Letter of Questions for the Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury

Subject: Letter of Questions for the Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury
From: HG
Date: 5 Apr 2015

Dear Dioceses of Winchester and Canterbury,

This is a letter of questions.
Some of Which I have already asked you but have decided to share with the general public.
The list of questions is exhaustive, because what the Church of England have done in their crazy showing off has brought up many many questions, and as you continue to subject me to harm and damage to my life, I am answering with questions.

1. Diocese of Winchester, Don't you think it was ultimate abuse of power that you liased with the police to destroy me for continuing to fight both your refusal to deal with my complaints and your illegal violations of my life, and then you used the same police to have me illegally traced so that you could go on destroying me?

2. Can you explain why, if your reports were about safeguarding, why you allowed Gavin Ashendent to be interviewed for the Steel report when he has never met me, was not in Jersey when I was there and was abusing his power as a former lawyer and chaplain to the Queen in order to protect the Dean, and has gone on to cause serious safeuarding issues in Jersey and the Diocese of Normandy?
What is being done about the safeguarding issues that Ashenden is causing in Jersey? Examples of which are commented on here:
3) http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/httpwww.html

3. This is one of your clergy, who you are permitting to use the press to spread terrible propaganda against vulnerable people and Islam. Can you explain why?

4. What is being done about Ashenden's behaviour, including his slander of me in the press and media, which is also a safeguarding issue? Can you explain why the Diocese of CAnterbury and the Diocese of Winchester are allowing Ashenden to run a column in the JEP that is furthering his damaging views and harm to vulnerable groups?

5. Unrelated. According to Bob Hill, the Diocese have agreed to pay for my accommodation for the rest of my life. That was in 2013. It is now 2015. Would the Diocese like to make the arrangement to backdate the money to 2013 and start paying me?

6. Could the Diocese of Winchester please explain why, if there was nothing wrong with the Steel report so that they were prepared to release it in 2013 and again in 2014, why it has been 'being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts' for a year now. With legal fees starting at £300 per hour, and safeguard expert fees probably not much lower, how much has a year of these experts cost? Who is paying, and why, if the report has twice been prepared for release, has it needed a year of 'being looked at'?

7. Can the Diocese then confirm that what they intend to release in the end is not the full whack of what Steel, Bailhache, Key, Ashenden, Birt, LeMarquand, LeFeuvre and other powerful and conflicted interrelated people engineered to cover up for the Dean and my abuser at my expense? Can the Diocese explain what worth a report hijacked by the defendants and amended is worth to the general public, transparency and safeguarding, especially considering how much it has cost?
How much, including the year of having the Steel report looked at by experts has this un-safeguarding report cost? And who are these experts? And why have these experts been given a report that excludes the person it is about and their views? Why after a year if these are genuine experts, haven't they spoken out about this being one sided?

8. A question was asked in the States of Jersey recently: Why is the Dean on Sabattical (again) and who is paying for it? I would like to ask the above question and also add, why was he apparently sent on Sabbattical by the Luitenant-Governor of Jersey? And why did he and the Deanery make a concerted effort to get the Steel report released before his sabbattical?

9. Can the Church please explain which authority they have referred the complaint about Sir Philip Bailhache's abuse of power and breaches of the data protection act while holding documents he was not entitled to, and when the results of that investigation will be available and where to get a copy?

10. On the same theme of investigation, who is investigating the smear campaign and lies about me in Jersey's local press and media by the Jersey Deanery, and the wider attacks on me as a result of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of CAnterbury's launch of my case and the Korris report into the National Press. Who is carrying out this report and when will I be interviewed?

11. Remaining on the subject of reports and investigations. The Diocese of Winchester made a lot of noise about safeguarding and transparency and independent report, but as yet, no independent report that includes me has been arranged, unless it has been arranged without announcement, and as yet, I have not been contacted for interview. As all are aware, the Bishop has instigated investigations into Jane Fisher and the Deanery of Jersey's complaints against me, in the form of the Korris and Steel reports, but has not instigated any investigation into my complaints against the Jersey Deanery and Jane Fisher. Therefore this is an entirely unfair situation. When is the Bishop of Winchester or the Bishop of Dover going to arrange for a report into my complaints?

12. Can the Bishop explain exactly why he has effectively done a public, illegal and unjust investigation into me, and called it a safeguarding report? Can the Bishop explain how paradoxically destroying me while claiming it is in the interests of safeguarding makes sense? Can the Bishop explain why he has given a voice to my destroyers and unpheld them?

13 Can the Bishop explain why he had me illegally traced by the police on the claim that the diocese 'wanted to help me' after they had destroyed me, and he then went ahead in upholding the way the diocese had destroyed me, by threatening me, with the police and record that I would not have got if his clergy and safeguarding officer had not been doing wrong in the first place?

14. Can the Bishop of Winchester explain why, when he claims to consider Safeguarding is very important, why he has not dealt with Jane Fisher, his safeguarding director who has committed serious misconduct, and, as she is also a Reader in the Diocese of Winchester, why he has personally not dealt with complaints against her and left her to openly harass me, in the case of her illegally referring me to the NSPCC, illegally liasing about me, and her jeer of adding me on twitter last year, showing off that neither diocese nor police had dealt with he rmisconduct? And can the Bishop also explain how, as Jane Fisher is a reader, he has dealt with her conflict of interests in the 'Safeguarding complaint' as she is a reader alongside other readers in the Jersey Deanery, such as Ian LeMarquand and Neville Brookes and others who are close to my abuser? And can the Bishop explain why the formal complaints against Jane Fisher have not been dealt with and why after the complaints were made, she was allowed to continue to be involved in the Jersey Safeguarding matter? And why she refused to deal with the case of another vulnerable adult mistreated by the Church in Jersey, when she was in Jersey to illegally liase with the police over my case?

15. When is the Diocese of WInchester going to announce the conflicts of interest and coercions and abuses of power that rendered their 'visitation' and investigations in Jersey worthless? This includes connections between the Jersey Deanery and: Judiciary, Police, Masonic agreements, lawyers, advocates others involved in law, press and media workers, relatives and friends of the Dean, my abusers and the others listed here, other people not listed here. Unless the Diocese is quite open and blatant about these conflicts then they are neither being transparent nor honest, and if the Diocese do know these conflicts, then that again invalidates their 'investigations'.

16. What are the Diocese of Canterbury doing about the Jersey situation? Not a lot if Ashenden is anything to go by.

17. Did the Diocese of Winchester undertake this open public attack on me without foresight or was it deliberate? If the Bishop felt that he had the evidence on which to suspend the Dean, why did he then clear him before the Steel report was carried out, and thus defame me by anulling what had happened to me, and givingthe press opportunity to attack me as discredited, why, if the Bishop re-instated the Dean, did he then proceed with the Steel report, having gone from suddenly suspending the Dean to suddenly clearing him? How did the evidence change from publicly suspending the Dean in the NAtional press, to clearing him? And why did the Steel report then occur when the Bishop had annulled his own actions, and why then has the Bishop not apologized to the Dean?

18. Why if the Dean was cleared, did he 'apologize' to no-one? Why did the feeble 'apology' never get sent to me by the Diocese? And why, when it was never sent to me, was it used as a 'trophy' on the Church website, after the Bishop cleared the Dean without even interviewing me?

19. Why, if the Korris report was inaccurate and thus you have cleared the Dean, have you not publicly annulled the Korris report and instead allowed me to continue being shamed and defamed by it? For example, in the Church (Times) Rag? Incidentally, why have you also allowed your clergy to libel and defame me in the same paper, where hundreds of clergy read their side of things and without my views added, one side of things gets heard and believed, and the same with the rest of the press slander. How, with these massive irregularities, can you claim that anything you have done is to do with safeguarding, and again, since you have cleared the Dean at my expense, why have you not apologized publicly to him for suspending him and publishing the Korris report? And why have you not apologized for me for the defamation and data protection breaches that have led to hate attacks and shunning of me? How is what you have done anything to do with safeguarding?!

20. Can the Bishop explain, in the context of the public display of abuse of power and ignorance of vulnerability and the effects of abuse shown by the typically wealthy and powerful Church members in response to the 'safeguarding reports' How the Bishop and Diocese have improved safeguarding through their actions, and how the Bishop and Dioceses have countered these ignorant, bigoted and narrow attitudes and educated these people on the subjects of poverty, vulnerability, disability and abuse? Especially notable church officers such as Philip Bailhache, Ian LeMarquand, Bruce Willings and other conflicted Church members? Can the Bishops publicly describe the work they and his dioceses have done in response to the open bigoted prejudiced and nasty attacks on me and on all abuse survivors and vulnerable people as a result of the Bishops unprecedented public attack on me and the Jersey Deanery through the Korris report?

21. Can the Bishops explain what action has been taken against the Clergy and Laity in the Jersey Deanery case for their ongoing misconduct as a result of the safeguarding report? And when there is to be a safeguarding investigation into my complaints, presumably leading to further appropriate action? And why a number of people involved in misconduct were actually promoted, as seems to be a generic action by the Church of England?

