Showing posts with label Dean of Jersey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dean of Jersey. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 July 2021

A letter to a hate cleric

Dear Mr Ashenden,

I'm puzzled over your attack on the Bishop of Winchester. Is it revenge for him sacking you from Jersey? And are your constant barrages against the Anglican Church the same thing? A Christian, a man of God, would have humility and honour rather than behaving like you are doing, because Jesus commanded we didn't judge. So surely the many hours you spend as jealous little brother to the Anglican church could be spent on your ministry and repairing your own reputation and the damage you're doing to our church? 

The Queen asked you to resign your 'Chaplain to the Queen' volunteering role in her Chapel, which was basically unconnected to her, as that title was published with your every public attack on vulnerable people and groups, for example Muslim people, LGBTQ+ groups, the disabled etc. Her Majesty was embarrassed and asked you to resign rather than be dismissed, to save her further embarrassment and yet your former title is still used when you rant. Her Majesty still suffers you because you were a volunteer in her Chapel once. 

On the subject of the Queen, she's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I understand that you've publicly said that female priests are 'just playing dress-up' basically a testimony to your misogyny, and yet, two of the closest and most important figures in the human life, two of His Ministers and witnesses , Mary and Martha, were female, and Jesus said we are all one in Him. You changed suddenly when your first wife left you, is your misogyny caused by that. The Queen is supreme governor of the Church of England, the High Priest, did you accuse her of playing dress-up and being fake?

You joined the Catholic Church purely out of mysoginy and chauvinism, dark ages ignorance and prejudice and not the Love of Christ. You do a disservice to us by representing us this way and you should have been on probation for a number of years before being allowed to join us, to ensure you were genuine and repentant, and you have been neither. 

I am sure you're aware of the damage the reawakening of the story of your abuse of power in the Channel Islands is doing to the families and friends of the dead victims, Bob Hill and HG. You contributed to their deaths by abusing your power and position in Jersey to attack HG publicly and with lies about her and her case. 
You showed your ignorance of Jesus' Lesson 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and your tirade against all vulnerable groups and the Bishop of Winchester repeat that ignorance. 

In Jersey you abused your clergy, law, public speaking roles to mislead the general public and to liaise with conflicted investigator Heather Steel in what was basically an outright murder bid, to drive the victim to death. Dakin, who enabled that whole farce, did the same as the Queen and asked you to go. More because you embarrassed him than that you took part in attempted murder by public destruction of a vulnerable adult. 

You appear to see yourself as a cult icon, drawing in others who see your form of faith as a way to forget their own sin by judgement of others and select passages of the Bible as weapons while missing the point of the Gospel message. 

Maybe Tim Dakin, with a convenient extra 9 weeks' holiday designed to bring him back as 'education Bishop' - sic, in the autumn, could write a biography of your career? Here's a precis. You're a divorcee, is Dakin? You're on your second marriage, what does the Catholic Church state through you? You left your career in law for  some reason. Why? Asked to leave? You were chaplain at the University until an incident, and your wife left you and you subsequently went from being a good chaplain to being a hater of anyone who you saw as less than you, women the disabled, members of other faiths etc. When you stand before God, you will have to explain that. He will ask who set you up against these people? Jesus taught against all that you do, Whose Name do you act for and why have you created a discipleship of ignorance and Hate? 

You turned up in Jersey, abusing your position and harassing an abuse victim who you'd never met and publishing slander and lies, at the same time, you would go to Coutances and harass the disabled vicar there, undermining him. How do you stand before God? Until you account for these evils you cannot officiate. 

Effectively Sacked from Jersey and your Queens chaplain position you were then banned from twitter for your hateful behaviour but like most trolls, you soon got a new account. 

You made the world laugh when you were made Bishop of a teeny cult, leaving you lording it over a fraction of the congregation than an Anglican parish has. As one disgruntled Anglican in Jersey put it, you had less people to shepherd than an Anglican curate. 

That didn't last long and to the horror of genuine Catholic people, you waltzed in, presumably your pseudo celebrity status opened doors, and you continue your terrible behaviour. The Catholic Church don't tend to dismiss abusive priests and their safeguarding record is appalling, is that what drew you to the Catholic Church after your career? Or the tradition of male priests made you feel safe in your inadequacy? What if all the women keeping incessant the Catholic Church running decided to leave because of men like you? 
You should have been under a long probation before being allowed to join our church, because of your record. As it is, your continued behaviour undermines our Church. 

I understand that you are jealous of the Bishop of Winchester and Anglican Bishops because you were never promoted, but you should have the wisdom and humility to know that they weren't promoted as better people, and the incessant nonsense press releases aren't actually Anglican condonement of the vulnerable, it is a mixture of misguided attempts to be in step with the general public and the government forcing the church to conform to modern standards. 

The Anglican church hates vulnerable groups as much as you do but aren't allowed to express it freely as you do because they are already repulsive enough to the general public and unjustly linked to the government.Jesus' teachings focus around conduct, and he made it very clear that we weren't to judge others, He's the judge, not you. Leave the Anglicans with their self-destruction and the Christians will continue to desert them for gospel preaching churches, your input isn't needed, spend that time with The Lord and repent. 

What others do or how they live isn't your business for you to publicly attack nor does the Bible condone spite against them, if you disapprove of others, do so in silence and humility, remembering your own sins. Each person makes their own decisions and you will never control them, you make yourself unhappy by trying. 
Your work while you are in ministry - albeit seriously compromised ministry, is to minister to the congregation and represent The Lord. So why dont you repent and do that? 

Making yourself into an ignorant leader of disciples of hatred and a pseudo celebrity for your own sake is nothing to do with Christianity. Leave equally bad men such as Dakin to God's judgement, and judge He will, Dakin is worse than you preach him to be, he deliberately caused death so leave him to his punishment and stop stirring further attacks on his and your victim. Your advocating for Anglican abuse victims is ludicrous after your part in that and is a reported safeguarding breach. Although as you know, no safeguarding is yet in place in the Anglican church and won't be unless the senior clergy all take their leave and the government regulates the church efficiently. 

The Anglican church is none of your business either for attention seeking or spiteful revenge. If you remain in our church you need to repent and focus on your role as a priest you can't currently take communion legitimately in the Catholic Church so how can you be a Deacon and distribute it? You are a guest who was graciously admitted to Catholicism despite your history and you are a badly behaved guest who true Catholics wouldn't take communion from. Act with grace in return for my church's grace to you. 

Author C. S. Lewis described a creature called 'Tashlan' designed to deceive, and each time your works and words are broadcast at the expense of human lives and feelings by idiots, I am reminded of Tashlan, the words and works of the devil, disguised as those from Jesus. 

It is normal for the daily fail to publish your attention seeking, they are not a newspaper really, they publish Justin Welbys bizarre efforts at superstardom too, you and he are very alike, neither seeing Chist as important in the church , maybe it's time for you two to start a breakaway church while the Anglicans pick up the pieces from his reign?

The Hampshire Chronicle have always seen investigating before publishing as irrelevant. 'Thinking Anglicans' don't think, they're bored unemployed people with a strange form of Stockholm syndrome in that they remain in the church but attack it blindly through narrow vision, they aided you in attacking the Jersey victim just out of ignorance and boredom and the weight of a ludicrous amateur and biased report. They have stockholm syndrome victims who cling to the blog in the comments section and try to be resident experts on abuse, an odd comedy. 
They publish your Tashlan scripts such as your attack on Dakin. But not even a summary of your own bizarre career. Stephen Parsons blog is the same, he claims to advocate for abuse victims in the church but bizarrely he published your attack on Dakin but not the story of the Jersey and Winchester victim. It speaks volumes about his motives for blogging. Apart from the Stockholm syndromes who live on his blog comments, his advocating for an abuser of victims and silence on the biggest travesty since the Peter Ball case indicates that his work, admittedly carried out through blind and narrow Anglican eyes, isnt genuinely about victims.

