Formal complaint against Jane Fisher, part 2.

Comprehensive formal complaint against Jane Fisher of the Winchester Diocese, her supervising Bishop and Diocesan Safeguarding failures:

This is not the same statement as the one you will have received previously but is supplementary to it.

My name for the purposes of this complaint is ***********, this is the name that my parents gave me, although they interchanged our surnames so my family sometimes went by the surname ‘******’, which confused me because I am on the autistic spectrum. I changed my name in the last few years to protect me from Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester and the bad record that they gave me which prevented me from seeking help or rehabilitating, as, when the bad and one-sided record I was given was looked up,   I was treated like dirt, forced upon and left very hurt and thus unable to heal.
So although I am no longer legally ‘*********’, I am using my own name because the longer Jane Fisher does not know my new name, which I hope that she doesn’t, the longer I will feel safe. And everyone involved in the church and Diocese matter know me as **************

I am:
Homeless and destitute
On the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum
Mildly physically disabled
Said to have learning difficulties
Psychologically damaged by my upbringing
Diagnosed as having Post Traumatic Stress

These classifications mean that I am said to be a ‘vulnerable adult’.

I am writing this letter to continue my formal complaint that you received recently.
This complaint has been constructed using the ‘promoting a safe church’ documents produced by the church of England as a guideline to all members of the church of England and particularly those who work in pastoral care, to raise awareness of the needs and inclusion of vulnerable adults in the church and prevent abuse.

I am writing as a result of having suffered and still suffering every kind of damage at the hands of the Diocese of Winchester and Jane Fisher, the director for safeguarding and inclusion. I understand that this document is long and is heavy weather, but the level and depth of wrong in the safeguarding or lack of it in the Diocese is severe.

The introduction to this document is a good place to start and contains very relevant information to my complaint.

From the Introduction: There is a particular responsibility for members of the Church to ensure that all people are treated with respect and that any complaints against church workers are dealt with promptly and fairly. Safeguarding adults within the Church is based
on sound pastoral care and good practice.

Jane Fisher certainly didn’t treat me with respect, she spent her time trying to teach me lessons and she never did deal with my complaints. She is a safeguarding and inclusion director, and her intervention behind the scenes as if I was the abuser, left me alienated over and over again, while she did not do the same to RA and FM, who were left laughing and included in churches while I was left on the streets, being spoken about and to in a horrible way, again as if I was the abuser, Jane Fisher knew that R had been saying he was cleared, and yet she set the police on me and refused to give evidence for me to take civil legal action about R. saying he was cleared, she said it was all ‘third-party’ and told me she would speak to him about what he was saying in six weeks time!
Jane Fisher ruined me in front of my unpunished abusers who have kept positions in the church. She has never treated me with respect or dignity but has repeatedly violated me in a way I will never recover from, I cannot trust anyone because whichever way I turned and no matter where I tried to settle and belong, especially after my return from Jersey, Jane Fisher intervened.

And example being of how Juli Wills took me to her home and invited me to stay, not telling me that she was friends with the Scott-Joynts and knew Jane Fisher, and when I found out she said that Jane had said I would react like that, and she trapped me in her house as I tried to escape, I forced my way free from her and ran without shoes on through the snow on the road, it was Christmas eve night, and in her statement to the court in West Sussex, Jane Fisher claimed I contacted her 40 times that night but omitted that she had set up a situation that caused me huge distress and broke my heart at Christmas.
She also claimed that that night I contacted her at a time when I was actually asleep in a church that had been left unlocked after midnight mass.
That Christmas was hell for me because of Jane Fisher, it is one of many wounds. And she made it so much worse by going to the homeless centre about me just after Christmas even though I did not go there because of her and the Bishop, and leaving things there that I had left at Juli’s house, while my homeless friend who was at the homeless centre was used to pass messages to me about Jane going there with my things, which broke my trust for him instantly.

Such shocking and constant breaches of my privacy make Jane Fisher an abuser, no matter what her excuses, I had made it very clear after the verbal attack from the Vicar at Romsey Abbey not long before Christmas when Jane Fisher made contact with him, that I was furious at the Diocese’s continued involvement and that they had destroyed me and had no further part to play in my life.

So jane Fisher herself has abused me by these constant violations, I should have been made aware when Juli Wills took me home that she was liasing with Jane Fisher. I am sure jane Fisher can come up with excuses and denials but when I confronted Juli after my conversation with Lou scott-Joynt she made it quite clear that she was in contact with the Scott-Joynts and Jane Fisher and was in agreement with them about me.
The psychological damage from that was huge and is one of the reasons I will not live indoors or trust anyone who tries to help me.
At Romsey Abbey I was receiving perfectly safe, helpful and legitimate pastoral support and Jane Fisher wiped that out in the most shameful and horrible way, telling the Vicar I had ‘caused trouble’ at *******, and I replied did he also know about F. .abusing me and  crossing boundaries? No, he decided to shout at me for Jane Fisher because his curate used to work for  and she ‘knew about me’ even though she was not there when I was in the ******* community and J. used to malign her to me behind her back, saying she was emotionally incompetent and ‘had problems’, basically when J. once again involved herself in my personal life without leave, talking to the A‘s, and it came out that F. had abused me, because R. knew that from questioning me, J. branded me trouble, before that she was maligning me as she maligned everyone and sharing personal details as she did with everyone’s.
But who was branded trouble to Romsey Abbey? Me, and I had done nothing, and the way I was shouted at and shamed was shocking.

