Open Letter to Jan Korris, Church of England Counsellor and author of the 'Korris Report'

Subject: Open Letter to Jan Korris, Church of England Counsellor and author of the 'Korris Report'
From: HG
Date: 29 Mar 2015

Dear Jan Korris,

I know I have emailed you regarding this matter and have also contacted the BACP. But I often feel that I should speak out and tell the general public of my feelings as well as you, because you don't seem to care very much about the damage you have done.

As I write my series of open letters, I know that they may be all that I leave behind if the Diocese of Winchester are not stopped from destroying me. That is how serious and awful this matter in which you have taken part is.
I am also aware that the Diocese do not want me to be heard.

As a BACP counsellor, you were not qualified to carry out your report, and I cannot understand why a supervisor would apparently allow, condone and uphold what you did, but apparently your supervisor did.

The 'Korris Report', so titled, was made to sound official and important. It was also labelled 'Independent Safeguarding Review for the Diocese of Winchester. But I have to point out, it was not independent because you are not independent, you are a contract counsellor for the Church of England, and as well as not being independent, you, as a counsellor, were not qualified to carry out such a report. But most importantly, your report was based on Jane Fisher's notes and materials, and she had acted seriously unprofessionally and thus should have been being investigated, rather than using the Korris report as a combined cover-up for herself and a way of glorifying the Diocese and church at my expense, making it look like the Church and Diocese cared deeply about safeguarding, while paradoxically both covering up and having me internationally vilified, which is as far from safeguarding as you can get.

The 'Korris Report' was messy, not chronological, very inaccurate, very insulting and psychologically damaging. Did you think, when you wrote it, what the impact of it on me would be, to see it published internationally while I was voiceless and helpless as ignorant people smeared me and jeered at me internationally in the press and media and on social media? Did you even think of that impact, even if you didn't forsee the Jersey Deanery's smear campaign against me? And considering the way I had already been smeared when I was in Jersey and destroyed for reporting my abuser, you should have thought of that. Only you followed Jane Fisher's lead in making the way I was treated in Jersey into my paranoia, because you never interviewed me and totally omitted the incidents of me being attacked and shunned in Jersey. One of which even the Bishop of Winchester acknowledged while Jane Fisher blamed me.

You also omitted from your report the conflicts of interest, which the Church of England have also omitted and ignored, for example these people are conflicted: Ian LeMarquand, Philip and William Bailhache, Bridget and David Shaw, The Warrens and Lihous, Michael Birt, and many others, so the fact that they have had a say and a voice, quite a loud say and voice, while I have not been included in your report or any report, shows serious misconduct on your part and the part of the Church of England.
If you write a report on someone and omit them, and publish it, having only included the accounts of other people who have done wrong to that person,and enable those wrongdoers to cover up for themselves, then you are simply doing a character assassination, not a report.

Bob Hill thinks your report is great, because despite having seen the Church of England's full and glorious duplicity, he still thinks there is something great about your report, and he has published parts of your report and had me harmed further, alongside the complete strangers attacking and slandering me from the original report.
You are well aware of how I refer to your report. 'The Korris Rubbish'. It doesn't matter to me that you started off by correctly describing some of my interactions with the Dean. You then couldn't continue correctly, because you were using Jane Fisher's notes and also illegally accessing and publishing information that I did not give you consent to access or publish.

Tell me, what do you think the impact on me was of seeing the Diocese of Winchester's side of things published internationally. How do you think it felt to me to see Jane Fisher's excuse of me being 'mentally ill' published internationally to save her skin? Does the word 'engineered' ever enter your mind when you think about my pleas for help in Jersey and then you being fed Jane Fisher's 'truncated'/altered and doctored notes nd her speciality, emails written for the purpose of cover up, so that you could write a report that rather than telling what happened to me, glorifies the church and leaves me being maligned, insulted and shunned by strangers and my community?!

Let me tell you the impact on me. I saved my own life after being left so horrifically damaged by Fisher and Scott-Joynt, and your report and the response to it nearly led to my suicide. Do you still think it is a safeguarding report?

And what has come out of the Korris report? You have permenantly branded me internationally. At the time of you writing your inaccurate report, how may autistic women with a problem with the church and in my age bracket were on the streets? And because I didn't know about the Korris rubbish being published, I had no idea why I was suddenly shunned and people were cold to me and broke off friendships, usually when that starts happening, it is a trademark of Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester and that they have illegally traced me yet again to go on shunning me.
Do you think it helped me to be further defamed and shunned after the level of shunning and branding I had already suffered at the hands of the Diocese of Winchester?
Was it safeguarding?

