguarding, media and press and more, because the C of E conflict every body for their own use. Did any of your meetings contain the arrangement for the removal and punishment of those involved? This is a serious safeguarding matter, and of course the national safeguarding team have deliberately taken part in harming, smearing, and silencing the victim; you and all of your colleagues are aware of it, so, considering the recent move to pretend to investigate Welby over ONE of his misconducts, you need to refer this, for real, to a neutral body. If there is one left. 

The matter was flung into the press by Welby as one of his early vanity and falsehood stunts before people really understood the strategy of the past 7 years, to deceive and to try to make the C of E look good, the strategy has long since failed but is still being used, and Welby's failure to protect the victim and his condonement of the persistent horrific harm to her while he upheld the powerful abusive members of law, government and other senior positions made the whole matter a farce. His and Tim Dakin's actions with the aid of the national safeguarding team to slander the victim and have her violently destroyed to silence her, make him a criminal and Dakin too, why are they still around? And he isn't anyone's archbishop as far as the general public are concerned, the fact that this matter remains unresolved and the victim remains a fugitive and seriously injured; remarkable that she's alive, if she is, not that you care, is a statement about the church that the desperate letters by you and the Dean of Sheffield and others do not drown out but enhance. The victim of the biggest whitewash, in sheer numbers and involvement bigger than the Peter Ball case, in C of E history, didn't have her story recorded anywhere by the C of E, only the opinions of conflicted C of E judges and counsellors and other qualified C of E members were recorded. How many meetings have you had to rectify this as you leave the victim homeless, branded and suffering, You hold no weight with Christ. Your pompous letter to the Telegraph is beyond a joke in light of such things. 

You, in your belligerent attitude to Giles Fraser's truths, show that this culture is the core and system of the C of E and it isn't just harmful to the faithful and tearfully deserting  congregation, it is a risk to the vulnerable and the general public. Those meetings... cancel them, the C of E is nose diving like the Titanic; address the real issues rather than vanity stroking and waffling. You know the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? How many times does the little boy have to shout out that the C of E is naked? How much longer does this show have to go on? Last night twitter was full of a double bill of the Archbishop toadying the MP for Canterbury as well as supporting Prince Andrew. People are not happy and instead of being an institution which we can turn to for prayer and spiritual support, the C of E has become self-serving, serving Mammon, as former congregant Will Self put it, and completely deaf to the anger of the general public and the distress of the elderly congregation, who can't all up sticks and leave as I and others have done. Parish priests, the final stand in Christianity, are being made redundant, those left are being burdened with too many parishes and responsibilities as well as being strangled in red tape that you create, making it very hard for them to effectively offer Christian Ministry, this isn't new but is now at crisis point. 

Finally, I felt compelled to share with you one concise comment on your letter, as you are unlikely to listen to or read any response, we all know the C of E, we know they like to use clever words and arguments but not hear the response. 

Ian Walker5 Aug 2020 12:26PM

Canon Simon Butler seems to have been reduced to playing the man rather than the game, his letter is full of ad hominem argument, which suggests to me that he can't actually refute the arguments of Giles Fraser in a way that would convince.  Adding this to the fact that as a Canon he has skin in the game, and I think we can ignore what he says until he can come up with a better answer.  As to Fraser's congregation having declined, this may be so, but unless we know how much others have also declined in the period, the figures are meaningless.  Canon Butler is whistling in the dark, I'm afraid.

The concise opinion and view of the general public is that the C of E has split into struggling parishes and an engorged and out of touch leadership who are ruining the C of E, and an article by another retired clergyman recently gave the view that it is too late to save the C of E, the damage is done. Please think carefully about that as you continue to get drunk on the money and power on your side of the split, and before you make any more offensive pronouncements. Your priorities right now should be safeguarding, the wellbeing of the remaining congregation, and a slimming down of yourselves in the high positions as the top-heaviness is not increasing the Church, it is making it into a secular and hated establishment. The C of E is in the unique position of standing between the nation and Christianity, as was amply pointed out when Welby attacked his family in front page headlines and was 'supported' by the Archbishop of Westminster. And time passes, and things get worse. We as a nation, pray that you find humanity, more is too much to ask for. 

Yours in Christ,

Mr John Carter

Keeping Blogging

This blog was started with the intention of regular updates on the C of E and my thoughts and musings, but I have been so busy, there has been so much going on here, that I have barely got anywhere near the blog, let alone done any in-depth articles, I am just rattling off letters and articles in the few short minutes available.

There have been a number of articles this week about the various behaviors of the C of E. The one in Private Eye stood out, their explanation of safeguarding at senior levels, which will come as no surprise to some, it is hard to link to this article so I don't know how long this link will work:

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/in-the-back

Of course, Justin Welby under investigation by his own employees, who have aided him in cover-ups. And he is only under investigation for one of his many crimes. And where usually his every slobbering rant is published far and wide by the unquestioning press, his being under investigation was kept pretty quiet. 

In London, the reality of closure of Parish Churches, the last stand in the credibility of the C of E:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/03/church-england-determined-kill-parish-church/

While in Dorset, one alleged complaint by a wide couple has led to the complaints of a whole congregation being ignored so that the pews can be ripped out. It seems that parishioners really are worthless to the church: 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/02/width-restriction-church-pews-lose-position-make-way-human-form/

Apparently the church wants to create more space so that they can have 'messy church' and jumble sales. 'Messy Church' although it is a good description of the C of E, has always been a desperate pitiful joke, an attempt to seduce mothers and their children into church. Jumble sales? Why did Jesus turn the tables in the Temple over in anger? 

Sheffield Cathedral Choir, a strong historical choir, have been thrown away with inane excuses made by the Dean.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/02/sheffield-cathedral-dean-criticises-choir-saying-quality-singing/

If it's about diversity, quite simply, anyone of any orientation should already be able to apply as long as they have some ability. The Dean wrote to the Telegraph in a letter agreed universally to be waffle and big words. Do the C of E really think that the common people are fooled by their excuses? 

I wrote to the Dean, and someone pointed out my Freudian slip of 'knave' and said it probably related to the Dean, just keep in mind I'm an 'umble workman and not a scholar: 

30/7/20

Dear Dean, 

I am writing regarding the situation with the choir and the letter in the Telegraph.

You may or may not have read the online comments in response to the digital addition.

It is difficult to see how you are committed to the long term development of the Anglican Choral Tradition when you have just disposed of a whole choir with very little notice. 

People are confused, and becoming more so, over the choir situation, and your letter didn't dispel the confusion. The Anglican Church doesn't seem to realise that extensive use of big words used to be effective in hushing the common people in the old days but doesn't work so well now. 

What appears to have happened is that internal difficulties led to the dispersal of the choir, and an excuse was made over diversity for the sake of PR, as PR is one of the C of E's last remaining safeguards.

It appears that there is an ongoing situation wherein the Church of England try to change the labels on their internal difficulties to make those difficulties into matters of inclusion, equality and community, and it doesn't work very well. At the moment there are a number of outrageous acts occurring in the C of E with flimsy and inadequate excuses being given. 

I am sure that young people, having been relieved of their vocation, will not be accompanying the elderly 'worshipping community', as the worship itself, down in the knave, especially without the choir, is only to the taste of the elderly dignitaries and wealthy who normally attend a Cathedral service. 

You won't regain your wonderful choir, with their dedication, hard work and marvellous singing, they are gone, and they won't all come back to join whatever vague 'inclusion' scheme that you have in mind, because whatever that is, it isn't a choir. Anyone of any creed, colour or orientation, should have been able to join the original choir if they had the commitment and ability. It is unclear how getting rid of the choir and starting again makes any difference, it has been a very cruel thing for the choir, the Cathedral and for the worshipping community. 

You can't put new wine in old skins, and so it sounds a bit ambitious that you think that the choir will be welcomed back to a new leadership and safety. If you have lost 3 or 4 masters of the choristers, how can a culture obviously embedded in the Cathedral be changed?  In the meantime those choristers, if they have sense and self-esteem, will seek other outlets, after all, they need to keep in training between now and autumn 2021 if they want to retain their skill, and you have made no provision for that. Your letter doesn't really cover the poor handling of the matter. 

Sincerely, 

John Carter 

That's it for today, I have so much to do.