The Vicar tried to claim that his curate, J**, had not offered pastoral care because of her psychotherapy skills, he tried to withdraw it then and there when he shouted at me, again I was treated like an abuser, worse than an abuser, because my abusers remained in the church community, supported, not maligned, unpunished. Basically what Jane Fisher has done to me for five years is a reinforcement of what J. did to me, told me I am worse than a sexual abuser. And it does not matter what Jane Fisher comes out with and says this is rubbish, I am the one on the receiving end, I am the one who has been tricked, trapped, shouted at, accused, openly called someone who causes trouble and this has been done by people who have done wrong, and safeguarding and inclusion director, Jane Fisher!

Jane Fisher is responsible for:

Allowing J. M. to cross counselling boundaries and take me from college and leaving me with a church couple who I do not know if they were CRB checked
She is responsible for allowing J.’s crossing counselling boundaries to take over my college course and put me in a dangerous and isolated placement working only with strange men who were not CRB checked
Allowing J. M. to take over my housing situation and engineer my termination of my college placement, swapping her counselling role for her Vicar role
Allowing J. to take me to her own home to live, knowing that her husband had been accused by his daughter of sexual abuse and that the daughter had been abandoned, disabled and alone in Lincoln due to F. M.s temper and making J. choose between him and his daughter.
Allowing J. to claim benefits from the council or social services while I was in her home and presumably not letting church house know this.
Allowing me to be sexually abused by F. M. and be told it was my fault/had not happened, as happened to F.’s daughter, who’s former name was Sally (Sally-Anne) but who changed her name, according to J., just as I have.
Allowing this because F. and J. worked for Lincoln Cathedral and when Sally accused F. of abuse it was not investigated. J. said Sally told lies and she had followed them at the Psychiatric hospital and nothing had happened. So J. told me I was to blame for the abuse and it wasn’t abuse, and where was Jane Fisher, where was she when I had told maybe four members of the congregation about F. abusing me? Waiting in the wings to brand me a troublemaker and condemn me as causing trouble in J.’s church and parish where I did hundreds of hours of voluntary work for J., the church and community and had friends, until Jane Fisher wiped those friends out later when I returned from Jersey.
Jane Fisher is responsible for no-one even knowing what safeguarding was in the D. Benefice, and so four people did not do anything, well if you include J., F. and her parents and sister as well nine people did not do anything about me being abused by F., and so, why did Jane Fisher make me out to be trouble? Has anyone seen the emails of evidence that I was still friends with J. and stayed over with her while I was in Jersey? if not, get those emails from Bob or Christine.
So, Jane Fisher labelled me trouble rather than ever deal with F. abusing me, which she still hasn’t and there is a ludicrous cover-up in the Korris report about this. Jane Fisher labelled me trouble because of J., rather than hear about how I helped in that benefice in the churches and community, but no-one in the Winchester Deanery or Romsey Abbey or Jersey were given my side of things or told that F. was an abuser, the Vicar at Romsey Abbey did not know about that when I told him when he was shouting about me causing trouble in the D benefice.
J. not only took me home, let me be abused and told me I was to blame, she did not ‘respond well’ as the guidelines state, she blamed me, she also did not report the matter to Jane fisher. I did but not until J. was working hard with the Keys and the A.s in Jersey to absolve them, and I reported R. first and then F., to jane Fisher, who was all nicey-nice but fobbed me off about the way the Keys and the A.s had behaved and made excuses for them and would not deal with my complaint, Jane Fisher is responsible for damage by neglect for not dealing with my complaint and damage by bullying me for making excuses for wrongdoers, blaming me, excusing herself eventually by claiming she didn’t understand autism, and never doing anything about my complaint but to this day the A.s and M.s remain unrestricted while I am ruined. Good safeguarding of a vulnerable person? No. no matter what excuses she makes, Jane Fisher has never safeguarded or included me, she has driven me out, blamed me and absolved the wrongdoers.

The ‘promoting a safe church’ document states:
A definition of mistreatment, abuse and harm:

Mistreatment is defined in No Secrets as ‘a violation of an individual’s human
and civil rights by any other person or persons’. In a church context it could be
any misuse of a pastoral or managerial relationship, from the most serious to less
severe behaviour, which lies at its root. The term covers abuse, bullying and
harassment. These categories are not watertight and can merge into one another.
Harm is what results from mistreatment or abuse

