Farce and PR

It's been quite a week for farce and PR in the Church of England, another week of victims of the Church being needlessly distressed by the C of E using the press for farce and PR under the guise of news.

We're told that the BBC have Justin Welby interviewing Tony Blair. The response from twitter, the thinkers in society is, where is the 'faith and morality in this, exactly?'

Justin Welby's Church is in a state of chaos and safeguarding is so bad that victims are being seriously harmed by Justin Welby's own safeguarding team, indeed Justin Welby has personally caused harm, homelessness and death. He has no pulpit to preach from in terms of morality, nor indeed faith, his example doesn't seem to be one of faith.

The BBC's demise will be through their own refusal to listen to public feeling. They have received enough complaints about Justin Welby playing the celebrity and hurting and angering people, re-abusing the victims of the Church as he struts around as if he's a star, when he's left his church in chaos and hurt and left the lives of abuse victims ruined. 

If Tony Blair is a man of morals, he should refuse to take part in this farce, and should advise Mr Welby to return to the role which he was appointed to, and pay attention to that role and that role only, rather than stroking his vanity any more. Mr Welby isn't a celebrity, he's an oil baron chosen by certain people to presumably make sure the church voted for who they wanted in government (if you recall Mr Welby's smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and support of PartyGate). He's not a Christian nor a good man, his senseless attacks on the feelings of the general public has pushed feelings of hatred for him to the limits, especially his recent defence of Boris Johnson and the bad behaviour of Downing Street and his nasty judgements about vaccine uptake.

While Justin Welby preens himself with the help of his sickeningly complicit BBC, victims of the Church suffer, neither Welby nor his senior clergy have been held accountable for the Winchester College matter, and I see the anguished tweets of one of the victims every time Welby flaunts his fake celebrity status. The Archbishop, and Church of England, which he seems singularly separate from, are cut off from the general public in England and of no relevance except the pain their interference in politics and abuse of the press causes.

People are bemoaning the current state of affairs in the UK, but Justin Welby has been behaving in this bad and callous way since 2013, and all complaints against him are ignored, he preens, he hides in his fortress and lets his staff handle the anger of the general public. Sadly for us, he has already started his mysterious pre-synod vanity stunt exhibition, brown-nosing the Queen to stay in favour.

The Church of England are not regulated, and the only points of authority over them are the Lords and Parliament, and the Charity Commission, who are failing to discipline or remove Welby for his abuse of his position to seek attention and fame for himself while neglecting his real duties. 

Many many complaints have been made against Justin Welby, from the more serious ones relating to abuse, to his making a mockery of the church and Christianity and his outright nuisance and distress to the general public. The BBC apparently insist on upholding him because one of his family holds a position in the BBC, and the BBC fail to respond to complaints against him, in the same way that Justin Welby fails to respond to the abuse victims who his publicity campaigns harm.

Although people are laughing somewhat about Justin Welby interviewing anyone about faith and morality, subjects in which he has no expertise, the reality of what Justin Welby has done, deliberately, and harmed abuse victims with, is not funny.

People ask, why has so much time passed with nothing being done about Welby's free rein to cause distress? Well, if you look at what has become of the UK, things have been going downhill in all areas, governance, social care and medical care, why would the freefalling Church of England be singled out for accountability and proper regulation? 

The IICSA was headed by members of the Church of England, the Charity Commission is conflicted by members with dual roles in the Church and Charity Commission, and they're afraid of the Archbishop's Lawyers. The House of Lords is full of conflicted and bad behaviour, so they're not sure what the fuss is about when incessant complaints are made about the House of Bishops. The Church of England is just one part of a nasty intermeshed melting pot of corruption in the highest places in the UK. 

People are increasingly pointing out how Welby is a member of the 'World Economic Forum' who appear to have aims  similar to the Nazi Regime, and who are nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, how does he have time for everything but his church, when his church is in such crisis? 

Although I don't support the 'Conservative Woman' News Site, because they can go to extremes, for example making France out to be an Islamist desert of burning churches, which it emphatically is not, they do have a readership of solid Christians who are horrified at Welby's seeming deliberate destruction of the Church of England as he fakes being a celebrity with the excuse of being an archbishop. If you look at the comments on this blog, they are similar to the thousands of comments on mainstream press articles from Christians and atheists alike when Justin Welby feels the need to open his mouth and put his foot in it:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/welbys-sickening-descent-into-the-covidian-cult/

Recently the Bishop of Winchester and his PR firm put on a Dying Swan production as his final service, releasing to the press about him breaking down, crying etc. He 'retired' as another PR firm-arranged idea when he was forced out of his Diocese by his clergy because he'd bullied and sacked so many clergy and laity, and yet he was able to stay on for a swan song, with no conscience or remorse. He was neither qualified nor ordained, and the appointments secretary who appointed him was sacked as a result, and still he managed a big weepy showy swan song, despite killing a vulnerable adult to silence them over abuse.

The Bishop of Winchester took his office under false pretences and is guilty of fraud and impersonating a clergyperson. The appointments officer who somehow managed to miss this was sacked. Tim Dakin spent most of his career having a vulnerable adult persecuted and publicly destroyed by press, public, clergy and laity after inexplicably deciding that the case was a publicity stunt, with no thought whatsoever for the vulnerable adult's safety.

As a result of the Bishop's actions, he managed to knock a powerful group of dignitaries, Lords, government members and other high-up persons, who had already firmly destroyed the vulnerable adult for reporting two serial abusers with powerful connections, the vulnerable adult was on the streets at the time as a result, utterly destroyed, and the Bishop publicly launched on her, destroying her rehabilitation and violently tearing her from her friends and evening classes and social groups with whom she was rebuilding her life despite still being a rough sleeper because of the severe trauma of the Church of England's actions against her, and for what? Reporting two serial abusers who the church protected. 

Despite what appeared to be an attempt by Bishop Tim Dakin to kill an abuse survivor outright by lies published in the form of a report, she simply left the community where she was sleeping rough and endured the next phase of her rehabilitation in a rough lodging house where she was the only woman among men with serious problems. 

As the onslaught against her by the press and public continued, she suffered assaults and hatred as a result of being the scapegoat in the war between the Bishop and the dignitaries he'd upset. The Archbishop was actively in support of the Bishop of Winchester's serious misconduct to the point of protecting him against a clergy discipline measure brought by the victim against the Bishop, and openly influencing the matter on behalf of the powers in the Lords and other places who supported the dignitaries and wrongdoers, to the point where the Archbishop was made to apologize to the wrongdoers.

A lot of false and conflicted reports were produced on the matter, openly conflicted and untrue, and the victim continued to plead with Tim Dakin for mercy and justice as her life and name were damaged beyond hope and she suffered horribly. He threatened her, using the unjust previous action of the church where they had tried to silence her through the police when she reported the serial abusers who had groomed and abused her and who were known to the church as abusers, she asked his clergy for help and they, led by Moira Murray, one of the 'safeguarding' representatives hired by the Archbishop to silence victims and prevent scandal, launched on her themselves. 

The victim continued, quite rightly, to ask for justice despite the church abusing their power to use social services, NHS, police and safeguarding to dismiss her as mad and trouble - (as has been seen in the Kendal House Victims' case and is ongoing there) and the Bishop of Winchester, having openly broken the law and the injunction the victim brought against him, abused his power to use the police to arrest her on the grounds of lies, she was violently brutalized by the police, whose culture it is to use needless violence when they know they can get away with it, and left utterly destroyed and without her work or home, again separated from friends, community and volunteer work. No disciplinary action was taken against either against the police, the Bishop or his wife and daughter who lied to the police and claimed groundlessly and without evidence, that the victim was harassing them. There would be no way a human being could survive this. Patricia Marshall, Jane Fisher and Jackie Rowlands, Safeguarding representatives, played a major part in this as well, but have not been fully held to account.

It was only when his own clergy and staff got tired of the Bishop abusing them, and not a one of them suffered the way the victim did, that they stood up to him and forced him out and he did a PR retirement which again brought up Press false reporting on the victim's case and harmed her again, as his 'dying swan' self-pitying act recently has. It says a lot for the lack of empathy, awareness and safeguarding in the Church of England. This man acts as if he has something to weep about when he made a vulnerable disabled woman scream with anguish for years as he destroyed her.