There are thousands of abuse victims harmed by rouges in the Anglican church. You, as a man who attacked a victim without grounds, publicly and without interviewing her or having permission to raise the case, are essentially an abuser, certainly not in a position to pretend to advocate for victims, whether out of voyeurism or spite, and anyone upholding you and your version of the Jersey and Winchester whitewash is upholding and furthering abuse. But who knows, raising it again could bring posthumous justice or even see you prosecuted. 
Your team partner in that farce, Dakin, did indeed dismiss clergy unfairly but your and Bob Key's removals (under all those NDAs for Bob ) were just, you abused a vulnerable adult publicly and cruelly and with lies, without giving your victim a platform to respond, and you deliberately comprised an investigation - albeit a ridiculous parody investigation. You and Dakin are like two peas in a pod. You should be friends with him rather than let jealousy get in the way. Will he now do an appraisal of your career? 

Sincerely, 

John Carter 


Wednesday, 2 June 2021

Winchester and Oxford, plus Guernsey and More

I don't blog much. Life is too full, but sometimes C of E madness catches my eye. 

The news says that Martin Percy, Dean of Christ Church Oxford, has been 'cleared' with regards the CDM.

So did they really give that man a nervous breakdown and spend years with the case in the media spotlight for no good reason? 

Of course, because there was no reason for it to become a public fight. The Church of England are dogs returning to their vomit. They turned the Jersey and Winchester farce into a public fight for years, in that case destroying the victim and publicly upholding the Dean before dismissing him quietly with DNA's forbidding the reality to be released. Then there's the Dean of Sheffield's troubled Cathedral, he sank without a sound, with no big connection being made between his resignation and the allegedly very toxic and serious situation within the Cathedral. There's a real Dean problem in the C of E, Deans have a lot of power and appear also to be the whipping boys for everyone else's, or more senior figures' misconducts.

There was a bit of weirdness with a Bishop going to be a Dean a while back, if I recall it was the failed Bishop of Southampton, going to join a previous Bishop of Southampton who was a disgraced safeguarding Bishop who conflicted the Jersey and Winchester matter. Very odd. But as long as the general public don't question a thing. Three Safeguarding Bishops in a row have been connected with the Diocese of Winchester: Paul Butler - Southampton, Peter Hancock, Winchester, and the current Bishop of Southampton - interesting - and they've all played a part in the cover-up of the horrendous Jersey and Winchester farce, where apart from Key's disguised sacking, not a single person has faced a pentalty and a number have been promoted in true C of E tradition.

In Guernsey not so long ago, a longstanding priest was convicted of assaulting a young man. He had gone specifically looking for boys or men to have sex with. He told the court he was bisexual, and yet he was married and also a longstanding priest, so his undeclared bisexuality and need to seek out men without the congregation being aware was an abuse of trust. But it's much worse than that. He approached and sexually assaulted a man who was using a public toilet, without any consent, and claimed to the court that he 'thought the man was giving him signals'. This doesn't appear to have been argued as an empty statement, sex, even with a stranger, has to be consensual, and he approached this young man from behind, when he was obviously urinating and not looking for sex, and molested him, leaving him shocked. It wouldn't make sense to claim that he 'thought the young man had been giving him signals'. But that is what the press published. The priest was convicted, but basically was only given a slap on the wrist while the judge spoke of his 'previous good character'. How many of you think a man who carries out an assault like that has only done such a thing or similar one time?! The priest, not registered as a sex offender as it's Guernsey, was fined £1000 after having a long and cushy life in Guernsey with his expenses paid by the Diocese, and allowed to leave Guernsey for France, where his conviction will be unknown on French databases and possibly English as well, and certainly unknown to the community. Basically he's been enabled. 

After that, the Dean of Guernsey, another dubious Dean, kicked off a PR campaign as the C of E do, that 'after the horse has bolted and we've enabled it' PR campaign that is the C of E's familiar theme.

'We take safeguarding very seriously' he trumpeted, sounding like so many clergy over the past 8 years have after they've failed to safeguard and harmed victims. No, I can assure you that the Dean of Guernsey doesn't take safeguarding seriously, he and his Deanery are extremely compromised, especially in electing the abuser and his replacement who has also harmed a vulnerable person, as vice-deans. Jersey and Guernsey between them have had a succession of guilty, culpable, compromised or abusive Deans and Vice-Deans, indeed it's almost tradition.

'Safeguarding is open, but there are no new cases' read another silly headline. Why was safeguarding closed while abusers, yes abusers, have been allowed to prey on the vulnerable as a result of having a Guernsey residency due to being C of E priests?! And no new cases, what about the unresolved old cases and those in Guernsey church positions who haven't been held to account? I asked the Dean and his team and interestingly, they were unable to respond at all. The Diocese of Salisbury's communications team who trot out the press statements for Guernsey are truly dreadful and have made the Diocese of Salisbury and the Cathedral into laughing stock over the past year, but the thing is, these silly PR statements in the Guernsey Press newspaper, BBC Guernsey and the godawful 'Bailiwick Express' are empty, not expecting anyone to read behind the lines, another C of E tactic, they expect, like the current Prime Minister of England, for what they release for publication to be accepted without question - something to do with the appalling unregulated C of E schools dumbing people down perhaps? 

The Dean blares that 'You can contact the Deanery about any 'concerns' but if you don't want to, you can contact the NSPCC'. A number of issues there. Why does he think people might not want to contact the Deanery, or why they might not contact the POLICE instead if they for some reason feel unable to contact the church, he's implying that people don't trust the church and is trying to field them to an unsuitable organization conflicted by the church, and what about adults? The victim was an adult, are they expected to contact the NSPCC? Interesting point. I will get to that.

Who remember Jimmy Savile doing publicity stunts and answering calls from children on the NSPCC's Childline? And Esther Rantzen saying she'd 'heard rumours' about Savile, and yet from her position in the NSPCC etc, failed to act on those rumours. In 2013, the Diocese of Winchester illegally shared confidential case information with the NSPCC and enabled the senior figure, John Cameron to act on their behalf to distress the victim by contacting her. The NSPCC have been unable to explain why this senior figure was involved when the victim was an adult with no children, a blatant abuse of power among many in that massive farce, and as with rest of the farce, which heavily involves members of the Guernsey Deanery, no action has been taken.

I'm sure those of you who think, can understand that with the dodgy goings on at the NSPCC, the C of E are simply doing as they do throughout England and the Channel Islands, conflicting yet another public body. The NSPCC, police, social services, safeguarding partnerships and bodies, charities including the terrible 'Macsas' who are openly C of E run and for the assistance of cover-up, and bizarre 31:8 (who still haven't got a proper name) also C of E run, and much more, even the NHS, judiciary, politicians, government and law, are conflicted by C of E influence through dual memberships, so basically the Church of England can advocate that the victims turn to anyone conflicted by them, and the C of E's backs are covered, there are few sources of impartial justice and no regulation of how the church record cases or portray their victims. There are hundreds of angry and hurt C of E victims out there, but the current unsuitable Archbishop is sticking to the plan of PR false apologies and false, redacted and whitewashed reports to fool the IICSA who will be gone soon, and the Charity Commission who are being fended of by the Church's Solicitors.