Jane Fisher has violated my human rights, those rights to live a life free from abuse and neglect, because her treatment of me through maligning me and hurting me in so many ways and her refusal to deal with my complaints and her concerted efforts to have me incarcerated despite her knowing I suffered claustrophobia, amount to abuse and neglect. She was also fully aware of how much her interference behind my back on my return from Jersey to Winchester was hurting me.
Jane fisher’s constant interference in my life, friendships, church attendance (treating me as if I was an abuser and having a secret email sent round so that I was shamed and not allowed to engage fully with church people again after I left Jersey), her meetings about me with authorities without my permision that hampered my own applications for housing and my self-referral to the night shelter and day centre, her use of the fact that the Bishop was patron of the night shelter and her continued interference that humiliated me, for example I left night shelter and homeless centre due to the interference and I had the Vicar at Romsey Abbey shouting at me that I was to go back there, because he had been ‘told I had left’ by Jane Fisher, basically the way Jane Fisher violated me is a disgrace, I was freed from prison and my life from then on should have been mine to rebuild, and Jane Fisher violated my privacy and humiliated me in an irreparable way, prevented me from engaging with services and had no right to have any meetings about me or contact with the homeless services and other services about me, she prevented me from getting help or settling and had me brutalized and locked up for responding, that is harrasment and abuse of me, and yet I am the one who has been punished for it.
Jane Fisher’s aim in her forceful and slanderous intervention is unclear, her achievement was to have me re-destroyed and devastated and to add to the criminal record she had already got me for fighting for her to be withdrawn and fighting for my complaint to be dealt with.

The ‘promoting safe churches’ guide says:
Everyone needs the sustaining reassurance that they are treated with the respect
that is due to all human beings made in the image of God and precious to God.
Those who have challenging personal situations must receive the resources they
need to live independent lives with dignity. Everyone needs to know that they
can live safely in a non-threatening environment.

There is nothing remotely Christian or respectful in what Micheal Scott-Joynt and Jane Fisher between them did to me, nothing remotely caring. And Michael Scott-Joynt claimed in court that they had ‘been trying to help me get housed’ even though I did not at any point permit them to do so and my attempts at being housed, in Winchester and in Romsey were disrupted by their forceful interventions so that I aborted those efforts, as I would not be housed with any imput from the church, and the record that they got me is and has been the greatest barrier to being housed that I have had. If you tell the council that you are bad on record, which broke my heart with shame to do, they permanently record you as bad and put you in the offenders place with real bad people, which is dangerous like the night shelter was, especially because when I reported being bullied by the real bad people at the night shelter, Jane Fisher and the Bishop had already got their intervention in and I was treated like dirt and so was my complaint. I was terrified in the night shelter and because Fisher had given me a bad name to the manager, my fear and distress were treated with contempt. I have never been able to explain to anyone why I am bad, or that I am bad, because the shame and distress is overwhelming, and yet the people who destroyed me have been allowed to go on hurting me and violating me and getting me done for reacting. I have not and probably never will believe in Christians, church or pastoral help again.

The promoting a safe church policy states:

Christian communities should be places where all people feel welcomed,
respected and safe from abuse. The Church is particularly called by God to
support those at the margins, those less powerful and those without a voice in our
society. The Church can work towards creating a safe and non-discriminatory
environment by being aware of some of the particular situations that create
vulnerability. Issues which need to be considered include both the physical
environment and the attitudes of workers. A person who might be considered
vulnerable has the right to:

● be treated with respect and dignity;
● have their privacy respected;
● be able to lead as independent a life as possible;
● be able to choose how to lead their life;
● have the protection of the law;
● have their rights upheld regardless of their ethnicity, gender, sexuality,
impairment or disability, age, religion or cultural background;
● be able to use their chosen language or method of communication;
● be heard

My responses:

I have not been treated with respect and dignity, from the M.s to the Lihous to the A.s and Keys and Jane Fisher, especially Jane Fisher, I have had no privacy, especially not in my personal and work life, and especially what Jane Fisher did to me on my return from Jersey to the UK, basically everyone in Winchester knew Jane Fisher and the Bishop’s side of my business, and that spread to Romsey, I was ashamed to be alive, to walk down the street, I was treated as if I was an abuser, I was spoken about in a horrifying way, notably at St. Peters, where the unrepentant woman said she did not even know that I was autistic or abused, when I confronted her about what she was saying to someone else about me behind my back but unluckily in my earshot, about how nasty and abusive I had been to the Bishop.
My privacy has not been respected, I have already been through that in detail, my privacy was ripped up and thrown away and I am a private person, I remain deeply ashamed and I do not know where my human rights went in the way I was slandered and violated by Jane Fisher in Jersey and Winchester.
To be able to live as independent a life as possible. Jane Fisher’s violations meant that there were attempts to shove me into a psychiatric hospital and residential homes, neither of which would benefit me, I am autistic and very solitary and like to be alone outdoors, my brief stay in a community home when I was young showed that I do not benefit from such an environment but get dragged down and depressed by it and it does not help me, I have only ever been traumatized and autistic and attempts by Jane Fisher to take my independence from me have left me scared. Even now I fear for my freedom and always will, which is why I stay out here where I am not trapped.
Being able to choose how to live, Jane Fisher and the former Bishop tried to force me off the streets and tried to intervene over and over in my life, causing huge damage, and they have violated that right to choose how to live.
Having the protection of the law? Well, because the former Bishop and Jane Fisher have repeatedly had me brutalized and locked up, I will always live in fear of the police and if I am assaulted I cannot report it as I would not be taken seriously, I could be detained and I will be treated badly because of the record they got me, which included lies.
My rights have not been upheld, I have been shown that I have no rights, I am a non-human because of the severity of the way Jane Fisher and the Bishop wrecked my life and got me a record.
In the police cells when I was too frightened to speak, I used sign language and they could not be bothered to get an enterpreter. In all police detentions my side of things could not be communicated effectively because I am autistic, have communication problems, was shocked by the brutality and did not have a paper and pen and time to tell my side of the story.
To be heard? Plain and simple, I never have been, I have been living in fear and my side of things is not on any record.