The dying swan act has of course raised the press's inaccurate coverage of the matter again, harming those close to the victim killed by Tim Dakin and Justin Welby's actions. Among those who feed the inaccuracies to the press is hate cleric Gavin Ashenden, who, when he was in the Church of England, abused his positions as clergy, lawyer and public speaker to interfere in the investigations and to attack, lie about and defame the victim on the radio and in the press, he never met the victim nor heard her story but has gone on using the victim as a pawn in his hatred for the Bishop of Winchester who dismissed him. 

He has been reported to the safeguarding departments of the Catholic Church who he defected to after church hopping when he was dismissed from his Queen's Chaplain and other Church of England positions. Astonishingly, Ashenden, with his hatred for all vulnerable groups and his public attacks and unChristian behaviour, has actually claimed to be an 'advocate' for Church of England abuse victims now that he's 'Catholic' and while he is continuing to cause harm and distress to the loved ones of the victim who he helped Tim Dakin to destroy and ultimately kill. No genuine report has been carried out into the case, just falsehood and conflicted whitewash lies flung into the public eye. Ashenden's motive is petty hatred against the Bishop for making the case public and also asking Ashenden to leave.

So, in summary, this week, Justin Welby is interviewing a colleague of his, Tony Blair, from the World Economic Forum. He's doing so as if the seriousness of the collapse of his church, which led to the Tim Dakin situation and John Smyth causing the death of another abuse victim in Africa are irrelevant. Tim Dakin had no right to fake retirement and a song and dance swan song, he should have been dismissed in 2013 when his actions harmed a vulnerable adult, the fact that Justin Welby not only looked on but aided that harm while using the press to try to be a celebrity, the fact that Justin Welby remains and isn't removed, is ludicrous. Ashenden needs to be controlled and taught what his parents forgot to teach him about, decency. And the Church of England need to be regulated. 

Welby should follow Dakin out the door and let it hit his behind on the way, he shouldn't have allowed Dakin to be ordained nor to remain when he was reported for his actions, Welby should have stopped the harm to the victim and not enhanced it, and he has certainly been very quiet about the farce 'retirement' and his appointment of conflicted and unsuitable overseers of the Diocese as a result. These conflicted complicit and unsuitable overseers are part of the cover-up.

Tim Dakin's self pitying Swan song has kicked off the vicious abuser, Gavin Ashenden and the press in lies and assumptions about Tim Dakin's victim, leaving those who knew her, harmed again. 

This matter has been years awaiting investigation while Justin Welby has stroked his vanity in the most terrible ways and abused the press and the general public, the Bishop of Winchester has kept his lavish lifestyle and done a dying Swan act after rightly but belatedly being removed, and Gavin Ashenden has gone on scapegoating a vulnerable adult and lying about the case at the expense of the victim unchecked. And still there has been no proper investigation.

Recently one of the pack of dogs journalists, Gary Burgess, who aided the church in destroying their victim, has been lauded as 'renowned' and similar. When ITV received complaints about him, he should have been sacked, years ago. He is only 'renowned' because Channel Islands and UK reporting is truly in the gutter, why renowned for killing a vulnerable adult publicly and without motive but spurred on to do so by Lambeth Palace, Luther Pendragon and the Diocese of Winchester? 

All the poor reporting is the responsibility of the Church of England, all the harm and lies, down to Stephen Parsons and his pack of bored hangers on supporting the 'poor old Bishop' whose conscience was so lacking that he failed to be responsible for his actions and tried to make the victim responsible, and the Jersey Evening Post, a rag paper that the island reviles but which is overseen by the brother of one of the serial abusers of Bishop Dakin's victim and who have waged an all-out war on the victim. 

The ongoing lies about the case and the victim after her destruction are a serious safeguarding failure and still the responsibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury and church of England, and in the case of Gavin Ashenden, the Catholic Church, who have received complaints and failed to act, making Ashenden's hatred and lies and abuse of the press an ever increasing safeguarding failure.