The C of E relies heavily on silence, silence in response to being contacted by victims and those concerned for victims, and they rely on the silence and complicity of all agencies who they conflict or influence. In Guernsey we're talking about Guernsey Safeguarding, Government, probably the court who left the pervert priest to go free and behave as he likes in France, and probably more. Jersey is famously conflicted and that was evident in the number of authorities, agencies, charities and bodies used to destroy the Jersey and Winchester victim over several decades, although UK bodies and UK-Jersey bodies such as the Privy Council and House of Lords were among the players in that. The C of E influence in Government and Lords is one of their biggest fallbacks for avoiding liability. 

It is very concerning to see in England that the C of E are trying to claw their way into colleges and force themselves on vulnerable students through chaplains; the corruption of children through badly regulated C of E schools for the same reason the C of E can run homeless shelters and other charities - government idleness and conservation of funds - is bad enough, it means there is nowhere really safe for children and young people, let alone the vulnerable who have to endure C of E interference while the C of E still don't safeguard. The C of E is basically an almighty parasite, unregulated, dangerous, abusive and constantly filling the press with their unquestioned advertising of themselves, especially after incidents which show them in a bad light. They've had their day and should be making arrangements to transfer schools and all their outlets that make contact with children, young people and the vulnerable to governments and agencies which should be running them or are qualified to run them.

Some weeks ago, the Bishop of Winchester was said to be 'stepping down'. I was curious, but not overly so. He has been, from start to finish, a complete misfit, there has been nothing whatsoever in his behaviours that indicated suitability for senior clergy positions and it would only have been a masonic handshake and agreement that got him there. The C of E don't go much on theology, and these days are not electing on grounds of wisdom, experience or theological knowledge but it's more about money and power and exchanges of favour, so the C of E, already in decline, are losing congregation hand over fist. But Dakin, Bishop of Winchester, was a misfit even among the many inappropriate and needless elections of new Bishops, as the number of Bishops doubled and the numbers of congregations halved, he was never a Bishop, he was a poser after the order of Justin Welby, carefully posed vanity pictures and videos constantly and needlessly spamming up the press in the same way, but he wasn't even a competent manager, and he was dishonest to the point that anyone could see it, but the C of E audience's silence, still unbroken by the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes, meant his contradictions went unremarked. An example is the Jersey and Winchester farce, Dakin alternated by saying the Dean was guilty and that the Dean wasn't guilty, and did anyone speak, did anyone break the silence? No. He was nasty to abuse victims and the vulnerable while doing a lot of PR shows, presumably that is why he was installed, he was a man after Justin Welby's own heart. Indeed he spent vast amounts of Diocesan money on a PR firm for no good reason.

The Bishop ordered and endorsed a massive amount of money to be spent on paying conflicted and unsuitable 'investigators' to investigate a fraction of a massive case, choosing to investigate only the small part played by a man he had a historic grudge against, the former Dean of Jersey, Robert Key, and making the whole investigation pointless because matters surrounding Key's actions were ignored, and the victim was completely excluded from the whole investigation and left voiceless and incessant lies about her by Key and his circle were published. Never in C of E history has their manslaughter of a victim been so open. The Peter Ball case certainly involved manslaughter and the same breed of violent silencing and use of government officials and Royalty to endorse the abuser, but the power, press and money were not even used to the extent of this case.

 I am not belittling how horrifying the Peter Ball case was and is - colleagues of Ball who were aware of things have remained in their positions to this day unpunished for failing to safeguard, but Dakin's collossal acts of stupidity and cruelty and damage are reigning champion in the C of E's long history of unregulated harm. The Oxford Dean case is a good contender and the Peter Ball case will always be the worst case of a Bishop being allowed to remain when his acts of depravity were known, the cases of John Smyth, linked to Welby and Winchester and Rev Fletcher, are also cases connected to lifelong harm and whitewashed and redacted reviews. But Dakin's unsuitability for position and the harm he did as a result are top of the unsuitable Bishop leaderboards, and neither he nor his wife nor Justin Welby nor colleagues involved have been disciplined or barred as they should be. This is the letter I wrote to Bishop Dakin yesterday (I'm sure I wasn't drunk at the time but I was trying to write from someone dictating the facts), I thought about it last month but I have concerns closer to home that take most of my time and energy and in main, the C of E ignore me as they ignore all criticism and concern, and until that changes, they will never safeguarding.

Open Letter to the resigning Bishop of Winchester.

01/06/2021

Dear Tim Dakin,

I understand that you’re ‘stepping down’. A story that has been around for a few weeks. The ignorant, elderly and naive in your diocese may praise you and be heartbroken and I know Bishops bask in that innocent and misdirected worship, but it’s a sad state of affairs that such innocence is abused by who you really are and what you’ve done. You don't deserve praise, or even liberty. 

I’m glad that you’re stepping down, interested to see it isn’t a massive nuisance national media PR play as most of the bowel movements of the C of E are, and dismayed that you stayed so long and haven’t been made properly accountable for your misconduct, but that is the Church of England, you overstayed your welcome and didn’t have the wisdom or ability to be a Bishop, and that really showed in your destruction of a vulnerable adult first through years of public harm and then through police violence and branding. The headlines shouldn’t be reading of your ‘stepping down’ and thus abdication of responsibility, they should read of your arrest for breaching the court order against you that the vulnerable adult took against you to protect her, and the arrests of those in the C of E and outside who enabled you in destroying and violently silencing your victim.

You should have stepped down before, in 2013, when it was apparent that you’d harmed a vulnerable adult by your foolish and illegal actions, and you certainly should have gone in 2018 when you had her violently abused by police to silence her after your public campaign of discrediting her for years on end didn’t silence her. But the senior clergy in the C of E are collectively without conscience or understanding of responsibility.

I’m sure that you’re aware that the Steel report remains under the court order that you’ve breached multiple times, and you had no right to share it as you have and remain without the right to share it. But what about the victim who you destroyed? Is she dead or in prison or forcibly deemed insane on your behalf in some psychiatric unit because she wasn’t silent after you and Mr Welby heavily abused your power to close down the Jersey and Winchester farce? Or are you still having her chased by the police? And if so, considering the magnitude of your crimes that you weren’t held to account for, why? Something is very wrong with policing systems that favour the powerful and destroy the vulnerable. 

Your stepping down isn’t enough, just as Mr Welby’s suspension for three months isn’t enough, and for him to announce it as a sabbatical in the middle of a pandemic wasn’t appropriate and was hurtful to his church and the general public while the church and the nation are in crisis and the general public can’t take long holidays to suit them. He should be dismissed and facing charges for his part in your slaughter of a vulnerable adult as well as the other cases. It’s bizarre how the church communications lie in order to protect the church’s reputation, when first and foremost the church should be representing Christianity. Your ‘stepping down’ has been very quiet, while Mr Welby’s constant false PR spams up the newsfeeds and gets in the way of real news.

What about your wife, she aided you in harming your victim, is she to also leave all licenced reader positions? And are we to expect you to move to another position where you can harm the vulnerable, like the former Bishop of Southampton, who ludicrously became a Dean after being complicit in your terrible harm? What safeguards will be in place to stop you publicly committing murder as you have done? What has been done about Jackie Rowlands, as her lies and venom towards HG, your victim who she should have protected, destroyed her? Have you made sure that she is banned from all positions relating to the vulnerable, as Jane Fisher should have been as soon as the skewed contents of the Korris report were known? You allowed Jane Fisher to continue in her position and harm HG for two years after the release of the Korris report, while you threatened HG over Fisher’s malicious conviction of her for responding to Fisher’s abuse of her. In every way what you did was repeat all the previous injustices on a magnified scale.