Comments on the paragraph 2.2, no sensitive or informed pastoral care was ever offered to me. Jane Fisher treated me like dirt. Tracy was being an extremely effective support without being elected to be so, until Jane Fisher intervened.
The only offer of support was ‘counselling’ which was not acceptable or appropriate, and the offer was made by Jane Fisher through the police who she had just used against me and scarred me for life. That was sickening and remains sickening.

My complaints were not responded to without delay.

St.Andrews did not manage the risk of R. A., nor was it managed after I made a complaint and Jane Fisher was aware of the situation and was verbally battering me and not responding appropriately to me.

Paragraph 2.3 of promoting safe churches:

The church should;Seek to work in a non-abusive way that respects the rights of individuals to enjoy privacy, dignity, independence and choice. See Good practice
● The way the Diocese don’t manage safeguarding, the way that I was treated in church and the way Jane Fisher treated me do not agree with this

Actively promote the empowerment and well-being of vulnerable people
through the services we provide. See Good practice recommendations.
Definitely not the case in Jersey, as described in my blog post about safeguarding in Jersey, the one written and posted last night. And remember who’s responsibility it is to ensure that safeguarding and inclusion are in place? Jane Fisher, she is responsible for the state of the churches in Jersey with regards to safeguarding and she is responsible for the mental abuse I suffered as well as the sexual abuse from R., who had a history of misconduct and was not under proper supervision.

Ensure rigorous recruitment practices to deter those who actively seek
vulnerable people to exploit or abuse, including taking up references and
using CRB checks. See Procedure 1.

R. gained his church positions at St. Andrews despite his history. F. and J. also had history, so did the Lihous.

Actively promote an organizational culture within which all those who
express concern will be treated seriously and will receive a positive response
from management. See Procedure 2.

I wasn’t taken seriously about F., or about R. when I went to the Dean.

Ensure that staff and volunteers understand that vulnerable people can be
abused and that they know what to do if they think that someone is being
abused. See Procedure 2 and Appendix 2.

St. Andrews do not appear to have had any safeguarding training prior to Jane Fisher’s usual ‘shut the stable door after the horse has bolted’ talk about abuse.

Ensure that all staff and volunteers receive appropriate training and support

See above, no-one in any church I have been in appeared to have any knowledge of safeguarding or who to contact. One person had the idea of writing to the Bishop about F. and instead went to see J. and never did write to the Bishop, because no doubt, she told them I made it up. Anne Wiggle was appointed as safeguarding person in  L. church after Malcolm Eastlake was arrested and it was hushed up, this was despite J. sacking Anne as benefice administrator because was not putting in the correct comittment as she was too busy, incidentally Anne was replaced as benifice administrator by Roger Parsons, who ran off with a young woman who worked at the Diocese headquarters and left his wife to die of cancer. J. never slated him like she has slated me.

Have an internal policy, procedure and guidance on how managers, staff and
volunteers will deal with allegations of abuse, including allegations against
their own organization’s staff and volunteers. Ensure that the procedure
links to the local inter-agency procedure. See Procedure 2

The Diocese and churches do not seem to know anything about safeguarding policy, but that is because Jane Fisher is in charge and she is not competent. My complaints were not dealt with correctly, not dealt with at all.

Work in cooperation with the local Adult Services9
and the police when they
are investigating an allegation of abuse. See Procedure 2

Get the abuse victim beaten and locked up, Jane Fisher’s unique diocesan policy.

Identify a ‘lead officer’ who takes responsibility for training staff and
volunteers and updating procedures. See Section 2.4 Implementing a policy
in a diocese and Section 2.5 Implementing a policy in a parish.

That’ll be the day, if a rich diocese like Winchester can’t then does anywhere?

There has never been appropriate confidentiality, the only confidentiality was when people kept quiet about Malcolm Eastlake and F., my business was strewed the length and breadth of the Diocese, not by me as Jane Fisher tries to say, but by her and others.

It is recommended that each diocese appoint someone to act in respect of adults.
The duties of such a person would include helping people to understand the
nature of vulnerability, being the person to whom people in parishes can bring
their concerns, and promoting the training of those working in this area. It is
likely that there is already in post someone who has the interests of adults with
particular vulnerabilities as part of their remit. They could liaise with the child
protection adviser, especially in regard to referrals and recruitment decisions. In
some dioceses it may be appropriate, possible and cost-effective for the child
protection adviser to take on a role in the safeguarding of adults. Such a lead
person in the diocese should discuss this policy with the member of staff with
responsibility for safeguarding adults in the adult services department of the local
authority (county, borough or unitary) in order that they understand local
procedures and are clear about the best route for reporting concerns. The
implementation of this policy will need to be monitored by the diocese from
time to time.