As Mr Welby starts his charm offensive pre synod, the national safeguarding team are being allowed to make a defence to the synod for their consistent and life-endangering failures but the synod are banned from debating this. Safeguarding in the church of England amounts to the opposite, and many are sickened by the press show while victims suffer. Mr Welbys needs to address his responsibilities and stop showing off. 

The Church of England live in a long ago age when the kind of slimy charisma of Welby, Dakin and their ilk is supposed to fool people into thinking they are 'Decent People Really'. A bit like 'Boris is Doing His Best' (nauseating thumbs up to accompany). Along with the repetitive 'use an animal to gain the public's affection and the rest of the 'Down to earth home people' show, but they don't seem to realize that only those with rather empty heads fall for this, most people know and are not happy about the unregulated and harmful Church, and after such a huge mess as Winchester, the Archbishop should be focused solely on what's gone wrong since 2013 and not his own vanity.

John Carter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

The Stockholm Syndrome Crowd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Tail Note: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12/08/2020   

Dear Charity Commission, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 reached them soon afterwards. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards, 

John Carter

A busy week

Good afternoon, 

Things haven't gone entirely to plan, as usual. This blogsite is now a week old and I have only posted one brief introductory post and two letters to the ABoC.

I started a post a few days ago that would have told you a bit more about us as a family, and was then going to look at some CofE headlines over the years. 

Sadly there are so many daft and unfounded CofE headlines in the past decade, so many empty promises not followed up, so many press releases which went without journalists or researches following up and disproving them that a project like that may take some time. 

I would like to think that the tide is turning, and possibly because of how utterly daft the CofE have become in their headlines. 

Over the years there have been so many press and media articles given to the pronouncements of the Church and the poor unfortunate Archbishop, but recently there has been an influx of articles concerned with the increasingly bizarre actions and pronouncements of Archbishop Welby, and I think that is a good thing. Things won't change until people speak up and stand up, like the little boy in 'The Emperor's New Clothes' - 'Your deceit and duplicity is naked, Mr Archbishop'. 

One of the recent articles was from the Telegraph, who used to gleefully advertise Mr Welby's astounding boasts, but this one speaks against him, because he has obviously gone too far. Several thousand comments on the article also speak out about the state of the Church and the Archbishop:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/06/28/justin-welby-rewriting-principles-hold-societies-together/

Then there was ConWom's Article:

 https://conservativewoman.co.uk/oh-for-gods-sake-archbishop-of-course-jesus-can-be-white/

Vennells. 

And then a someone left a comment on the blog about this matter that I had been unaware of. Thank you anonymous. It is chilling to read of wrongful convictions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Vennells

Now, believe it or not, I have seen such a scenario as the final lines from the C of E in this before. The Bishop said 'If conclusive proof can be provided, I will investigate. 

I am sure you can see the fault in that. What is an investigation normally for? Why should proof be provided before an investigation if a complaint has been made?

It's a major cop-out, because the Bishop 'decides' what is conclusive proof, and if provided, he then does a) a whitewash or b) a fake apology to glorify the Diocese in the media. 

Unfortunately the C of E have distorted the terms 'investigation' and 'apology' beyond imagining, 'safeguarding' as well, and done so publicly, and not  voice is heard in dissent. 

It's not that voices are not being raised, it's that they aren't being heard. 

Imagine there's no heaven. 

A thought came to me. What would heaven be like with all the Senior Anglicans there as they expect to be? of even some not so senior Anglicans? How would Jesus put up with all these people who have nothing inside and so much on the outside, craving for attention and glory and the spotlight to the point of having to be habitually dishonest, when in heaven there is no press and media or sin? Realistically they can't go to heaven because they have no integrity nor genuine sorrow for their own sins. I don't want to be in heaven with the Anglicans, that would be hell. 

The Archbishop tends to suck up to the Jewish community and Rabbis, and before the general election there was a bit of very blatant collusion there to swing the election, with the Archbishop and Rabbi attacking Jeremy Corbyn. The Archbishop, in that manic phase, went on to attack one side of Brexit as well, and lost his ridiculous ludicrous undeserved 'mediator' title. It is the first time he has been almost made responsible for his lunacy. 

Today the Rabbi is making a very Welby-like pronouncement on attacks on religion in the media. Hm. Religion attacks and doesn't like it when people bite back? If 'Religion' doesn't like criticism, maybe 'it' shouldn't behave in ways to provoke criticism, such as taking huge amounts of media time and space for ridiculous pronouncements. Maybe 'religion' shouldn't be so sensitive, it has always been controversial and always will be. All it has to do is act with dignity and focus on its own business rather than try to tell the world how to live, and wrongly too. I am not anti-religious, I am a churchgoing believer, but I see belief as a humble and private thing, not a source of shouting and showing off, Jesus didn't advocate showing off, he condemned the Pharisees for it. 

Daily Life. 

As I wrote this and tended to my other house and garden husbandry tasks, picking fruit and veg in between rain showers, the dishes, the ironing, etc. Another Telegraph article, dominated by letters about the Archbishop's actions, was posted, and the same numerous comments condemned the Archbishop:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/06/29/letters-nation-needs-church-unite-justin-welby-divides

You also have a letter in that page from the Anglican St. Cross estate, who would have had a much more comfortable lockdown than most, and who were grumbling that the government didn't fund their Coronavirus Testing, despite the estate being worth millions and in the million pound a year Diocese of Winchester. St. Cross can fund their own testing, as they make money upon money from everything on their estate, but they were using the Telegraph to pretty much beg for donations. 

Things are very wrong in the current scenario with the Anglican Church. 

The big row at Oxford over the Dean indicates that all is not well, and the fact that the Charity Comission can be used by the Church when complaints against the Church to the Charity Commission  are 'overlooked' by a Charity Commission who are very wary of treading on the toes of the Big Guys and prefer to wipe out smaller groups and charities for mistakes. Very sad. 

Another ConWom article about the Church was printed yesterday, but is more general, not just about the C of E but how the Church is declining and the recent crisis has highlighted the failure of the church. 

I won't link to it in the blog as blogger apparently gets wiggy about too many links in posts, but I noticed on there that Gavin Ashenden was mentioned as an antidote to the apathy and OTT Political Correctness of the churches, sadly he isn't a wonderful answer, he goes too far the in the other direction. This article won't make me popular with some people. 

Ashenden:

He gave an interesting response to the silly silly rantings of the ABoC recently, but it doesn't make him the solution.

Ashenden is like a spoilt child who wants his own way, and he has done his share of wrong, notably when he was in the C of E and took part in some of their cover-up work, and although some conservatives may see him as the solution to the current situation of woke PC and weakness. Ashenden's behavior isn't Christian, it is mainly narcissistic and exhibitionist as well as being about him acting out his phobias of minority and racist groups, there is also an element there of some sort of sexual problem that troubles him. 

My understanding of his story comes from someone who knew him and sent me some details. He was a popular liberal and inclusive chaplain at a Sussex university. His wife was mentally ill and nearly died, he prayed, she recovered, and left him. 

His extreme behaviors and change from inclusive to anti, appeared to start there. He was an Anglican at the time and for some years after the changes, and he drifted to Jersey where the chilling undertone in the churches has scared the life of out of several visiting and prospective priests and some grim stories whisper on the wind, for a while being part of the grim underworld there seemed to suit him. The Jersey Anglican Church is used as a shield and refuge for wrongdoers in power much as the English Anglican Church is, but on that small island, the effect is concentrated. 

He became a volunteer space-filler in the grim Jersey Evening Post, feeding his needs and making whacky and terrible pronouncements which were not edited by the newspaper despite breaching IPSO guidelines. He intervened in the cover-up of an abuse case with open lies in the BBC and other outlets, and at the same time 'retired' to France to write, keeping part time guardianship of a church in Jersey. Which he abandoned suddenly later, with rumours about safeguarding drifting around. 

He made a big thing about his mission to Yemen while at the same time still spouting Islamophobia and other Xenophobic and prejudiced remarks. There is a big difference between not liking or not understanding or condoning a group and attacking that group, and a good Christian keeps their feelings private and between them and God and doesn't use media space to advertise themselves as condemning that group without genuine reason. 