When the Korris rubbish broke into the international press, the Church were using it purely to glorify themselves, and then of course their was the tough situation of how they had to wriggle out of any liability. How do you think they would do that?
How have they done that? After using your report as part of their pretence of really really caring about safeguarding that came about as a result of them averting a government inquiry into abuse in the Church and them trying to stem the negativity about the Church's inability to safeguard? How would they, having got the 'good publicity' at my expense, then proceed?
Certainly not by proceeding to hear and record my story and recompense me. Do you recall me sending you a massive list of inaccuracies in your awful report?
Did your report get amended?
You sent those amendments to the diocese, and you utttered some rubbish about being careful about how you discussed the Korris report in future.
You didn't, as the Bishop claimed to a court of law, contact me previous to releasing the report, to try and get my views and include them, there is no record whatsoever of you trying to contact me, so the Bishop lied to a court of law, and the amendments sent to you and the Diocese, which only covered half of your appalling report, were never added to the report. I only tried to read your report once and was left vomiting and in collapse and would have committed suicide if a few people who had not yet turned away had not taken me in until I felt a bit better.
Your report is not a safeguarding report and it is completely unprofessional, your supervisor and the Diocese of Winchester are guilty of serious misconduct for liasing with you in a public character assassination of a vulnerable adult, and had I been anyone other than a lifelong survivor who can write, if I had been most other vulnerable adults and indeed a large percentage of normal adult human beings, I would have committed suicide over your assisted hatchet job on my case. What you did was dangerous and thoughtless and a serious safeguarding issue, and you, as a counsellor, should have known better.

The Diocese of Winchester had no worries whatsoever about keeping your report on their website to glorify themselves, until I took them to court, and only then, was the report that they had not amended to include my views, nor arranged to interview me in order to amend, was removed.
The report was only recently removed from the Diocese of Winchester's archives, mysteriously. This latter fact was pointed out to me by someone following the case.

I am writing this as I cook the Sunday roast, so every time I stop writing and go to do something with the dinner, I think of something more to say to you. Do you know who I am or how I live? Have you ever read my daily blog that runs back to 2011? And why did you not do anything about the publication of your report and lack of amendment when you became aware of my distress and my counterpoint to your report?
Here is my daily blog, the real HG, not the synthetic one that you and Jane Fisher created:

Even the Diocese of Winchester have rubbished your report, as have the Jersey Deanery, and as for me, I am sickened by it.

The Diocese have rubbished it by not following up on your 'recommendations', you 'recomend' that the 'truncated information is investigated, well seeing as it would expose Fisher and the Scott-Joynts, and Jersey police, who you have effectively covered up for, that was not going to happen.

And you recommend that my imprisonment and deportation are investigated, and Dame Steel, the conflicted judge appointed as a result of your farcical report, stated to Bob Hill that she was not investigating those things, and yet she contacted my former advocate who failed to represent me properly and demanded court documents, without contacting me to ask permission or even introduce herself.

Steel and her friends in the Jersey Deanery hijacked the whole matter and I remain voiceless and waiting to be wiped out by more defamation in the press. Now you started this horrendous two-year crucifiction of me, are you prepared to step in and put a stop to it? Because I hold you responsible, alongside the Diocese of Winchester, for all this harm to me.

You have taken my voice away and allowed wrongdoers to triumph.
Is that safeguarding???

Although every party in the matter now disregards the Korris rubbish, it was certainly the start of me being re-crucified by the Church of England, and why? I am crippled, branded and horrendously damaged for life. Why did it need re-doing and re-enforcing?

The Korris report is very much representation of the Church of England and their attitude to safeguarding and what they think Safeguarding is!

Would you believe that I am so traumatized that writing letters like these and proceeding to the next part of the letter are very hard for me?

As the individual who is the subject of your dreadful report, I hereby nullify it and warn you NEVER to subject a vulnerable adult to that kind of harm again. I write that in full knowledge that you wrote your report without malice or intent of harm but you were so damn misguided and without foresight that is is a matter of serious misconduct on your part.

I have never met you and you have never met me, so how did you imagine that what you wrote was anything to do with me? Jane Fisher committed serious misconduct in the Jersey matter, and although that is glimpsed at the start of your report, with her concern for scandal rather than my case and welfare, onwards from there, her behaviour is sickeningly covered up at my expense. So I cannot imagine you as a person, you are more like an extension of Jane Fisher in my mind.

Now, as a counsellor, why do you think I am writing this letter? Is it because the church brand me as an attention seeker or a troublemaker? As a counsellor you will know that writing things out is cathartic and healing. And that is why I am writing, why I have kept writing about this matter. You played a part in leaving me voiceless while re-writing my story, shockingly, and publishing it internationally, and I am simply answering, with a small and barely heard voice.

Examples of why your report was not an accurate report:

You claim in your report that the police wrote me a nice letter, basically as well as defending Jane Fisher, you appear to be covering up for the police. You omit the real story of how, on the day they let my abuser go, the police, hostile, brutal and dishonest, raided my home, tricked and trapped me, brutalized me and flung me on a police cell floor until the early hours of the morning.
The letter you mentioned never reached me, probably because if it was a real letter, the police, knowing I had temporarily fled the island due to the behaviour of my abuser and his supporters in the church and the trauma I was suffering, must have sent it to my address that I had fled, to the hostile landlady, who had tried to prevent me from leaving.