The Diocese do not have anyone who acts for vulnerable adults. Jane Fisher does not have a clue about vulnerable adults.

Paragraph 25. Implementing policy in the parish.

I have never seen in  any church  the Diocese of Winchester a proper implementation of safeguarding rules or policies.
J. crossing boundaries from being my counsellor to being the local vicar who intervened and put me on an unsuitable and dangerous farm placement and took me home when she knew about allegations against her husband previously and what he had done to his daughter with his temper, Malcolm Eastlake had already received reprimands for tactility with children and remained working with children and youth at church, no safeguarding policy or rules in any church I have known in the diocese, I worked with children in the churches when the churches themselves didn’t have CRB for me, the school did, no sign of any implementation of safeguarding in J. and F.’s actions or in Jersey at all.
No records kept in the D Benefice
It is clear that J. either did not know or did not care about safeguarding, an example is how she got F. to drive me to events even when she knew about the abuse.

Good Practice Recommendations 1.

 Helping in such a way as to maximize a person’s independence. People with
additional needs can and do lead active and fulfilled lives but some may need
support and resources to do so.
A lot of what I went through encouraged dependence and especially in the case of the A.s, disability.

Always respecting the person and all their abilities.
In St. A’s I was made to feel disabled and useless.

● Recognizing the choices people make even if they may appear risky.
My choice to leave the night shelter and sleep rough rather than go on being hurt and in flashbacks to the horror of prison, was not accepted by Jane Fisher, and her forcing on me since has done lasting damage.

● Giving people the highest level of privacy and confidentiality possible in the
The opposite has been my experience throughout my time in the Diocese of Winchester. And I am a private person, but do the wrongdoers get reprimanded? No, I do for getting angry about repeated breaches of my privacy.
● Including everyone in decisions affecting their life.
Did Jane Fisher include me in any decisions and meetings she had about my life? No, the first I heard of anything was from the police brutalizing me or other people. I died of shame.
● Creating an environment within the Church that can include everyone.
Despite Jane Fisher claiming she would be happy for me to attend any church in Winchester when I returned from Jersey, her interference behind my back meant both that I was isolated and shunned and that I did not trust anyone, especially when I found out about her interference through shunnings, gossip or phonecalls about me or attempts to force me back towards housing.

Privacy and
confidentiality are important to everyone and especially people who are
dependent on others for aspects of their everyday living.

Say no more.

All church workers have a duty of care towards those to whom they minister.
National and diocesan good practice guidelines and the procedures in this
document should be followed to ensure that insurance cover is maintained. The
insurers should be contacted as soon as it is clear that a claim may be made
against a diocese or parish

Worldly things like insurance get in the way of Christianity, I guess St. ********, L. invalidated their insurance in 2001 or 2002 didn’t they?

Prevention of abuse:
Prevention is best achieved by both the careful training of workers and the
provision of supervision or mentoring for all those working with vulnerable
people. Church workers need to understand that they hold a position of power
and influence even if they do not feel that that is the case.
Prevention can be particularly difficult with those who may be vulnerable,
because of the range of people who are in contact with them and the variety of
ways in which churches and others try to be of help or befriend people who
otherwise would be isolated. The desire to provide a safe environment should
not get in the way of allowing people to develop their own friendships and
contacts – some of which may be felt to be risky. If people are working together
in groups this can be one way in which harmful behaviours can be prevented.
This is not, however. always the case and there have been many instances of a
culture of abusive behaviour or attitudes developing in organizations or amongst
groups of workers. Risks are increased when people have individual contact with
those who are vulnerable.

The Diocese of Winchester appears to have a very discriminatory policy that has been repeated back to me a few times and is never any less hurtful and snubbing – vulnerable, homeless, disabled or in any way marginalized people are not allowed in the homes of clergy. Again, this policy has repeatedly not been known to clergy I have been in contact with until jane Fisher has told them about it, apart from one clergy who explained it to me without knowing about me from jane Fisher and told me it was a blanket policy and she only knew I was homeless and thus she could not take me home.
This policy may well be part of why the Harkins turned their backs on the pastoral care they previously offered, without explanation, but not necessarily, they were friends with the Dean. This policy is why Tracy turned me away after inviting me home so many times, and that wounded me as no explanation was made at the time. Damaging to vulnerable people to protect clergy and the Diocese. There are other incidences of this policy possibly causing problems and not being explained to me.
The policy was explained to me by someone who did not know me well but had been told by the diocese that as clergy they were not allowed to invite vulnerable people home. Contrast this hurtful discriminatory policy that is not known by all clergy but is implemented suddenly with no word to the vulnerable person when it becomes known, with R. A. and his wife going to tea with the Vicar throughout my complaint and my time in Jersey and R.A. working in the vicar’s garden with children while the Vicar was away.  Also, if this secret exclusion of vulnerable but welcome mainstream abusers policy was always there and often not known about, did J. M. know of it when she took me home to her husband’s temper and sexual behaviour?
Jane Fisher is ultimately responsible for the emotional damage that this policy has caused me, in the cases of me being suddenly shunned when it was made known to clergy, or because of the damage done by it not being made known to clergy. I do not know what Jane Fisher does all day but she doesn’t seem to have a uniform and properly known and implemented safeguarding policy in the Diocese. And that is to the detriment of vulnerable people, including me and I personally am complaining, but you need to register the fact that so few vulnerable people have a voice, no other vulnerable adult would stand up to Jane Fisher as I am doing, so I speak for us all, Jane Fisher is not fit to be in charge, her behaviour, actions, attitude, lack of consistency, words, everything, are damaging to vulnerable people and she should not be in her position. They have no voice so I speak for them, anyone who has silently endured direct or indirect harm as a result of Jane Fisher.
The Diocese of Winchester does not prevent abuse.