The next set of questions are the ones that I sent to Jan Korris in my open letter to her:

Here are some questions that you and other people need to ask the Bishop of Winchester:
1. Why did he have me traced and violated, illegally by the same police who his safeguarding officer had me destroyed with? Why he do that AFTER publishing the Korris report and not in order to offer me a chance to participate?

2. Why were my amendments and views not added if it was a genuine safeguarding effort? And why was the report left up, not amended, until I took the Bishop to court?

3. Why did the Bishop not release the Steel report to a court of law if it was a genuine report? Why and how was he able to wriggle out of it, and will he do so again as I continue action against him?

4. Why did the Bishop claim that the Steel report was ready for release in November 2013, and then claim that someone had made a legal bid against the report's release? How could someone have made a legal bid when no-one knew what was in the report? This claim by the Bishop led to further slurs on me, most notably Peter Ould claiming I couldn't have made the legal bid as I was not intelligent enough - Peter Ould being the Vicar who blogged about sex until recently and illegally involved himself in my case to the detriment of the church and slandered me and jeered at me openly with the church refusing to restrain him until I kept up a sustained complaint - good safeguarding?

5. So if someone made a bid against the Steel report, and the Bishop had to amend it, then the report was not going to be accurate anyway, so then the Bishop claimed to be preparing to release it, again, in May, and Bob Hill and I both took action. Why was the Bishop trying to release this report to the wrong official in Jersey though? Again, when there is an independent investigation, outside of the Church, these things need to be queried.

6. Why does the Bishop keep claiming to have 'safeguarding and legal experts looking at the report? Why does he need these people looking at the reports if it is a fair and balanced report? Why have they been looking at this report for a year and more without contacting me to include my views and amendments? Why has the Bishop not sent me a copy of the Steel report to comment on?
Who are these legal and safeguarding experts?
If they are within the Church of England then they are conflicted, if they are not within the church then they would not have waited over a year to contact me for my views or declare the report conflicted and unbalanced and inappropriate denigration of a lone vulnerable adult. The Bishop's solicitors seemed unaware of the situation when I contacted them about this, and there is no sign of an outside safeguarding panel viewing this report, because if this happened, then due to the nature of the conflicted Steel report and due to the material about the mess the Bishop has made of my case being widely available, the Bishop would already be in a lot of trouble over the Steel report.
Presumably when Luther-Pendragon tell the Bishop to say that the Steel report is being looked at by legal and safeguarding experts, they are referring to the conflicted Jane Fisher and Elizabeth Hall, and the Bishop's chaplain, who is a trained Barrister. Thus the general public are being mislead.

7. Why did the Bishop of Winchester allow conflicted Jane Fisher to illegally refer me to the NSPCC? Especially when he had said that there would be no further unsolicited intervention in my life? And when Jane Fisher had a formal complaint against her, which the Bishop, Elizabeth Hall, Paul Butler and the Church of England have still failed to deal with? How are they committed to safeguarding when they have failed to record, investigate or resolve my complaint?

8. Why am I being made to live in fear of and trying to survive, continued press attacks while the Bishop of Winchester continues to lie about the Steel report and leave me waiting to be destroyed by it? Will any amount of safeguarding experts and legal experts make it into a genuine report when the fact that they are involved, ficticiously or for real just says the Bishop only cares about his and the Diocese's legal safety, as I remain excluded?!

9. Now that you have read my questions, ask yourself, what happens to the voiceless vulnerable when the church can be this dishonest and this cruel to someone who has a certain amount of ability to write to the church in defence? what happens to the voiceless when the Church of England control what the press get to see and when the Church can subject someone to the damage they have subjected me to, and never be called to account?



This is the end of the first letter of Questions. But the Questions are exhaustive, and I am trying to live a normal life despite being under pressure from this matter, so I will leave it at that for the moment.



Further Reading:













No.1 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/bob-key-and-jersey-way.html

No.2 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-jersey-establishment-cl...

No.3 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/bob-key-support-and-recogni...

No.4 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-philip-bailhache-le...

No.5 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/04/open-letter-to-bishop-of-wi...

No.6 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/04/dean-reinstated-press-relea...

No.7 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/05/business-as-usualthe-jersey...

No.8 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/05/philip-bailhache-independen...

No.9 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/06/senator-philip-bailhache-gr...

No.10 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/10/3rd-anniversary-of-abuse-vi...

No.11 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/11/jersey-dean-who-exonerated-...

No.12 http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2013/12/exonerated.html















More of Bob Hill's Blogs:










FRIDAY, 31 MAY 2013






FRIDAY, 30 MAY 2014