In Jersey, where non-qualified tenants are treated like animals, this woman had no qualms about going through my personal possessions and undoubtedly would have no qualms about opening my post,so if your report is correct that a letter was sent to me, it was sent to someone else and would have been to my detriment.
Only your report doesn't cover things like this, because you never interviewed me, and rather than me being traced to include me in your report, I was traced AFTER it was published, and even then, no interest was shown in including my side of things. So your report was a waste of time and money.
Although the Church thought it was a great way to glorify themselves and cover up the real story at the same time.

I am not going to include each error point by point, I will simply include links to them.

If the Church of England had bothered to use your report as a guide to further investigation, they would have been starting with an inaccurate guide, but they chose to do worse, to arrange and allow a non-independent and conflicted report and ignore or choose to remain ignorant of all conflicts of interest, basically they simply handed the matter over to the conflicted Jersey Clergy-judiciary-freemason-States clique, allowed them to write the report after the Bishop of Winchester unlawfully suspended the Dean publicly and had to re-instate him at my expense, at the same time as threatening me for begging the diocese not to keep violating me.
I don't know if you saw all that, the Dean's feeble apology to no-one, that no member of the church even forwarded to me? The one that the Diocese and Church of England kept as a trophy on their website until I objected because the Church had never even told me of the 'apology' and the Bishop had basically cleared the Dean when he reinstated him when Philip Bailhache forced him to, and the ensuing hopelessly conflicted report by Steel was a waste of the Diocese's money just as your report was, because the outcome had already been stated in the Dean being reinstated and cleared by the Bishop.
So, two years on, and I am still waiting for the Bishop to kill me with the Steel report, what do you think of that as an outcome to your messy and unprofessional Korris report? Good safeguarding?

Steel was and is a member of the conflicted Jersey Deanery Clique, alongside Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt, Ian LeMarquand and others already mentioned or not mentioned, have you noticed that the Diocese of Winchester and Church of England have never made these conflicts clear to the general public in response to these people attacking and smearing me in meetings and in the press? Good safeguarding? Would you like to remind them that as they launched this massive character assassination on me, they are also obliged to ensure that the general public know the reasons behind these people's attacks on me and support of the Dean. Or were you yourself unaware of the associations? In which case, how effective is your report?
You followed Jane Fisher's preaching about me being mentally ill and not being shunned and maligned in the Jersey Deanery, in light of the actions of the Jersey Deanery since and my psychological report, do you still believe that?

The Korris report was a waste of the Church of England's money, they presumably thought that the PR acclaim that they would get from that very loud and prominent press release of it would make it worthwhile, and there was no thought whatsoever for me as they violated me and dragged up all the trauma, leaving me suffering utter torment. So was that safeguarding?

The Church have wasted approximately a million pounds on my case, while leaving me homeless and destroyed, and have not even included me or my views in their reports, so you think that means they care about or are committed to, safeguarding? Dame Steel, having never met me, and having included interviews with people who had never met me, in her report, told Bob Hill that there was nothing wrong with me and that I was just a troublemaker. What do you make of that? Is that condusive to a good safeguarding report?
Apparently, because of course she can't use thousands of pounds on a report that is supposed to be about safeguarding and do nothing to gratify the Bishop and Church, she has come up with some sort of safeguarding concerns, but has failed to declare her serious conflicts and has failed to step down when asked to by me and when Bob Hill has described her conflicts to the Diocese of Winchester and John Gladwin and Christine Daley.
So following on from your inaccurate and unprofessional report, here is a woman seriously conflicted and working with the conflicted Jersey Deanery clique for what is simply a magnified version of the way I was destroyed when I was in Jersey, when I was slandered and vilified to absolve Bob Key and my abuser, and the way I was vilified was not only upheld by Jane Fisher but furthered by her, is that included in your report?
And now that you know the consequences of your dreadful report, don't you think it is time that you did something about them?

Here are some questions that you and other people need to ask the Bishop of Wichester:
1. Why did he have me traced and violated, illegally by the same police who his safeguarding officer had me destroyed with? Why did 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?

No more questions. Jan Korris, would you like to redeem the damage you have done by contacting the Church of England regarding the questions I have included in my letter to you?
Would you also like to produce a redaction of the Korris report, stating that the subject of the report, HG, has refuted the report as neither accurate nor truthful and not relevant to her case but extremely defamatory and harmful in a lasting and life-limiting way?
Please be one of the people who brings this shameful farce by the Church to an end.

Many thanks,



Further vital reading and references:

Bob Hill's Jersey's Dean and Care Inquiry Blogs give extensive mention of conflicted people involved in my Case:

This is my daily blog, I live a simple life, affected by trauma and autism spectrum, but not the life of a villain, which is what the Church make me out to be:

And a blog about some of the Church matters, a very wordy blog, very heavy and sometimes rather rude about the Church: