Response to Synod September 2020 Presd

Dear Ruth Mawhinney,

I am writing regarding the IT failure at Lambeth Palace. I have a few points to make and will send this to  a number of people. But as head of IT you should receive it first.

I am sure you are aware that the archbishops and their council and staff send circular emails round demeaning abuse victims, encouraging them to be treated as insane and ignored but this week the IT systems have obviously failed.

Poor Mr Welby and Mr Cottrell,seemingly not knowing how to post letters, maybe the pandemic closed the post office, and without their computers working, sent a personal letter to their Bishops via the press in the hope that all their Bishops read the UK gutter press.

The general public are not interested in the church's circulars, it would be like Morrison's or the BBC publishing their staff circulars only have more patrons. So this error needs to stop.

The letter, seemingly dated some months ago, talks of 'How the church can come out stronger' from the pandemic. Sadly with that letter misaddressed to the press, it didn't arrive at the various Bishops palaces in time and churches remained closed for months on end, thinking that they were under Justin Welby's orders, Vicars thought they were banned from their own church because of your IT failure and Mr Welby thinking that his letter would reach his Bishops via the press in time.

The church lost thousands of congregants and will come out of this pandemic significantly weakened and with a very damaged image and credibility as a result of these failures.

 Its a pity that your faulty IT system prevented the letter from reaching the church in March or April at the start of the lockdown via email. 

Many who have abandoned the church, including including lifelong congregants in their 80s and church officers, will not be back. In fact it has done good by bringing many back to Bible based churches and away from the rotten Marxist c of e. It appears that while I have conversed with many of those leaving the C of E, the Archbishops couldn't be bothered.

The IT failures extend to York. I recently made a formal misconduct complaint to the Archbishop of York about the Archbishop of Canterbury and his serious and deliberate harm to an abuse victim to protect the church's image, and the IT glitch kicked in again as I appear to be blocked. But he received the complaint, and having already been in trouble for failure to process complaints, he is now compromised again as he hasn't responded.

Someone else commented last night about being blocked by the archbishop of York for making a safeguarding complaint. You must get the IT systems sorted out.

The complaint was made to York after Jonathan Gibbs and the other 'safeguarding' Bishops tried to ignore it because it involves Justin Welby and senior bishops endangering lives to cover up abuse. As untouchable as a certain prince. one life remains in danger as a result, an emergency but the c of e can't face it. Their sluggish reaction indicates complicity or serious lack of understanding of safeguarding.

And today we have another IT glitch, the church's private business splattered into the press to distress all the victims unjustly denied justice, a voice and compensation.

This time the IT glitch is that it is a repeat of the February synod slurry spreading in the press, the routine distressing of victims over pretences of safeguarding and care for victims spewed into the press to advertise the church and falsify care. That repeat sendout of out of date material should have been fixed when Mr Welby did the repeat of the wonga stunt .

It remains that the church have and continue to, silence victims and their advocates such as myself and make us out to be insane, and continue to be cruel and barbaric while using safeguarding as a falsehood in the press. 

The repeat, more desperate this time, of the February falsehoods, and making the Archbishops council prominent, is to do with the upcoming IICSA report, the powerful corrupt church's fear, and the fact that the Archbishops council are under formal complaints from victims, including complaints to the Charity commission. They were told what to vote, for the press release.

The behavior of the Archbishops council to abuse victims has been barbaric and sadistic. They hate anyone who rocks the boat, rocks their illusion that their untouchable power and money position is Christianity.

Who will be monitoring the administration of compensation and 'care' and what about the victims who have been labelled insane by the Archbishops for being persistent in asking for justice? Will they remain outcast and suffering.

Victims shouldn't have to turn vigilante. That is the real statement of the c of e safeguarding situation, and making such desperation into insanity is an even louder statement.

What about the victim who Welby was congratulated by Lord Faulks and Lady Butler Sloss for spending a million or so on silencing and destroying to protect the powerful men who finance the church? I am sure that the excuses will continue and the imaginary budget will never reach victims but the spiel will be repeated for as many synods as the press will repeat it. Victims will also be traumatized by the massive slurry splattering in response to the IICSA report.

The press release due is the resignation of both Archbishops with a message of true sorrow, not the usual fake apology. And a promise of change.

The press reprinted the regurgitation of February's pretence. The victims denied justice have been subjected to another traumatic slurry splattering synod of lies in the press. And Justin Welby's overdue resignation, expected at every synod for his lawless and alarming unstable behavior, still has not been issued.

For the sake of the victims. Please make sure that your IT systems are fixed and we don't see the press full of out of date unquestioned lies. Justin Welby's actions in fake safeguarding have nearly killed people, he is without remorse, his guilty council the same, and how can a church operate safely under a man and council like that? 