Please make sure loose ends are tied up and that this colossal injustice is addressed. You carried out an attack allowing everyone who ever harmed the victim to defend themselves publicly without giving the victim a voice, and enabled and encouraged the Church Times and other media to run an incessant attack on the victim based on the whitewash reports and the testimonies of wrongdoers, and you yourself threatened the victim on the grounds of unjust police action where those who had harmed the victim had lied to the police and tried to brand the victim insane, just as you and your wife and Jackie Rowlings and Mat Phipps did. You made it clear in 2013 as you threatened the victim, that whatever you were doing was not an investigation into the wider picture of wrongdoing in the Diocese but appeared to be more about your old grudges with Bob Key. You spent a huge amount of money on one narrow part of a huge picture, and omitted the victim, the key witness, from all of those conflicted reports, costing the church a huge amount for nothing, and there was no reason to put a vulnerable life in danger by using the press as a voice for the church against the victim. If you couldn't see the safeguarding failure, you should never have been a Bishop. 

You still need to address several decades of police injustice against your victim, and all of the press and media slaughter of her, especially the abhorrent behaviour of the Church Times in misleading the general public and publishing hate against the victim. As you know, Bishops ‘step back’ or ‘retire’ to avoid accountability, and leave the matter to the next Bishop, as Michael Scott-Joynt did, and the victim went after him in distress to demand justice and closure as she was left homeless and destroyed, and was accused of insanity and all the rest of the lies by Scott-Joynt and Fisher as a result as they had her brutalized and attempted again to have her imprisoned, and then you came along and attacked her and threatened her over it instead of investigating, what will the next Bishop do to slur your dead victim’s name and protect you?

Tell me again why you thought destroying her was a safeguarding exercise? I was one of many who saw through it all, but the Church of England, as you know, ignore all correspondence and pitilessly force their stories on the general public and clergy without being accountable. What have you done about the Church Times and their safeguarding and professional failure of publishing lies and attacks on a vulnerable adult, what have you done about an investigation that publishes her story in reply? What have you done about ensuring that Paul Handley and his team are banned from journalism for life? And about those in your current and past deaneries of Romsey, Andover, Basingstoke, Guernsey and Jersey who have committed severe misconduct? What was the huge sum spent on, between 2013 and 2016? When not a single culpable person has been held to account or punished and some have been promoted when as a result of their abuses and their attacks on the victim, they are a safeguarding risk to extremes! Especially knowing that the church will actively protect them and silence victims. And the National Safeguarding Team, a joke if there ever was one, what has been done about banning Mssrs Tilby and Johnson and Jane Dodds, Moira Murray, Caroline Venables and the rest from access to the vulnerable, after they allowed this wholesale destruction and showed no understanding of safeguarding whatsoever and instead broke the law and attacked the victim? Don’t go before this is resolved and all involved are held to account, because you didn’t carry out a safeguarding exercise into what Michael Scott-Joynt did and didn’t dismiss Jane Fisher instantly, so it’s unlikely that the Bishop taking your place will carry out an investigation into your public slaughter of a vulnerable adult.

Several years ago, when your victim was homeless and destroyed by you, she contacted all your clergy, as ever not as ‘harassment’ but because you are a danger to the vulnerable in the way you abused your position to utterly destroy her and leave her homeless and voiceless, in much the same way she contacted people over Michael Scott-Joynt’s actions, if you try to crush and suppress someone completely, while they still have life and know they’ve been wronged, they will speak as best they can, and only the church of england would kill someone in any way possible to silence them this way. Now when your clergy were contacted, they as one, showed that they had no understanding of safeguarding and would rather allow a vulnerable adult to die than their Bishop’s serious misconduct be exposed, and as you know, emails by a member of your clergy and Moira Murray, defaming and traducing the victim and ordering the other clergy in the diocese to ignore her, were published. What has been done about Moira Murray’s criminal behaviour and the complicity of those clergy, especially the ones circulating the defamation?! And Jackie Rowlands, what has been done about barring her for life?! You are responsible for Jane Fisher not being immediately dismissed when you took your position, you are responsible for employing an unqualified and inexperienced safeguarding lead, Jackie Rowlands, who instead of addressing the serious misconduct, decided to be offended by the victim speaking up and criticizing her, you are responsible for Rowlands lying to police and harming a vulnerable adult. Walking away with this not addressed, is a serious misconduct, you remain responsible for this.

As you know, Jackie Rowlands, your ‘safeguarding lead’ was so unqualified and untrained, that she took offence at the victim raising the matter of your and her failures, and the police tried to convict your victim of ‘Being angry with people who tried to help her’ -basically her response to being emotionally and sexually abused by pastoral couples in the Diocese of Winchester, her story still unrecorded, as well as the victim’s letter criticizing Rowlands for her failure to address you being a danger to the vulnerable, as if these were crimes and your public destruction of the victim through whitewashes and the hate-stirring lie-publishing media were not. The police, who have a long history of violence and harm to the vulnerable, especially those they silence for the Church of England, those in the Peter Ball and Kendal House cases for instance, seriously injured your victim and repeated Jackie Rowlands lie about the injunction the victim took against you. How and why did a vulnerable adult living homeless and in severe poverty and without representation manage an injunction against the Bishop of Winchester, and why did you lie to the press in 2016 to traduce the victim and cover that up? And why is the Church of England not employing proper safeguarding staff and not training their clergy in safeguarding response even after the recent years of the PR false safeguarding being overridden by the press reporting on the C of E failures? 

The victim, with autism, and reactive attachment disorder from a horrifying childhood in which she was denied school, medical help and any form of support, reacted to members of your diocese emotionally and sexually abusing her, and this is a reason to have her dragged from her home and violently brutalized and left homeless? This is a reason for you to enable the Church Times, Jersey Evening Post, BBC Jersey and others to launch onslaughts of hatred against her on behalf of those who wronged her?!

Your stepping down is simply an abdication of responsibility for this, and you should never hold another position of authority again. The National Safeguarding Team traduced the victim and paid for a biased and illegal ‘report’ against her by a psychologist who never met her, in order to silence anyone who spoke up about the case, rather than demanding your immediate removal and barring for life and ensuring that the prolific defamation of the victim was removed from the internet and media archives – yes, defamation because you enabled her name and details to be released to the general public and many many people knew who she was but not her side of things and most of what was published was inaccurate or untrue. Can you imagine anyone having to live through that? It would kill a strong and stable person. 

As you know, Justin Welby made his support of the destruction of the victim very open, sabotaging a clergy discipline complaint against you immediately after going on BBC Jersey to uphold the wrongdoers and traduce the victim in the middle of the whitewash conflicted investigation, making the investigation into an open joke and farce as he said he believed no wrong had been done, he hasn’t ‘stepped down’ nor taken responsibility for the Smyth and Fletcher cases and his part in the cover-up, before his recent suspension he was still, no lessons learned, offering fake PR apologies and more fake investigations there, after being forced by legal means into a meeting with the Smyth victims by their money and power. That fakery looks to continue indefinitely. 

I’m sure that you’re aware that Mr Bob Hill, BEM, gave up three years of his retirement to try to protect your victim from your public destruction of her. An effort was made by Jane Fisher, John Gladwin and Christine Daley to drive a wedge between them to prevent the victim’s life being defended by Mr Hill, and as a result, Mr Hill collapsed after significant damage was done, this is akin to Fisher using Philip LeClaire against the victim after the victim forbade any contact between them, a legally binding assertion of her wishes, and not investigated by you. You would have killed the victim within months if it hadn’t been for Mr Hill and his friends, but as it was, you didn’t withdraw your attack on the victim at any point and thus you killed both of them, and very slowly and horribly in the victim’s case, you simply couldn’t have inflicted more or worse harm if you’d tried, and to justify it? You, never having met your victim, blamed her, having never recorded her story, judged and condemned her. That merciless psychopathic abuse of power isn’t normal, it’s only present in an organization which isn’t held to account by any body or any governance.

The Churches in Jersey operate in the same way as Immanuel Church Wimbledon, the home of #FletcherCulture. Evil is seen as a blessing and victims are treated with callous disregard. That hasn’t changed by a PR appointment of a ‘safeguarding rector’ who has failed to address this case or see the suspension of the clergy and laity involved in this case and the investigation of the many safeguarding failures, some serious, that HG witnessed, it hasn’t changed through Trevor Willmott’s lies about ‘safeguarding is good in Jersey’ which left the victim off sick from work to see that headline when not one of those who harmed her was called to account, it hasn’t changed through another conflicted chosen investigator illegally accessing records and abusing their power for more whitewash ‘past case reviews’. The victim and her representative still suffered and died, those in the church, the police, the media, the NHS, safeguarding, and other conflicted bodies haven’t been held to account. So you have some work to do before you go, and it isn’t the responsibility of the next Bishop or anyone else. It’s your responsibility. Even the inaccurate perceptions of the Jersey bloggers on the case, when they used it to highlight the unjust Jersey systems without the victim’s agreement are your responsibility. All of it is, and yet you’ve sacrificed lives to protect your position and the church of England, the opposite of what Jesus taught and expected.

What you and your church did was you conflicted and ruined HG's police, medical, social services and safeguarding records so that she would never be heard or credible, you effectively forcibly drove her from help, ensuring she could never trust or have a meaningful relationship with the authorities who failed and harmed her because of the C of E. Essentially you left several sexual abusers and numerous spiritual and emotional abusers with access to a vulnerable adult, and took away her access to work and support by giving her a criminal record when she had no other convictions or record outside of standing up to religious abusers, you left her with the choice of a lifetime in poverty and shame and terror of police beatings which would likely kill her after causing a series of serious injuries, or death.  And at the same time, the church of England allow a man like Gavin Ashenden, who used the media and press to incessantly attack HG and lie about her, as well as his string of media attacks on vulnerable groups, to currently act out his grudge against the C of E by pretending to advocate for other C of E victims. The Church of England is completely devoid of safeguarding.

It’s your responsibility that the police in Jersey traduced the victim after their violent and dishonest behaviour to her previously, and your enablement of them covering that up publicly as a result of you making the case public for no reason, your responsibility that the victim’s efforts to leave the streets and rebuild her life were constantly ruined by you, until she could no longer try, your responsibility that lies were published, your responsibility that those in the Diocese who harmed her are enabled and empowered to go on harming. Your responsibility for working hard to make the victim out to be insane as your predecessor did, to cover up driving her insane. Your responsibility that you took a senior position with no training in or understanding of, trauma, vulnerability, the effects of abuse, and safeguarding. There is nothing that indicates why you became a Bishop, nothing in your behaviour or actions which indicates either theological knowledge, compassion, wisdom or responsibility. You are the face of the destruction of the church of england.

No explanation has ever been given as to why you and Bob Key have been allowed to ‘step down’ as if you have honour, while a vulnerable adult was publicly destroyed. No explanation has been given for that public destruction and your and the national safeguarding team’s behaviour towards the victim’s response. There is no safeguarding in the C of E. And singularly, the church of England, at Deanery, Diocesan and National level, remain unable to respond properly to safeguarding complaints, from perpetrators in the Guernsey Deanery being promoted to vice dean, one after another and a PR farce being made of it, to the unresolved Jersey and Winchester public murders and why no one prevented them to the full case background unrecorded and a whitewash by Heather Steel and and a malicious 'psychological' report being used as the victim's record, to the failure to remove clergy and laity who have been part of your Jersey and Winchester farce, the biggest safeguarding farce in C of E history. While the C of E cannot communicate with the ‘common people’ or respond well, the safeguarding danger remains as it always has been, no change, no improvement.

You did one thing for HG, you and Justin Welby, your public destruction of her, as well as being seen by her friends, community, employers, college, churches, volunteer projects etc, was seen by her abusive family, and you permanently estranged her from them, albeit in a very humiliating and nasty way. It is hard for a person to cut ties from their family due to loyalty, but you cut the ties, and her family being a sort of church of England in miniature, that was no bad thing and the only small benefit to her wellbeing during your protracted and sadistically cruel murder of her although of course it simply added to her suffering at the time, you managed, as Scott-Joynt and Fisher managed for her father’s death, to cause anguish around her mother’s death. It wouldn’t be put past the church and their complicit police to have used HG’s family against her, but as they had abused her too, they wouldn’t be reliable character references, would they?! Any more than those wrongdoers in the Jersey and Guernsey Deanery using the press to attack her, enabled by you! However, you had no right to estrange HG from anyone, nor destroy her work, her home or her degree course, as you did. 

You had a vulnerable adult destroyed by abusing every ounce of your power, because you’re part of a dangerously unregulated and conflicted organization, but you were ‘offended’ that the victim kept on appealing for help, the same as she did to Michael Scott-Joynt, and you, like him, had her arrested, branded for life, violently brutalized, and left homeless and destroyed. How many times do you think a strong person could survive such horror? Let alone a vulnerable adult with no foundation due to the abuse. Get to work, you can’t leave until you’ve resolved all of this, it isn’t the responsibility of the next Bishop or a conflicted faker whitewashing past cases without the permission of victims for the sake of church of England PR! I’m aware that the Diocese of Winchester are liable for you and don’t want to be, but you are liable for yourself, so do the right thing. On the subject of the Diocese, your Chief Executive and his staff were actively involved in harming the victim. Oh, and don't forget that the unprofessional and criminally compromised 'forensic psychologist' used to traduce and silence HG for the national safeguarding team should have immediately been relieved of their duties. He never met HG, went by the lies of wrongdoers, and obviously didn't even read her daily blog, life after the diocese, as she tried to survive the way she was being murdered. 

Finally, this is a safeguarding complaint, even though the C of E don’t safeguard and have made it clear they don’t intend to, to the point of setting up yet another non-independent independent safeguarding regulator, the same as the new same-old clergy discipline measure, but the complaint stands, just as the Peter Ball case stood in the same circumstances, even after the C of E caused the death of a victim, his voice didn’t go away even with (also guilty in the HG case) Paul Butler's sickening use of him for a PR stunt, neither does the voice of your victim, sadistically slain to protect you and many powerful wrongdoers.

Sincerely,

Mr John Carter.








Wednesday, 5 August 2020

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

Saturday, 18 July 2020

A Letter to the Jersey Evening Post regarding the Dean of Jersey and Church of England

Additional Notes:


A note on this post, Rob McLoughlin, the journalist regurgitating the foul vomit of Faulkner and his friends, was a States of Jersey employee who worked for and with some of the States figures involved in the cover-up of this case and this further falsehood is his favour to his mates in the States.  Lord Faulkner was conflicted by positions relating to the Church of England and the supervision of the Channel Islands. An additional note is that one of the directors of the company overseeing the Jersey Evening Post (JEP), is the brother of the serial offender who sexually and emotionally abused HG. 

19/07/2019

Dear Jersey Evening Post,

While I am aware that you have a history of appalling behavior towards abuse victims, and that you do not handle complaints well. I am writing to complain regarding your article about the former Dean.  https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2020/07/18/former-dean-suffered-a-grave-injustice-says-peer/
Publishing lies by people in power is not appropriate. Although your long history of doing the same with certain members of the States is well  documented, doing the same regarding a peer in the UK who had no right to involvement in the Dean of Jersey case as he did not declare his involvement during the case or respond to the victim's contact of him regarding the matter, and who obviously did not hear both sides of the story, just as you did not publish both sides of the story, is totally unacceptable, especially publishing LIES. 

The victim of the million pounds of whitewash involving many figures of power, including conflicted former Judge Dame Heather Steel, has been abused and abused and abused and abused and abused by your incessant, sadistic, callous and totally unacceptable reporting on this matter. You have abused and abused and abused her, publishing the lies of the powerful incessantly, what you have never done, is publish her side of things. You were among those who published details of the victim, allowing her to be traced, repeatedly attacked, beaten, raped, made homeless - again! And more. You enabled the stars of the Peter Ball cover-up and other cover-ups, Butler-Sloss, Lord Faulkner, and others to have a voice, but not the victim, who suffers severe traumatic shock whenever you publish the rubbish that you publish. And you have been made aware of this, so it is abuse. 

The people of Jersey were NOT dismayed or distressed about the Dean, he took a huge salary and free house and did very little for the island, and advised his clergy to avoid and ignore the victims of Haute de la Garrenne, he was not essential and not liked by all. Many people spoke out and said so and spoke of their horror at the way the Dean's behaviour was covered up, a lot of it never recorded, because for the duration of the million pound whitewash, the victim, HG, had no voice at all, neither the conflicted 'investigators' nor the nasty cowardly and cruel Jersey media and press reported on the victim's side of things, what they did was vilify her on the grounds of a report produced by a church member and counsellor who was unfit for the position and who simply recorded the lies of the defendants - Jane Fisher, Michael and Lou Scott-Joynt, and the clergy and laity in Jersey, neither knowledge or consent was from the victim, who was ruined by the lies. Your actions, and the actions of other press and media outlets could have killed the victim and nearly did, celebrities facing similar smear campaigns have committed suicide, and the vulnerable victim was attacked constantly for years on end because of the lies you published without question or investigation. She lives homeless, as a fugitive, seriously injured and damaged beyond repair, and each disgusting petty repeat of lies by the dignitaries involved in the cover-up, seriously harms her.

Lord Faulkner, unless he was an official part of the inquiry, has no right whatsoever to intervene, and would have needed to declare his role and partiality to the victim when she contacted him about the criminal behaviours both of church and the States, the victim didn't consent to it, just as she didn't consent to Jan Korris, Heather Steel and the guilty-of-serious-misconduct Jersey Police and Safeguarding partnership and their illegal and data breaching actions. Lord Faulkner has no right to make assumptions, he also should not be praising the Archbishop of Canterbury for heading what has been the biggest and nastiest cover-up in the history of the Church of England, one which goes on and on as you go on and on publishing inaccuracies about the case. Many many guilty people reside in positions of power after seriously harming a vulnerable adult, and you are part of that and a testimony to the serious danger to the vulnerable that the unregulated Church of England is.  Lord Faulkner's praise of Justin Welby is ludicrous, Welby whose behaviour is extremely questionable in many cases but in this, using the press and media to publicly destroy a vulnerable adult for three years solid under the guise of a 'safeguarding' should have led to his resignation. Welby is not popular in the UK as he is tearing the Church of England apart, so the simpering praise by Faulkner and the indication that Faulkner and Welby were connected in the million pound public destruction of a vulnerable adult needs to be part of the overarching investigation into this case, by a neutral person, and who is neutral when this case has show the true extension of the Church of England's conflictions? 

You have been asked by the victim to stop publishing lies, inaccuracies and attacks on her on behalf of the Church of England but your response was totally unacceptable, and your failure to safeguard her, a vulnerable adult who had no say in the so-called investigations into her case, your determination to go on and on attacking when she has been utterly ruined, your determination to uphold the former Dean, whose misconducts were never recorded a) because the church prioritised destroying the victim to silence her in 2008-10, b) because the church failed to include her in the conflicted sham and farce and refused to record her story or answer her or the concerned public's complaints at all, and c) because the church destroyed her again to silence her in 2016-18 when she continued to ask for justice. 

For 3 years straight, despite concerted efforts by the church to turn Mr Bob Hill, BEM, against the victim, Mr Hill reported on her case where you didn't and wouldn't: http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/

 In 2015 during a sustained media attack on the victim over the conflicted Heather Steel's report, Mr Hill collapsed because of the stress of his three years of attempting to preserve the victim's life against the lies and hatred that you and other media stirred up. The church then tried to forcibly close the biggest and most serious criminal cover-up in the C of E's history, that you were part of. You helped to fell a good honest man, and you went on and on attacking the victim afterwards with your biased and callous and ignorant reporting, you didn't respond to complaints telling you the harm that you had done, just as Justin Welby and Tim Dakin didn't, of course, until Tim Dakin did as Michael Scott Joynt and Jane Fisher did, tried to make the victim's complaint into a criminal offence and had her violently brutalised and imprisoned, leaving her again seriously injured and homeless as she remains. And still you fail to investigate and record the serious misconducts and conflictions of Heather Steel, the Bailhache Brothers, those peers such as Butler Sloss who is unpunished for her part in the Peter Ball case and was able to interfere in this case as a result, and Lord Faulkner, who was contacted by the victim in 2014, as she asked him for justice, he failed to respond or ensure that her story was heard by him or recorded on the same level as that of the defendants who were  effectively simply enabled by the whitewash, to publicly destroy the victim, and yet Faulkner has acted publicly purely to uphold a man whose behviours were indefensible, and the Archbishop of Canterbury whose actions in this matter amount to criminal offence. Concern is growing regarding the behaviour of the Archbishop and C of E dignitaries, and yet this case is still waiting for justice, full justice including severe punishment of the Jersey Evening Post, Channel ITV, BBC Jersey and the Bailiwick Express, who have not only unfailingly published only what the C of E has produced as if the lies were fact, but denied the victim a voice and published details allowing the victim's name, date of birth, identity, and even location, to be exposed, leading to serious violence against the victim. 
It is noted that all senior Clergy and others involved have not said a word about this serious safeguarding failure. 

The horrendous abuse of power by the C of E is not undocumented, and yet this deceitful illusion that the behaviour of Welby or Key were acceptable, is incomprehensible. To claim that a conflicted whitewash by those in the wrong and their colleagues was a safeguarding investigation WHILE Lord Faulkner, Justin Welby, Tim Dakin and others ALLOWED the murderous press onslaught of lies and assumptions based on the defendants' and their friends' views is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in history. The involvement of Lords, Peers, conflicted Judges and others in this matter has not been investigated, which is a protracted and very serious safeguarding failure, and each new attack on the victim over this unresolved and very serious safeguarding failure is a new safeguarding failure, by you, by Justin Welby, Tim Dakin, Sloss, Faulkner, Steel, and all involved in a horrific 'public attempted murder'. It is noted that you have refused comments for your article, because, you know that the general public are not of the same opinion that Lord Faulkner considers them to be of. It is time for Lord Faulkner and Baroness Butler-Sloss, Mark Hedley, the National Safeguarding Team and everyone involved in this matter to be placed under investigation. And although this is addressed to you as abusers of HG, it will also be forwarded to IPSO as HG has already repeatedly referred this to you, and also subsequently to IPSO, without you ceasing your abuse. 