In France he continued his erratic behaviour, turning up uninvited to preach at a Church at Coutances in Normandy that he had inserted himself into the leadership of, causing confusion to the incumbents. And all of a sudden he was jetting off to the USA for 'The Proudest Moment of his Life' becoming a Bishop - to a tiny breakaway sect of the Anglican Church, leaving him with a smaller congregation than a C of E vicar in England. 

Gavin Ashenden constantly used his 'Queen's Chaplain' role to title his media releases; another voluntary role relating to him doing duties in the chapel on the Queen's estate, but his 'Chaplain' role was so often used in headlines where his rants were too bizarre and prejudice-filled, and he was called to a meeting and asked to resign from the voluntary role as it was an embarrassment to the Royal Family and they didn't want his 'sacking' publicized. He resigned but constantly still advertises as 'Former Queen's Chaplain' much to the annoyance of the Royals, and the general public are in main not aware that the role is a voluntary one which rarely involves contact with the royal family and is purely duties at the chapel. It's a great advertising tactic, but it reminds me of when 'former Prime Minister' or 'Former Archbishop' makes a comment in the headlines. 

More recently Ashenden bounced from the sect to Catholicism and raged about married men not being allowed to hold certain positions, he wanted the Catholic Church to bow to what he wanted, and a divorced man on his second marriage, it didn't look too good publicly. The Pope said no. 

Sure he can draw people in with great eloquence, he's a former lawyer, he's had a lot of training in public speaking, he's abused his position to aid the Anglican Church in a tremendous cover-up, but all the eloquence, all the speech, does not make him an antidote to the terrible decline of the Anglican Church or their actions, he was part of it, and 'By their fruits you shall know them', His history of jumping from church to church, country to country, wife to wife, etc, indicates that his preaching is more about his needs and his mental health than Christ. Gavin Ashenden is not the way forward for those of us dissatisfied with the Anglican Church, because while they are wrong, he is too. 

Ashenden is a very well trained speaker and self-publicist, he knows how to get a following, he speaks beautiful words, a bit like some depictions of Satan. But he isn't a Christian alternative to the undermined, rotten and dying Anglican Church. He may have the words and the showmanship but he simply leads people away from one evil to another. 

Lady Bishops. 

Female Bishops were brought in for the same reason as female clergy, to create the illusion of equality, to gain press acclaim, and to meet government demands. Not a lot of genuine equality or inclusion. And the move left more people deserting to the Catholic Church. 

The female Bishop of London appears to think that she is a celebrity and not a priest, guarded 24 hours a day by Press Relations/Disaster Management Firm Luther Pendragon who help to 'ease the burden' for the whole of the Church at times when their deeper wrongs are exposed, the Bishop of London keeps up a constant display in the press, she leaps enthusiastically for any bandwagon available. She indicates the Church's influence over police, law and more when she makes a big show of holding services for them -basically the message is 'complainants beware, the Church of England has powerful friends in every camp'.

The Bishop of Dover, both black and female, is a great triumph for the PR illusion and pretence of compliance with the government in order to avoid regulation. She frequently pronounces about the Church being racist, setting the ABoC off into gibbering echoes of her words. It is an insult to call the national congregation, black and white, Asian and European, racist.  

She is also a 'former Queen's Chaplain'. 

There are a few other females, they chatter a bit but the main actresses are Dover and London. It is a pity that these female Bishops had to take actress roles instead of helping the congregation to start returning to the Word. 

If I was a female Bishop, I would be embarrassed to be in a position purely as a PR pawn for a very lost Church. 

Finally.

I am unsure about post lengths but I will stop now as there is so much to do here and we are out tomorrow. Time and subject are the main problems for me as a new blogger. I don't know where to start or what to include, but I will learn. 

I see that the pubs opened before the Churches, should be the other way round, we can 'Thirst after righteousness'. 

I gather that many people have been contacting Lambeth Palace, but the Archbishop will be pretty immune to their words as the letters are sorted and filed in the bin by office workers and phone calls do not go anywhere. 

I did ask if people wanted to aid me in making a difference, but as with other situations I have seen like this, many will complain but few will be willing to engage in a serious challenge to change things.