Guidelines for those in positions of Trust with vulnerable people:

GP2.1 Pastoral relationships

Exercising any kind of ministry involves workers developing an understanding of
themselves and how they relate to others, how they increase the well-being of
others and how they ensure their own well-being and safety. People in positions
of trust necessarily have power, although this may not be apparent to them,
therefore respecting professional boundaries is particularly important. Many
pastoral relationships can become intertwined with friendships and social
contacts, making this guidance even more necessary.

● Church workers should exercise particular care when ministering to persons
with whom they have a close personal friendship or family relationship.
J. M. was originally my consellor but made a decision that she was my friend, then described herself a ‘surrogate mother’ to me while telling me of her step-daughter, Sally, she was happy for me to call her ‘mammy’ although I grew out of it, she continued to be a friend and ‘like a mum, but also interfered a lot in my personal and work life, she crossed boundaries many times by telling people things about me and things I had told her, despite her being my former counsellor and also my vicar as well as my friend, during the Jersey matter, she breached confidences to F. and her family, making them treat me badly as they got her usual spiel about me being seductive and R. being taken in etc, and she then referred to me as ‘part of her work’.
R. A. called himself Daddy and said I was his little daughter, he also said in the end about ‘talking to Vicar **** about if he could still work with me’.
Jill Lihou called herself my carer, even though the Lihous were my friends and they had arranged with me to live with them.
Where was Jane Fisher? Waiting to condemn me for it all from their side of things.
● Church workers should be aware of the dangers of dependency in pastoral
and professional relationships and seek advice or supervision when these
concerns arise.
Did anyone seek advice when I became dependent? I have a tendency to dependence and so it is better for me to be as I am now, completely independent because if someone takes over my life as all mentioned above apart from Jane, did, I let them take the lead and I become dependent and wait to be told what to do. All of these people took me over and took me into their homes. Jane Fisher’s discriminatory policy did not seem to be known or upheld.
It is to be noted that my more healthy relationships were with people who were not in it to meet their own needs, (names here redacted, most of these friends were turned against me by diocesan intervention).

● Church workers who exercise a healing ministry should be trained in the
theology and non-intrusive practice of that work.11
Was R. trained, he did not act as if he was or he ignored his training, he did claim that what he was doing to me was healing, even the sexual bits. Did he really not know that that could never be right?

● Church workers should recognize their limits and not undertake any
ministry that is beyond their competence or role (e.g. therapeutic
counselling, deliverance ministry, counselling victims of abuse and domestic
violence, or their perpetrators, or giving legal advice). In such instances the
person should be referred to another person or agency with appropriate
Jill being my ‘carer’ when she herself was ill? R. trying to heal my abuse by abusing me? Jane Fisher made me out to be bad but she runs a Diocese as a safeguarding officer and she has not safeguarded me against these things! And I have ended up damaged and she has attacked me further instead of taking responsibility for herself.
● Church workers should avoid behaviour that could give the impression of
inappropriate favouritism or the encouragement of inappropriate special
R., J.?
● Church workers should treat those with whom they minister or visit with
respect, encouraging self-determination, independence and choice.
Sadly I was not treated like that by R. or Jill.
● Care should be taken when helping with physical needs, washing and
toileting, always respecting the choices of the individual concerned.
Not necessarily relevant.
● Pastoral relationships may develop into romantic attachments and such
situations should be handled sensitively. Workers need to recognize such a
development and make it clear to both the person concerned and a
supervisor or colleague. Alternative arrangements should be made for the
ongoing pastoral care of the person concerned.
Not necessarily relevant.

Pastoral conversations and interviews and record keeping in brief:

The Dean of Jersey and his wife did not conduct their interview of me correctly but that is known to the investigation and the Dean has been cleared by Tim dakin.
Did R. or J. or anyone keep any records? Did J. note or explain to Jane Fisher why she changed from counsellor into friend/surrogate mum/minister/me being work, and where the boundaries were? Because I never knew.
Who was mentoring or supervising J.’s relationship with me? Why have I been made to blame for wrong that came not just from my conditions but from lack of safeguarding or appropriate ministerial conduct?

GP 2.5 Sexual contact:

Church workers must not sexually abuse an adult or a child.

But they did, and I have been scapegoat for it.

Church workers must be responsible for their actions and understand how they can be misunderstood.

R. A. ‘took advice’ rather than explain to me that I had misunderstood. He never felt responsible for his actions to me or others, nor did F..

Responding to abuse disclosures:

What can I say? Both in the case of F. M. and the Case of R. A., the response has been appalling!
Again, no one has followed any proper procedures and Jane Fisher has accepted the attacks that have been made on my character in defence of such wrongdoing!

Care of adult abuse survivors in church:

The Diocese of Winchester does not care about adult abuse survivors.
The Diocese shuns abuse survivors
I am an abuse survivor and I have been treated like dirt by the Diocese of Winchester
The ‘promoting a safe church’ guide gives descritions of some behaviours expressed by abuse survivors, I show a lot of those behaviours and have been vilified for them by people who have done such wrong around safeguarding and abuse themselves!
I haven’t just lost trust due to abuse but due to the way the clergy and diocese have treated me, especially Jane fisher vilifying me and launching police attacks when I cried out because the distress and her ongoing hurt of me was so much.

GP4.4 Why didn’t you say so at the time?

Many survivors say nothing about the abuse for many years. Some have buried
their memories so deeply within themselves that they have ‘forgotten’ what
happened – especially if the abuse happened when they were very young.
Memories may be ‘triggered’ in a range of ways, for example:
● hearing about abuse on television;
● being in another abusive situation such as finding difficulties with a
domineering employer;
● being in a situation where they feel powerless;
● feeling vulnerable, ill, under stress, or suffering from burnout;
● the death of their abuser or of one of their carers;
● the birth of their own child.
Few victims can report their abuse close to the event and so often reported abuse
is about events of years ago, leading to difficulties with finding any proof of what
happened. It is often one person’s word against another, and the likelihood of the
survivor getting justice is slim. However, some cases do go to court, but the
experience can be devastating for both children and adults and they are likely to
need considerable support.

I do not feel understood about why I only told Jane Fisher about F. when I was in Jersey – J. makes it out to be because I am malicious etc, but she originally discouraged me from reporting him because she said it was my word against his and that nothing would be done and that I was to blame for it as well and I was ‘seductive’.
I reported F. in Jersey because I had not been able to or known how to before, because before I had also wanted to protect J. as I loved her (still do), and because The M.s were now involved with the A.s and Keys and J. was defending R. and his wife against me, as she always has had the attitude that victims are whiners and abusers are just victims themselves. I knew that if I did not report F., then he would be used against me to make out that I make false accusations against everyone. Which I do not.
R. knew about F. abusing me as he had made me talk about being abused.
So I knew I had to speak up.

GP4.5 Pastoral care of survivors
An adult (or indeed a child) disclosing abuse is in a vulnerable state. Above all
they need someone to listen to them – and also to believe them. They
may need to be ‘heard’ in different contexts and over several years.
If there is a complex pastoral situation when an adult discloses abuse (e.g. a
young person in their twenties accusing a church worker of sexually abusing
them), it would be appropriate to find some support for the different parties
involved, such as another survivor to support the person making the allegations.
There is no quick fix for healing from abuse and it is crucial that survivors:
● Are not pushed into forgiving too early. Forgiving their abuser/s is acomplex process, and considerable damage can be done by treating
forgiveness as something that they must do unreservedly and now.
My complaint was handled terribly by the Keys and Vicar and the damage is lasting.
St. Pauls tried to make me ‘instantly forgive, and Jane Fisher commented on that that forgiveness is a good way of healing, but I needed time and with everything going on, all the bad stuff, actual healing and forgiveness never really came about. I just blank the memories.

● Are not put in a position of feeling even more guilty than they already do.
Survivors tend to feel that the abuse was all their fault, particularly when
there was more than one abuser.
Yes, every church, person, the Keys and jane Fisher made me feel more guilty.
● Are accepted as they are, however full of anger they may be. Anger can be
seen as one step along the road to forgiveness – at least if they are angry they
are starting to accept that the abuse seriously affected them and this can be a
good starting point to move towards healing.
Oh, God how Jane Fisher slated me and smashed me down! And how she condoned other people for how they treated me when I could not be anything other than angry!
● Are given a sense that those within the church community who know about
the abuse are ‘with them’ along the road to recovery. The journey can be
very long and supporters are essential.
NOPE! The church community were as one against me! And still are! My abuser is loved and respected and reads lessons at the town church, I am slandered and spat on, homeless and a criminal for the safeguarding director who ruined me!
Survivors can benefit from professional counselling if that is available, but also
joining a self-help group can provide the kind of long-term support needed.
Survivors helping other survivors can be powerful and effective.
Counselling not being an option due to the depth of damage and because I am autistic, I benefit at last from psychology and yes I have benefited from survivors groups in the past. Only since I escaped Jane Fisher and changed my name though.

4.6 survivors and the church:

I suffer a lot of the problems listed in this paragraph, church will always be traumatic for me, not just because of abuse but because of the way Jane Fisher and other wrongdoers and supporters of the abusers have treated me.
I go to church and struggle and feel ashamed and to blame which causes a problem in itself and compounds everything, there is so much that causes flashbacks and reminds me, and no-one at all who can undo the way Jane Fisher and the Diocese have utterly invalidated me.

4.7 Responding well to survivors:

Destroying me was not a good response!
Lets get through this statement before this evening, it is dragging.

Handling a complaint against a church worker:

The Diocese of Winchester does not know how, they kept saying, for a year or so ‘we will do something soon’ while my abuser was laughing and remained in church positions while claiming he was cleared, and so I was shunned, the Korris report denies that because Jane Fisher made me out to be Paranoid, because she was not there and did not see my suffering.

Listening carefully and taking the complainant’s wishes into account, did anyone do that? No. Nothing was done about F. and in the case of the A.s, Key tried to close the complaint.
Jersey does not come under clergy discipline measures, so when, after all that time, Martyn Sanders said I had to put in a complaint under that measure, about the Keys and he said I had no evidence, I was furious, and then Joyce said I could not make a complaint under that measure in Jersey.
Talk about lack of clarity!

Human rights:

Jane Fisher has breached my human rights by her interference for so long, I am amazed she is still allowed near vulnerable people, let alone still failing to maintain safeguarding in Jersey.

Complaint against Jane Fisher under the ‘psychological abuse’ list, my complaints are the ones I have put in bold:

Emotional or psychological abuse
The use of threats or fear or the power of the carer’s or other adult’s position to
negate the vulnerable person’s independent wishes. Such behaviour can create
very real emotional or psychological stress. Bullying, sexual and racial harassment
would also come into this category if physical harm were not used. It includes
lack of privacy or choice, denial of dignity, deprivation of social contact or
deliberate isolation, making someone feel worthless, lack of love or affection,
threats, verbal abuse, humiliation, blaming, controlling, pressurizing, coercion,
fear, ignoring the person.

Other behaviours which may take place within a working relationship include
public or unreasonable criticism, insults and shouting, ignoring a person’s wishes
or point of view, setting unreasonable work targets, removing areas of
responsibility, undervaluing a person’s efforts.
Harassment may include name calling, victimization and ostracism, unwanted
sexual attention, stalking, compromising invitations or gifts, the display of images
that are racially or sexually offensive, the suggestion that sexual favours might
further promotion prospects.

Reactions to abuse:
feelings of helplessness;
● hesitation in talking openly;
● implausible stories;
● confusion or disorientation;
● anger without an apparent cause;
● sudden changes in behaviour;
● the person becoming emotionally upset or agitated;
● unusual behaviour (sucking, biting or rocking);
● unexplained fear;
● denial of a situation;
● the person becoming extremely withdrawn and non-communicative or nonresponsive;
● the adult telling you they are being verbally or emotionally abused.

Spiritual abuse in the Deanery of Jersey copied from the Spiritual aspects of abuse section in promoting a safe church:

Spiritual aspects of abuse
Churches need to be sensitive so that they do not, in their pastoral care, attempt
to ‘force’ religious values or ideas onto people, particularly those who may be
vulnerable to such practices. Within faith communities harm can be caused by
the inappropriate use of religious belief or practice; this can include the misuse of
the authority of leadership or penitential discipline, oppressive teaching, or
intrusive healing and deliverance ministries, which may result in vulnerable
people experiencing physical, emotional or sexual harm. If such inappropriate
behaviour becomes harmful it should be referred for investigation in the usual
way. Careful supervision and mentoring of those entrusted with the pastoral care
of adults should help to prevent harm occurring in this way. Other forms of
spiritual abuse include the denial to vulnerable people of the right to faith or the
opportunity to grow in the knowledge and love of God.

Changing the subject, some time back I read on the safeguarding section of the Diocese of Winchester’s website an article about autism, it was incongruent and incorrect and appeared to be there for show since Jane Fisher’s destroyal of me in Jersey.
Among other things it read ‘People with Asperger Syndrome need a lot of fuss And attention’ I was seething. Fuss and attention is the most distressing thing in the world!
Jane Fisher has links with Hampshire Autistic Society, which is why I would have nothing to do with them, she has done work in autism schools, she has helped to raise her friend’s autistic son, and yet she puts things like that on the website for show, she also claimed to me in jersey, after treating me like dirt, that she got it wrong because she didn’t understand autism. Do you think that is a good excuse for a senior safeguarding officer to make to someone they have damaged?
It is like Bob Key, in his position, not knowing correct safeguarding procedure.

Summary: this has been a very long and hefty complaint, drawing heavily on the church of England’s ‘promoting a safe church’ guidelines. Sometimes it has been hard to know what to put in or leave out. But the aim is to bring a full formal complaint against Jane Fisher, not just because she has personally treated me like dirt while working really hard to cover that up and make it look like she was only nice and I was all mad. But also to bring to your attention her incompetence in promoting and ensuring safeguarding throughout the Diocese, which has now been a problem to me for a very long time, and the combined effects of one lot of abuse and denial on top of another and being vilified by wrongdoers and not being properly looked after by safeguarding and has damaged me considerably.

This is a formal complaint.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s