In the recent event of the Oxford College Safeguarding Debacle, which was flung into the press in a very similar nasty way, two members of the panel were made to resign as they were conflicted. This case has been under more scrutiny because it relates to Oxford University, but the million pound murder by Jersey, Winchester and Canterbury, faced no neutral scrutiny and no intervention. HG contacted everyone, from Faulkner to the Queen, from every safeguarding board in the country to every police force, the Lords, the States of Jersey, but no one protected her wellbeing, not a single person, indeed the National Safeguarding Team breached data as gatekeepers, and made her out to be mad for doing this, and THAT is the extent of this safeguarding failure of which you are part. You and all other media, were contacted, and you persisted sadistically in harm. Oxford is certainly making the C of E look bad, but it is not in the lawless unregulated Jersey, it does not involve a vulnerable adult being publicly murdered for perceived crimes, and it is scrutinised enough to make the usual conflicted defence of the C of E have to step down. HG's story has not been heard by a single court, judge or police officer involved, not a single press, not a single safeguarding official. No, these have actively silenced her, in a case reminiscent to that of Melanie Shaw, an abuse victim who was strategically silenced and imprisoned, ruined. And this is all from the supposed 'State Church' whose actions recently are causing the loss of congregation with alarming rapidity, and yet, their position of confliction and abuse of power is upholding them in these crimes that you are party to, as their congregation leaves. This is the Church that uses the Name of Jesus or God, and who have Bibles with the parable of the Lost Sheep and 'Let He who is without Sin cast the first Stone'. During HG's first stint on the streets, the 3 years, she was told by Catholics that her sins were between her and God and that the Church of England's actions were wickedness, she had not at the time faced the onslaught from 2013 onwards, but she was provisionally baptised Catholic, confessed her sins in full, and was annointed and confirmed You then became part of the violent incessant attack that destroyed her again. 

The efforts to force a terrified and shamed and broken vulnerable adult into the classifications a) insane and b) troublemaker, show the very depths of the danger that the Anglican church are to the vulnerable, especially when Jane Dodds, Moira Murrary, Graham Tilsby, and others on the 'National Safeguarding Team' played an active part in this in order to protect the wrongdoers in senior positions; the psychopathy of branding a victim of serious child abuse who was drawn into the church because of her escape from that and her vulnerability, is beyond horror. She still isn't insane, she is destroyed, she is not a troublemaker, she never learned to relate well to people, didn't have a chance, between childhood and church. And surely as Justin Welby uses 'mental illness' as yet another attention-seeking stunt for himself, he and his church have no right to label someone with trauma is 'insane' or encourage the police, press and conflicted dignitaries to do the same? 
HG wrote and wrote in the hope of being heard, and instead the church illegally paid a 'forensic psychologist' to 'advise to ignore her' as an excuse to throw her away silenced, this is a very serious matter and must be addressed before any further victims die, HG is not the only victim who has been subjected to the Church of England under Welby closing them down this way. https://whatreallyhappenedinthechurch.blogspot.com/
Do you think any victim anywhere should be silenced because a 'safeguarding team' are unwilling or opposed to dealing with their employers who are effectively the abusers? It is a terrifying concept and a life has been ruined. The poisonous callousness of the C of E's safeguarding, from Winchester's Diocesan safeguarding to the national safeguarding team, matches the toxic environment of the peers and dignitaries, the Bishops and laity, the money and power people and the middle class congregants who profess to care while their prejudice and ignorance shines through. The repeat releases to the press about this case at the expense of the victim are a serious safeguarding failure, and it is time for people to be held to account, from you to Faulkner and Welby to Hancock, Butler to Sloss, and Dakin to Bailhache. 

It doesn't matter what stories have been spread to make HG look mad, bad, violent or anything else, the stories are only from the C of E and its protectors and associates, they are not the victim's story, which remains waiting to be told in full, although if Tim Dakin had been successful in the further attempt to violently silence her, the Church of England would have rejoiced at never being held accountable. This woman, diagnosed as autistic by the Maudlsey Hospital in 2005, although concerted efforts were made to Fisher, Steel and Korris deny the diagnosis in order to discredit her, spoke up about two serial abusers, one of whom was being protected by his wife despite destroying his daughter, the other of whom was being protected by clergy and laity in Jersey, who failed to either warn HG or protect her, instead blaming her for the abuse, Bob Key told her in person that the abuse had not occured, and tried to vilify her on the defence of the abusers and those protecting them, using her 'past' which had been rewritten by the C of E. This isn't in any report. And yet it can't be denied. Jan Korris, for example, for no reason other than Fisher's vindictiveness, wrote out lies about the victim being 'unforgiving' over her youth leader being arrested for paedophilia. Even if it was the case, it had nothing to do with the case and was simply a slur, the other similar stories, rumours, which didn't include the victim's side of things, she did not consent to the Korris report nor was made aware of it until her friends and community rejected her when they heard about it, and yet you are publishing an unrelated man singing the praises of the former Dean and saying he was treated badly. This is a very terrible judgement on the Church of England, to continue to publicly uphold those guilty of serious misconduct, while the victim is homeless, seriously injured and anguished. She has now suffered almost two decades of the Church of England's lack of safeguarding, their conflicted and criminally compromised judges and peers, their callousness and lack of understanding of safeguarding and the vulnerable, and you have proudly acted in the interests of the C of E throughout. 

Faulkner is mistaken about Welby's 'Gracious apology', Welby spits out fake apologies according to his PR scripts pretty much every week, it wasn't gracious, it was a show, a show to make Welby look good, while the victim nearly committed suicide over your and others' biased and nasty cover-up of the attempt to close down the million pound whitewash after HG took an injunction against the Bishop of Winchester, which he was in contempt of court over when he lied in the same press release of May 2016 and claimed to be witholding the Steel report for 'the victim's welfare' ie he discredited HG again rather than tell the world that he had allowed a vicious conflicted judge to threaten to publicly call a vulnerable adult a psychopathic criminal, which is what conflicted Heather Steel did, without of course, meeting HG or hearing her story, because Steel and her friends in peerage and the Jersey Deanery, States and Judiciary, had one purpose, covering up the matter, without declaring conflicts of interests or checking the conflicts of those put forward as 'witnesses' on a small island where many knew the 'respected' clergy, judiciary, states members etc involved. The laity of the church also had considerable money and influence. And yet, your journalism doesn't scratch the surface, it has remained one-track in support and defence of the indefensible. 