The only thing sustaining them is the thin illusion that keeps a majority of the elderly communicants in their thrall but the general public are increasingly unhappy.

The media may drink in the church's repetitive lies, but they are an insult to the victims. An insult that the church are constantly reminded by victims is inappropriate and serves only the church. So, please fix your faulty systems.

Regards,

John Carter

Synod

Today the C of E starts another synod.
Synod is the word for meeting of pretences.
Or pretenders.

The Bishop of Buckingham's Chaplain did an article in a very minor media, a whisper so her church wouldn't hear, about how the synod fakes responses to questions.
What never ceases to amaze me is how people who know what the anglican church is, remain in it. The excuses usually include reaching out to people, being a light in the dark or setting an example, changing the church from within - not working - but anyone who chooses to knowingly remain is upholding the abusive church, part of it, part of victims being called mad, part of complainants being blocked.

No offence to the chaplain but she threatened to stand down from the synod, but not the church, so removing her part in holding the church to account but not her participation in the corrupt organization. 

https://viamedia.news/2020/09/18/secrecy-and-an-unaccountable-church-of-england/

She also fawns over the lying Justin Welby, believing his lies about caring about victims. Welby is personally responsible for harm to victims. People within the church of England are blind. They have to be, it is a subscriber club for the middle class, to assuage their consciences and make them feel that they will live self indulgently for eternity, what does a little abuse and corruption and deceit matter in the grand scheme of things?

As ever I don't have time to blog, but just to pre-empt the slurry that the church of England unload into the press on synod week, forcing themselves on the general public with smarm, lies and their own personal businesses irrelevant to the public - what a load of bollocks! 

The Archbishops of York are traditionally known for refusing to accept or act upon abuse complaints, the previous archbishop of York retired without being held to account.
The new archbishop of York started his career by using his misconduct as a PR boast, almost a set script in the C of E. He has tried to block my complaint, following the tradition of his predecessor who allowed abuse to continue and refused to remove a rapist from a clergy position etc. He still has to address my complaint as he received it. They are real shites, the way they behave.

No other organization could behave as the c of e do. And in a few weeks they will inflict the shitfest of a lifetime on the public when the iicsa report is released, lies about sorrow and care, lessons learned. A while barrage of lawyer and PR firm led slurry, then business as usual. Lone voices like the Bishop's chaplain will never change things. Especially if they whisper on obscure media.

I predict that the iicsa report will lead to the conflicted Stockholm syndrome group of victims being invited to some sort of panel to fake inclusion in safeguarding decisions. As they have harmed victims such as HG, and are exclusive and entrenched in the church, and their involvement will be token, it will be a PR solution only.

A safeguarding letter to the Daily Telegraph

Dear Daily Telegraph,

I am writing regarding the safeguarding matter of your publication of Justin Welby's every whim and fancy. I am sure that you are aware that Mr Welby is under investigation for harm to abuse survivors. Although the headlines on that were muted, unlike many by the c of e where they use abuse and misconduct as a bizarre boast.

An individual or body under investigation should not have the privilege of press limelight it is a safeguarding failure as it distresses victims. Sadly Welby's recent blaring is considered to be a warm up act before weeks of this slurry because of the synod and then the release of the conflicted redacted compromised iicsa report. The iicsa have failed to rein in the church's incessant irrelevant splattering in the paper despite the distress to victims.

And the thing is Welby didn't even have anything relevant to say, his whole compromised career as archbishop, he has tried to use public feeling in order to gain glory, he looks where people are heading and tries to rush to lead them while they turn away in disgust, popular opinion is that he's a charlatan and a hypocrite, as you will have seen on the comments  - it is too late for him to change his image and curry favour ahead of the iicsa, which is all his stunt was about.

Over the summer, whoever at the Telegraph is bankrolled by Welby or his powerful sponsors was obviously away. We had some refreshing truths about the centralized monster power hungry church. The failed CDM and the suffering of victims, the faked new CDM which is no better - was that the Telegraph? The c of e policy is that when they are shown up, they pretend to change, waste a lot of money and time and return to business as usual.

Simon Butler's representation of the archbishops council in his out of touch rant in the Telegraph spoke volumes. That is the c of e, not fake care for a public that they are too far above to know.

As Welby rants, his extreme irony is lost on him, he and his cloned daughter, the Bishop of London trying to tell the government to decentralize when he has spent 7 years turning the church into a centralised unchallenged unregulated monster of power while parish churches die is hysterical. He really is without insight and seems awash in his own imagined importance. 

During the recent crisis the c of e have provided nothing for their flock and Welby banned priests from entering their own churches. The c of e became purely centralized, with Welby having to advertise his vanity show from his kitchen in advance to get the voyeurs' viewings. Every time we wonder how much lower he can go, he surprises us.

The c of e response to the pandemic was closure of churches, boasts about closure of churches, hiding their wealth in the Tower rather than helping those hit by crisis, Welby's pitiful kitchen stunt, etc. The Telegraph briefly seemed to turn over a new leaf by exposing some of the idiocy of the church and by enabling thousands of people to comment about it. But now whoever the church pays for telegraph publicity is back from holiday and we have the paradoxical hypocritical Welby saying 'don't do as I do, do as I say' , and however bad the situation is, a man guilty of what Welby is guilty of, is in no position to lay down the law.

The Bishop of London was elected as a virtue signaller, a sickly sweet false advert in a patriarchal church who would have been forced to have female bishops by the government if they had failed to agree. Her communications team, paid for by innocent communicants is a professional disaster management team on call 24 hours a day, indicating that something has gone seriously wrong. What would Jesus think? 

The Bishop of London is complicit in one of the biggest cover-ups in the c of e and at the expense of a vulnerable life, one that her pseudo dad, Welby is responsible for, she keeps up a constant show of how the church conflict the police, judiciary, the NHS and more, to assure church victims that they have nowhere to turn for safety. 

It appears as the church declines that she will be the next archbishop, she's so similar to Welby in crawling, lack of conscience, virtue signalling and making the church about show and interference while killing all signs of Christianity. 

Welby's sponsors will love her and have presumably groomed her for archbishop, but neither of them, nor their sect, are relevant to the general public any more. It is a bit like the prime minister claiming to be medically trained. 

Only the senior clergy have knowingly harmed the vulnerable while preaching at the government the general public and their rapidly departing flock. They really can't see themselves, can they?

Back to safeguarding, as this is is a safeguarding complaint. On the grounds of this complaint, can the synods bowel movements not be reported on, as it is all fakery, not news and distressing to victims and an annoyance to the general public. Further to that, the release of the iicsa report will enduce huge slurry spatterings of lies and fake sorrow, repentance and 'lessons learned' even though the church have been asked to stop using that falsehood tired term. Lessons haven't been learned, ever, that is why the telegraph is still producing slurry from Welby when his resignation is 7 years overdue and his is guilty of abuses.

Lessons don't need to be learned while that corporation hides behind powerful lawyers and disaster management firms paid for from the money of innocent communicants, what would Jesus think?

In 2013 the Telegraph published one of Welby's first glory stunts, a fake apology to a victim alonside a whitewash report that covered up for wrongdoers at the expense of the  victim, the start of the false safeguarding game where Welby and Paul Butler tried to use church abuse as a kind of grotesque advert for the church, full of pride and arrogance and without understanding of the impact on victims.

The lengths to the mishandling of this case by Welby, Butler and others goes to extremes, because they have had the victim forcibly silenced to avoid justice for what amounts to criminal misconduct on their part. 

The telegraph published the whitewash and false apology as a press release for Welby but refused to respond to the victim as their publication destroyed her life. Paul Butler's press input on the whole matter was to claim to be 'praying for everyone involved' a lame and useless summary of his safeguarding training and experience, showing his unsuitability as he allowed the press and defendants to rip the vulnerable adult victim to shreds for years on end after the Telegraph article. The church provided no safety or representation for the victim.

Welby, Butler and all involved , ignored all correspondence from the victim as she screamed for help, they left her unprotected to basically be killed by their manufactured hatred against her and carried out further openly conflicted and malicious reports to protect all wrongdoers in the case, excluding and ignoring the victim's pleas for this to stop. Her story was excluded. They had relied on the victim, homeless because of their previous destruction of her, and very vulnerable, to have no voice or representation while they had plenty of biased and well paid representation, including Sarah Mullally's disaster management firm who they use whenever they go too far in their dangerous behavior.

It was a pure and open whitewash and no one, no authority, from the house of lords to the police will or would challenge the church of England, even when begged by the victim, indeed these bodies aid and abet such matters on behalf of the church routinely, even the two church abuse charities in England are run by the c of e for their protection and acted for them. 

A former police officer defended the victim against press led hatred and lies for three years until the stress of one onslaught caused his collapse. The victim was left to continue to be destroyed by the merciless church and press. Imagine, the church didn't envisage anyone defending the victim, she should have been disposed of more easily and less expensively.

Welby ended the investigation by apologizing publicly to the defendant just as he had to the victim at the beginning, no warning to the victim, not a murmur from the press on this and the other unexplained paradoxes similar to this throughout, because no one has investigated, the press aided Welby in this 'final' destruction aimed at causing the suicide of the victim. At the same time, the Bishop of Winchester tried to hide the injunction that the Victim had taken against him by discrediting the victim. 

The national safeguarding team and archbishops council were fully involved and the national safeguarding team actively tried to silence the victim while failing to act on the safeguarding failure, they even paid a psychologist to 'advise' them and thus anyone who contacted them about the travesty, to 'ignore' the victim. What a serious and illegal abuse, both the psychologist and the safeguarding team have yet to be arrested.

As the victim continued to ask for justice, the embarrassed church had her violently brutalized and imprisoned for 'harassment' despite what they did to her, leaving her homeless and seriously injured. As she remains, this victim who you published Welby's fake apology to.

Welby and Peter Hancock, the next fake safeguarding lead, made a big show in the press about employing the lead defendant under them despite his actions making him a safeguarding risk, the thing is, he never turned up, after a proud and showy resignation from his post. But the press never investigate these things. Hancock basically turned safeguarding into a joke with his part in the whitewash. 

Lord Faulkner, one of the church's unregulated cover up team recently highlighted his and others abuse of power in this case by a tirade in the press and lords in favour of the defendant, he praised the archbishop for his horrendous action in apologizing to the defendant, and still nothing is done. The leader of the Lords is afraid to act despite receiving multiple complaints as the church and their stooges ate dangerously unregulated.

The Bishop of London was contacted about this case in 2017 and actively refused to take action. She has had no credibility since then but like Welby, she goes on and on...and on and on. Is she also bankrolled by the oligarchy and their chosen figurehead when Welby can no longer be sustained in his madness?

The Telegraph investigation team have been asked but don't dare to challenge the oligarchy who are paying for Welby to destroy the church and interfere in Brexit, general elections etc, even though it is such very open corruption and they certainly don't want to investigate the Telegraph. But if the Telegraph want to persist in covering Welby's displays at the expense of victims they need to balance it with investigation into this.

The new safeguarding leads have received my complaint but like Paul Butler, they took their positions for acclaim and not with the intention of safeguarding. Like Butler and most in the c of e, safeguarding is another word for cover up and get paid for it, win-win. 

They have been unable to respond to the complaint at all, at one point one of them tried to refer me to an advisor connected with the archbishops council despite the fact that I am one of the official complaints against the archbishops council. And that is the c of e.

One of the safeguarding leads is a subordinate of the Bishop involved in the case mentioned above as well as being the third safeguarding bishop connected to that  diocese and case, and no improvement in diocese safeguarding has been made in decades, several safeguarding officials in a row in that diocese were involved in destroying the victim above through lies to the police to cause her wrongful violent arrest.

Jonathan Gibb, the main safeguarding lead is failing miserably because he treats safeguarding as Paul Butler did, as a game to play to the press. He is failing to address Welby's compromised position and the case mentioned. The situation is so dire that two clergy who attacked the victim in the case above in the media are involved with other victims bringing the case against the archbishops council.

Could the Telegraph please stop aiding abuse and publishing these compromised senior clergy?  They are unelected and their opinion is not news. They are failed ministers of religion and their sponsors use them in their unregulated positions to interfere in whatever they have an interest in, meanwhile the actual  church has collapsed, causing huge hurt to the elderly congregation. 

A solution would be for the oligarchy to separate the archbishop and his senior clergy and council from the church as a kind of political party without an interest in human wellbeing and let annual moderators be selected by the people to run the church. The Pharisees tried to make Church about politics and Jesus said it wasn't what He required. The archbishop has set himself up against Jesus and Christians as thousands of abandoned flock mention when the church abuses the press.

The church of England as a cult of less than 800,000 isn't really camouflage for the wickedness and corruption of its leaders any more. Other cults with dying congregation and closed buildings aren't allowed to preen in the spotlight so these rich spoilt guilty old nuisances shouldn't either.

Finally, Welby has pulled some nauseating stunts in his time, his ego must have a house of its own, but one of his worst was his safeguarding failure of the vanity shot where he faked helping on coronavirus wards in order to gain glory for himself, he breached lockdown while refusing to let his clergy offer spiritual support to congregation, he conveniently forgot his previous claim of pneumonia for his ghoulish act, the nhs failed to act on it and on his history of safeguarding failure, pneumonia and mental illness, and then his personal assistant nearly died of coronavirus and refuses to return to work. 

Further information on the matter is available on my blog johniancarter.blogspot.com 

Also see 'Surviving Church' written by a retired clergyman.

Now the process for silencing the victims is to make them out to be insane, I await the same treatment, from an archbishop who has tried to glorify himself over mental health and curry pity for himself by announcing his illness  at the same time as he and his council have branded victims as insane.

Report on some of this, Telegraph. And you and the church need to start reading and keeping in mind the comments from your readers on the church's vanity displays. We don't need a month of slurry splattering from the failed and dying church.f

regards,

John Carter

Daily Telegraph Letter

Dear Daily Telegraph,

If I receive anything from you in my inbox that announces Justin Welby virtue signalling and currying favour from the general public again, I will cancel my subscription.

Welby's resignation has been expected year after year, but like Boris Johnson, he will go on and on, feeling no responsibility for the harm he has done. Unlike Boris, when Welby lapses his bipolar medication, his rants and shrieks fill the press, even though nothing he says is news. Boris remains constant while the Welby circus show is obvious attention seeking or mental health lapses.

We already have a double bill of slurry splattering lined up, quite a big one, from Welby and friends, with their synod and the carefully censored and repeatedly compromised iicsa report coming up.

Welby usually shrieks when he wants to hide the church's misdemeanors. Presumably the failure to act on Ian Elliott's safeguarding report? Anyone who publishes the disgraced but refusing to leave archbishop is aiding him in his bad behavior, he should be long gone but he has no conscience.

Bishop Jonathan Gibbs and the Bishops of Bristol and Southampton have failed absolutely in safeguarding, their response to my complaint or lack of it has been appalling, their failure to curb Welby while he's under investigation for his failure and thus distressing his victims by his press slurry is inexcusable.

Why should I or anyone be distressed by this leech greedily suckling the general public when the nation is in distress? Please report on his misconduct or don't report. The Telegraph have received complaints already and should act accordingly.

I am sure that you are aware that your articles on Welby and his dying church elicit thousands of angry comments but the state church are in a state where they go on behaving like this despite public anger. So do the telegraph. The charlatan archbishop couldn't care less about the people, he used the crisis as attention seeking and provided nothing for the flock. His sudden reawakening, run out of medication? Or just because of the upcoming iicsa report? 

In 2013 the Telegraph aided Welby in flinging the case of a vulnerable adult into the press as a glory stunt for Welby; the result was that the vulnerable adult was traced, beaten, raped, left homeless and attacked repeatedly, unprotected by the church's conflicted authorities, and publicly destroyed by the Lords, Lawyers, Judges and other powerful people on the defendants team. Neither the Telegraph nor Welby have apologized, indeed, Welby gave the order to the corrupt police for the victim to be beaten and imprisoned in 2018 when she persisted in speaking up instead of dying condemned and branded as appeared to be the plan. No one could survive such hatred. The victim is homeless and seriously injured.

Jonathan Gibbs, the new PR Bishop who makes the pretences on safeguarding like Paul Butler did, using the press to make atrocities into adverts for the church, as seen in the Oxford case, has received the complaint from me and has tried to refer it to a conflicted member of the archbishops council. 

I am among the complainants against the archbishops council whose treatment of abuse victims is sadistic and archaic, they played a major part in the matter mentioned above. Gibbs has committed a serious misconduct in referring a complainant to the people complained about, and obviously the complaint now has to be escalated and referred back. While such things continue, there should be no headlines from the archbishop; an honourable man would be silent while he's under the formal complaints regarding harm to abuse victims.

 The church of England do not need a month of sickly PR run starting today, they need to wind their necks in after the Oxford farce showed them up and wasted money needed for their struggling parishes and clergy. 

Welby and his council do not care about their clergy and the general population, when they pretend to, they are in danger of drawing innocent people into the church if the pretences are believed and if any churches are open, and those people will suffer the bullying and abuse that the church is increasingly known for.

The C of E won't even safeguard their own people, and they have a policy to treat the vulnerable detrimentally and as a liability for their insurers, so Welby, having the brass neck to remain, with his history in Africa, the Smyth case, the Jersey and Winchester case, and more, should keep his loud and aimless mouth firmly closed, his massive ego and desperation for attention can be met in other ways than abusing the general public's feelings when he thinks it will gain him favour. 

Welby is obviously not well, he wouldn't stay in his position if he had a clear mind and normal conscience.  He could gain acclaim by going on one of those fake shows where people are made to eat bugs, those faux celebrities gain the fame he craves. And his sickening pretences wouldn't be a nuisance any more.

Finally let me remind you of my letter during Welby's last episode of mental loss of control.

https://johniancarter.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-letter-to-archbishop-of-canterbury-on.html?m=1

regards,

Mr John Carter

Suffragettes

We watched  Suffragette tonight, a moving film that depicts a young woman unwittingly getting caught up in the movement and losing her husband and son, being imprisoned, being left homeless, losing her job, when she decided as a result of wrongly labelled as a suffragette, that she would become one. She ended up sleeping rough in an old church.

The police brutality, the way those women were ostracized, it hits hard. And why? So that men could keep their pride and be autocratic? In a way it is hard to imagine a world where women were oppressed like that, and yet in some countries it still happens and even in this day and age, sexism and sexual harassment is still around in every level of work and society.

The way the Church of England behaves is reminder of those bad old days. Although they have 'allowed' women into senior positions otherwise they would have been forced to by the government, they are still a cold patriarchal bunch, and the way they treat abuse victims is sadly reminiscent of those bad old days when the suffragettes had to face violence and imprisonment and even death in order to be heard.

I know I spoke up about a group of abuse victims who tend to inflict the Church's legislation and endless waffle on everyone and I got to a point where I just didn't want that, a group that has become like a splinter of the C of E, and who have two of the church's best known perverts among them, but I believe that they, and I, and all others, should receive proper treatment and care from the C of E, that the Anglican Church should stop virtue signalling and judging others and deal with their internal dirt.

Many think that 'mandatory reporting' will make a difference, it won't. It will drive abuse further undercover, it will do NOTHING about the way the victims are treated, and without the Anglican Church being regulated from the outside, it will make no difference, but the frenzy-whippers have for some reason tried to make it into a solution for everything. I think they are missing the point.

I never wanted to be involved in speaking out. I live with severe pain and my life is too full, but seeing victims being made into a gang, with solutions such as 'mandatory reporting' being made their goal, is hard. Seeing thousands of people angry with the oblivious church, and seeing the harsh and painful accounts of people who have suffered for making CDM complaints, or people who have had to quit the clergy or church after decades and had the door slammed behind them. Hearing victims of abuse suffering. It's hard not to butt in.

Recently I read Giles Fraser's well-written article about the decline of the Parish Church, and the astoundingly out of touch and unchristian response by Simon Butler, a chilling reminder that the C of E are run by a kind of warlord setup that has nothing to do with Christianity or God.
I was surprised how much attention my letter to Simon Butler received, except from Butler himself, I still eagerly await his reply.

The Suffragettes are an extreme of standing up to injustice and being voiceless, but here and now, in this day and age, many victims of abuses are still fighting a harsh and damaging battle for justice and being changed for life by the harm that comes of the fight.

The news is that the Bishop of Oxford has 'admitted' some of his safeguarding mistakes. Some, and he's still there, no resignation. The victims have to go on fighting like Suffragettes while the C of E remains draconian with no sign of 'root and branch change'.

Jane Dodds

I write this from a neutral perspective with regards politics. I don't support the Conservatives, I am deeply shocked as many are, over their behaviour. I am also not a supporter of Labour. I vote for neither. I don't vote for the Liberal Democrats and I don't want to keep seeing one of their badly-behaved members in the news when she hasn't been made accountable for her behavior. I am not anti-lib dems because of my views either, I dislike extreme conservative views that are prejudiced against race, ethics, poverty and social minorities. I am anti Lib Dem because of their protection and promotion of abusers and facilitators of abusers.

The Liberal Democrats, as we know, are in a pitiful and painful state. They had a once in a lifetime shot at power some time back, and performed poorly, as they are not designed for power, their scenario is a kind of utopia that simply doesn't and can't exist in normal life. In the recent election they flopped badly and lost yet another leader, which came as a surprise because had she done things differently, in such a crucial election, Jo Swinson could have made the party stronger.

The Liberal Democrats has a history of high profile paedophiles and peadophile protectors, although the other political parties are far from innocent. But the Liberal Democrats won't address abuse and complaints and refuse to act, in their utopia of 'greener and fairer' realities of abuse and its effects seem to be lost. As a certain victim who we know well found out.
Dodd's self-righteous attacks on the UK government, considering what she has done and her election as leader of the decimated Welsh Lib Dems are a sign that the Lib Dems are reaching rock bottom. A) because they are aware of her dismal political record, an opportunistic election because of an MP being removed due to fraud, Dodds was MP for all of a few months, and b) because she has unresolved safeguarding complaints against her that involve her taking part in harm to an abuse victim in order to cover up abuse. Dodds sounds like the guilty Justin Welby in her attention-seeking by judging others, cut from the same cloth.

The world is largely silent about Dodds because politically the Lib Dems could be a florists business as far as most people are concerned. A nuisance florists shop at times. Dodds could be a florist. But, it seems that the Lib Dems have a very significant safeguarding problem, in that they specialize in serious prolific abusers and those who protect them, such people, in the Lib Dems are invariably exalted and promoted, as Dodds proves. How is the lib dems, a haven for corruption and abuse, 'fairer' than other parties?

Paedophiles, abusers and those who cover up abuse include:

• Cyril Smith - not cleared although there are still newspapers who do not know the difference between not convicted and not cleared. 
• Lord Steel, who failed to investigate Cyril Smith properly.
• Mark Oaten
• Frank Beck
• Lord Carlile
• Jane Dodds
• Francis Butler
• Justin Tillman
• John Astley
• Maurice Burgess
• Michael Angell
• Morris Lightfoot
• Neil Derbyshire
• John Pilkington
• Bob Hargreaves

I have observed the lenient sentences that the convicted of offences get, the opposite of the 'fairer' world that the Lib Dems and Dodds claim to strive for. And the list is just a few, several new convictions of councillors have been made recently. 

My understanding Of Dodds is that she wouldn't have any place in politics if she was an English woman in England, her 'Welsh' background makes her slightly less than totally insignificant in Wales. Previous to Dodds being Monmouthshire's perpetual and never elected candidate, Lord Carlile was the Liberal Democrat MP for Monmouthshire, he is also a very unpleasant and misogynistic man who openly personally insulted his wife when he left her for his mistress, and appears to have no shame. I have never heard the Liberal Democrats condemn him either for this or his other behaviours. He behaves appallingly and increases the bad reputation of the party and yet he interferes in abuse cases.

Carlile is widely considered to be a paedophile sympathizer, and shared offices with some of the highest profile prolific paedophiles in Westminster, he has been the unsuitable lead in abuse cases, whitewashing and denying abuse in cases where abuse was later proven to have occurred. He could almost be seen as a personal whitewasher not just for the Liberal Democrats, but interestingly enough, for the Church of England, who have a core gang of Lords and QCs who are too powerful to be questioned or investigated and routinely carry out investigations which protect the C of E. Consider how serious that balance of power is in relation to vulnerable abuse victims. 

So Dodds tried to step into Carlile's shoes in Monmouthshire, and failed abjectly, and interestingly enough, also followed him into the Church of England's cover-up team. There is no doubt, especially looking at the bizarre 'Lib Dem' style of the C of E at the moment, both in virtue signalling and in protection of abusers, safeguarding failure, lack of accountability and lack of response to concerns, that the C of E and Liberal Democrats are intermeshed. One body that actively supports abusers working with another both refusing to change as both die from their corruption and abuse. 

The liberal democrats have some phrase about 'Greener and Fairer'. Cast greener aside while the UK is in severe crisis because life matters more than compost, and the 'Fairer' simply doesn't belong to a party that is active in abuse and cover-up and refusal of responsibility. Dodd's flailing tantrums about the government are astounding considering that she is a firmly not elected politician who briefly gained a seat by being devious, opportunistic and without the slightest regard for her Monmouthshire constituents, power before people. Dodds firmly lost the seat and if poor old Brecon is lucky, will never regain it, they already have enough problems, they need an MP, not someone with a worthless dream and hypocrisy who is a safeguarding risk.

Some years back, Dodds, while claiming to be 'working hard for a greener and fairer Monmouthshire' was travelling to London to manage the Church of England's safeguarding cases, obviously a full time salaried position if each Diocese receives hundreds of complaints per month. During this time, C of E victims saw no improvement in the cold and nasty way the Church of England treated them, and not a single Bishop or Senior Clergyman or member of Laity involved in cover-ups or abuse was removed. While Dodds was in office, and some said she was claiming to be a 'volunteer' for the Church although their safeguarding case manager, which was her position, is a full time paid position. 

No improvement was made to safeguarding on Dodds' watch. In fact during that time it is written on several victims' blogs that Dodds and team put the phone down on them, refused to engage, failed to answer letters, messages and calls, and obstructed their quest for justice and a voice in a nasty way, a number of victims have been made out to be insane.

Now all of this is generic Church of England behaviour towards victims, always has been, and despite another wave of falsehoods about changed leads and changed safeguarding, that remains the case, notably including the fact that Dodds has not been disciplined or regulated for her behaviour. Dodds was willing to defame the victim and uphold lies about her and allow powerful people to crush the victim. Those aren't qualities or behaviours fitting for an MP.

We know the victim of the high profile case where Dodds and her colleagues in the Church of England tried to silence her and significantly failed to act in one of the biggest cover-ups in the Church of England. Dodds, if she had a conscience, would not be standing in any public position after the damage she has done, not just in the cover-up, where she personally allowed a vulnerable adult to be seriously harmed, but also in making sure that the victims continued complaints to Dodds and about her to Welsh Lib Dems, UK Lib Dems, Welsh Safeguarding, Welsh Government and more, were not processed. 

The C of E method is to make a distressed victim who goes on demanding justice out to be insane, and Dodds, taking part in that and not taking responsibility for herself, makes her integrity nil, her flailing in the press inappropriate and in poor taste, and her continued involvement and promotion in the Lib Dems into a farce. Dodds abusing the press for her needs is reminiscent of the same behaviour by her friends and colleagues in the Church of England, the constant virtue signalling and attempts at judgement from clergy who have been involved in such rotten, corrupt and abusive behaviour.

The matter of cover-up was where Dodds allowed a vulnerable adult to be destroyed publicly for the sake of the Church's image, and falsehood reports akin to those of Lord Carlile's were carried out by similar conflicted and power abusing dignitaries. Dodds allowed the reports to be acted upon as if they were genuine, despite the autistic victim fighting for her life and taking out an injunction. Dodds allowed dangerous acts by the senior clergy involved to nearly kill the victim, she failed completely to stop harm to the victim and astonishingly tried to tell the victim that 'no one meant to hurt her' and 'the church could learn from her' and other such insults added to serious injury that nearly killed the victim of two serial abusers and the closed and abusive ranks of the Church of England. 

Dodds then left the position which she had held for a matter of months, without any warning to victims, and walked away to continue her pseudo-career in politics, knowing that she had walked away from an abuse victim still being destroyed by the Church of England. Dodds had not made Monmouthshire aware of her bizarre stint in the C of E. The victim lost their home and their whole life, and remains homeless as Dodds adds to their anguish by her feeble and flailing 'political career', having not been made responsible by the Liberal Democrats for the harm that she took part in to the victim and other victims in less high profile case. 

So if being complicit in abuse is why Dodds and others progress in the Liberal Democrats, we can be assured that the party will continue to attract abusers and those like Dodds, Carlile, Steel, who protect abusers and harm victims.

The C of E have a very high turnover of safeguarding staff because safeguarding in the Church of England is not possible and those people find themselves compromised if they have any integrity, but Dodd's intervention for a matter of months in order to insult and distress the victim of the biggest whitewash in the history of the C of E was exceptional. 

Very shortly after Dodds left, presumably chosen by her, Lord Carlile carried out another unprofessional and inappropriate 'safeguarding investigation' which had a lasting impact, and more recently he has continued to intervene as one of the core Lord and QCs who protect the church at the expense of victims.

Dodds continued to be a surplus in Monmouthshire until she deviously decided to simply abandon her post when the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire was forced out due to dishonesty and there was little time to arrange a strong replacement so Dodds took advantage of that, and despite safeguarding complaints against her to the Lib Dems and Welsh Safeguarding Board, she was allowed to abuse the election to be elected, for a matter of months until a proper replacement for the former MP was found for the general election. 

Dodds being one of the shortest serving MPs ever, was now back to being a 'candidate' in Brecon and Radnorshire, not welcome back to Monmouthshire in full. Her flailings and tantrums, considering her failed career, have been ridiculous and a distress to her victims. She is then, on the strength of her failed political career, elected to lead the Welsh Lib Dems, indicating that the Lib Dems have crashed hard and are unlikely to rise again even in the horrifying position that the UK is in. The lib dems need leaders, not apologists. 

It would help all victims of the Church of England and the Liberal Democrats if Dodds would wind her neck in and not try to act as if she was in a position to publicly judge politicians. Her election as head of the Welsh Lib Dems is an indication that the Welsh Lib Dems are on their last legs, as well as an indication that Dodds is typical of both the C of E and Lib Dems, without conscience and without regulation, willing and able to go on harming the vulnerable. Her victim from the major cover-up, remains homeless and seriously injured, suffering life-changing harm because of Dodds. Dodds is aware of that and aware that her fake political career and flailing tantrums in the press harms her victim and all other victims of C of E and Lib Dem safeguarding failures. All who were made aware and instead of acting, allowed the victim to be portrayed as insane, are responsible for Dodds and any further harm that she does. 

Dodds flailing in the press is very unwelcome indeed. It is an insult to C of E victims, she is a failed politician and a dishonest one, she makes the lib dems ridiculous, she is an indication of the death of the Lib Dems and their failure to safeguard. So for pity's sake, don't let her tantrums and false triumphs be inflicted on the general public, and make sure the safeguarding complaint is dealt with. 

Dodds' behaviour in the whitewash nearly killed someone, and if it had, she would still be without conscience and flailing as she is. The lib dems, like their friends in the C of E, have fallen beyond redemption.