You haven't questioned anything about what you have published, not even that 'withdrawal' of action against the Bishop by Faulkner. You haven't shown any compassion for the victim who you helped to destroy, you haven't at any point investigated when facts were sent to you by Bob Hill and the victim and others, you even cut short a letter by Mr Hill, making the point lost, your behaviour in this matter has been as accomplices to abusers, and those dignitaries, from the Vicars who actively protected the abusers, to the Bishops, Archbishops, laity, safeguarding, and conflicted judges, police and peers, are abusers, they are guilty of severe misconduct, abuse, the national safeguarding team, instead of addressing this prolonged and severe abuse by the senior clergy and peers, added to HG's anguish, tried to justify her horrendous brutal and murderous destruction that included you, and when she refused to be silent and do as they wished, they illegally, yet again, breached the data protection act and paid for 'professional advice' to ignore her, and they spread that advice around, breaking the law throughout, and left her forcibly silenced, except that she wasn't, and that is why they had her violently brutalised, in the fragile condition that she was in, seriously injured, and violently driven from her new home, community, work and friends, which she fought to keep throughout this ordeal. She remains homeless, destroyed and injured, and will never recover. Throughout the very serious harm in which you were part, she begged and begged for the public attack to stop, and explained her heart and lung conditions to the Bishop of Winchester and police and others, and was ignored. This matter of which you are part, is the biggest safeguarding failure in history, and all that the self-interested and corrupt peers who act in the Church of England's interests can do is pity a man who actively destroyed an abuse victim, with you amplifying that absolutely evil and open misconduct? 

Throughout the horrendous farce, HG begged the police to protect her from what was effectively illegal and abuse, the public destruction of her life and character, she begged and begged and explained that her heart and lungs and other health issues were being put under intolerable stress. This woman had never been in other trouble from the police despite her background described in 'Stepping out of the Circle' one of her books, she had tried to lead an honest life, worked for a low wage, trusted God, which led to the predators gaining access to her through the church, didn't drink, smoke, steal, do drugs, she lived with disability and psychological injuries that triggered her fury at the abuse and cover-ups, and yet all involved have been able to destroy her, in ignorance either deliberate or just the Anglican middle class culture, or pure nastiness, for example Terri Bond's vindictive and untruthful attack that you published even though the Bonds and their friends have still not faced action. Even during and after the main horrendous destruction, the victim went on and on trying to live a normal life, hounded from one home to another by the public battle, and struggling to work, sometimes unable to, because of the damage, until the violent repeat destruction of her life by the Bishop of Winchester and his staff and family, because she begged them for justice. And Faulkner whines about a Dean who has not been publicly held to account but privately removed with a terrible show in the press of his 'resignation' and who is able to live a normal life while the victim is not, she lives in terror, the next police beating of so many, with lies read out and no question or discipline for the police who failed to protect her but instead destroyed her for the people who she asked protection from.
All of this in broad daylight while the authorities looked on or enabled the church. The Police are guilty of very serious misconduct, and their behaviours in using severe violence against a terrified autistic woman and jeering at her, repeating the unchallenged lies of the church and not recording her story, are part of the culture that has had a tip exposed by the recent violences and offences against Black people, that behaviour although universal, has also been done for the Church of England as part of this power-heavy massive cover-up.

The recent concerns about the unregulated C of E and their behaviour have been strong, and yet, instead of you behaving like a genuine newspaper, instead of you doing journalism, asking questions, you TOOK PART IN THIS, and IT IS ABUSE. And if you or any peer or Bishop or Archbishop takes part in such very serious and life-changing abuse, you will do in other cases, the Haute de la Garrenne case of course being an example where you did. I seem to recall a suicide as a result? 
Lord Faulkners inappropriate interference in this matter and his favour of the Dean publicly in the house of comons, and his favour of the extremely guilty Archbishop, indicates his unfitness for office and his outstanding lack of ability to analyse or see both sides, no impartiality, no professionalism, no regard for the victim as he wails his sorrow for a millionaire abuser who was given full legal representation and the support of conflicted States Members and judiciary within the church throughout while the victim was not provided with representation by the Church of England and was left to write, in anger and terror and collapse, a blog that the C of E tried to have her convicted over, even though she was simply answering in the only way she could, their/your horrendous depraved public attack on her. 
All 'Church' related abuse survivor charities in the UK are conflicted by C of E members, and the C of E pervade all authorities and agencies, HG was left with nowhere for support, nowhere safe to turn, losing friends, work, community and life as this has gone on relentlessly with the cruel twist that her childhood was enough to cripple her life and relationships without this extreme cruelty, until Justin Welby and Tim Dakin and the 'National Safeguarding Team' forcibly expelled her from society 2 years ago for going on begging them for justice and a voice, three years after she rehabilitated herself from the streets because of the first effort and tried to gain a new life, the violences cost her her degree but she still owed the student loan, they treated her worse than a rapist or murderer and have left her destroyed and without life, and let Key leave under the illusion of a respectable resignation, and you have taken part in it all. Human rights are treat with total contempt here, safeguarding is absent, and even humanity is dead in the sheer cruelty, injustice and dishonesty of this abuse. 

Lord Faulkner and yourselves, in this abuse of power, haven't reported on any of the criminal actions of the Church of England from their positions of power in the Lords and from the safety of behind their lawyers and their expensive disaster management firm, Luther Pendragon; no sign of the list of criminal activities and data protection breaches encompassing the States of Jersey, Jersey Judiciary, Lawyers, PR firms, clergy and laity, is Lord Faulkner completely without intelliegnce, or purely and openly complicit in upholding very serious and criminal misconduct? You haven't reported on the lack of accountability by the Church of England, where they, to the point of murder, could attack a vulnerable adult and drive her to death, with repeats of that abuse such as yours and Faulkner's. No, you really are a very terrible newspaper, reflecting the terrible state of lack of regulation in Jersey that was pointed out by the Care Inquiry, who raised the fact that people, including HG, made complaints and those complaints were not processed. HG complained about the abuses of power and defamation of her by Ian Gorst, who remains in a position of responsibility despite his serious misconduct, also the Bailhache Brothers, Jersey Police, social services  and Safeguarding Partnership for serious misconduct and data breaches, Autism Jersey who breached data, judiciary conflicted by the C of E and abusing their power in the case and more. You are part of the 'Jersey Way' which harms and kills the vulnerable, and you are a disgrace. You are part of the unregulated 'Jersey Way'. Which is mirrored by the 'Church of England Way' the broad daylight sadism and injustice that is known to be suffered by residents of Jersey. And of course, Faulkner himself was an active part of it all for long time, and as it was highlighted by the Care Inquiry, Falkner's audacity in defending the Jersey Way and the serious and criminal abuses, beggars belief as much as your proud parroting does. 

You repeatedly parrotted Willmott on his lies about the state of safeguarding in Jersey, with no proof, no figures, no reason, pure PR. And this harmed the victim further, the C of E held social 'safeguarding lunches' as a show, and no lessons were learned as not only was HG still destroyed and homeless, but Willmott was involved in a number of safeguarding incidents in Jersey and elsewhere that were never investigated. Now, as the PR you publish for the Anglicans is without proof, and my letter is evidenced throughout, why don't you publish my letter? Not conveniently cropped as Mr Hill's was. 

 You have a duty of care and safeguarding responsibility, and each time you publish lies about the million pound whitewash and the Church of England, you abuse and seriously harm the victim. Time for a new editor maybe? Time for an IPSO investigation into years and years of lack of journalism, and biased reporting. The behaviour of the Church of England in full public view is farcical and hypocritical and quite simply, evil, from peers who harm abuse victims and are not disciplined by The Lords, to Archbishops and Bishops the same, an unaccountable, dangerous and abusive organisation, after your own hearts, but not acceptable in this day and age. HG will never in her lifetime be able to recover from the sustained and serious harm to her, her life is to be shortened by the aggravation of medical conditions if she isn't killed by the police who the Church of England still intend to silence her with, without her story ever being heard in full. 

Sincerely, 


Mr John Ian Carter, 









A letter regarding Paula Vennells, Justin Welby and the Church of England

  22/05/2024 Dear Recipients,  As ever, excuse the length of this.  Letters to the senior leaders in the Church of England fall on deaf ears...