Formal complaint against Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester’s safeguarding part 3. Specifics, written without the framework of guidelines.
Written 10/08/2013 -12/08/2013
Introduction: My name for the purposes of this complaint, is the legal name I was under during the time Jane Fisher was involved in my life. **************, This is to protect my identity.
I am classified as vulnerable due to cognitive, mental, emotional and physical disability and also due to homelessness and poverty.
The purpose of this complaint is to specifically back up points I have made in the previous two parts of my complaint against Jane Fisher, who is the Safeguarding Director for the Winchester Diocese.
This complaint does not use church safeguarding policies as guidelines but brings specific complaints to your attention and explains why they have damaged me or why they are bad practice, and what the effects have been on me.
Complaints are bullet-pointed as best as they can be as this makes them easier to read.
The Korris Report:
First and foremost, I should have been traced and my views included before this report was published, but understandably as she has done wrong, Jane Fisher would not have allowed me to be traced first, but after this report was written. No matter who omitted me from the report, Jane Fisher is responsible for my omission.
The effect of the report, with it’s inaccuracies has been deeply harmful both to me and people associated with me and my relationships with them, Jane Fisher is responsible for the inaccuracies and omissions, especially as they do indeed cover up for her.
The Diocese have had this report published internationally on the internet and their website as fact and have refused to remove it at my complaint – this shows total lack of regard to my welfare and safeguarding, and again, Jane Fisher is responsible for this.
The report completely omits Jane Fisher and Tracy liasing to try and have me sectioned, the three weeks on the run in the UK after that and the damage to my life including losing my car as it broke down in the UK and I had used the money meant for repairing it on ferry fares and looking after myself in the UK, the loss of the car meant the loss of all my freelance work, prevention of me carrying out my main job efficiently and loss of my social life and hobbies and interests and freedom and volunteer work. The way Jane Fisher traumatized me by hijacking my friendship with Tracy and removing the confidentiality between me and Tracy and using Tracy to hurt me and also giving Tracy and inaccurate view of things is unacceptable and she is responsible for the harm to me. Jane fisher loved to tell me while I was suffering that I was responsible, but she has repeatedly wriggled out of being made accountable herself, and that is most glaringly obvious in the Korris report.
During the three weeks in the UK, I attempted suicide due to the distress at the way the Diocese and the Dean had treated me. I was taken to hospital and was found to be distressed but free from mental illness, Hampshire police contacted Jersey police who came up with a story that omitted the Diocese and Dean and gave a very inaccurate picture of things, including incorrectly saying I was wanted for criminal damage, which was never verified. Inflicting police action on me because she had not dealt with my complaint and let me continue to be hurt and was suicidal is as far from safeguarding as you can get, and Jane Fisher is responsible for that three-week hell where I did not know whether I was coming or going, only that the Dean who had done such wrong and the Diocese who had refused to deal with my complaint were both setting the police on me at the same time even though I had made no contact with the Dean since he called me wicked and said I was not abused.
Following the failed suicide attempt I and probably before it, (it is a blur) I had a number of strange and conflicted contacts saying I was in trouble because of the Dean, I was in trouble because of the Diocese, interestingly at the same time, and I was also reported missing, which I was not. There was no regard for my feelings or welfare on the part of the Diocese, I was in deep distress but the Bishop and Jane Fisher couldn’t care less – no wonder this whole thing was omitted from the Korris report! The omission itself shows just how lacking in integrity Jane Fisher is, and just why she should not be in her job unsupervised but in charge!
Jane Fisher, without contacting me, reported me missing. I want this to be a major point in this formal complaint. She didn’t try to contact me, nor did anyone else in the Diocese, nor did the police. Nor was it her business whether I was in Jersey or not, or when I was planning on going back to Jersey or due to go back to Jersey – if the Diocese had reported me for making contact with them and I wasn’t doing – why did Jane Fisher report me? This has made me angry for a long time. The attempted sectioning, the violation of my friendships including my friendship with Anne who was seriously ill in hospital, the police complaints and reporting me missing, all while I was in a breakdown and totally overwhelmed, there is no excuse for Jane Fisher reporting me missing, none. Her reporting me missing caused the police to go to my house and speak to my landlady so that she knew I had lied when the police told me to lie and say I was a witness to something when they had previously come to try and section me. Jane Fisher is responsible for tremendous personal damage and loss in my life, which has never been recompensed and is omitted from the Korris report.
The police went on to apparently ask my landlady if she was scared of me and if she thought I was dangerous. It did affect my relationship with her and I am lucky in a way that she did not throw me out, although if she had, I would have pre-empted the arrests and prison that traumatize me forever and gone straight to being homeless in the Uk, which may have been better but would not have stopped Jane Fisher’s continued harmful interventions and thus not have stopped her police attacks for my reactions.
It was when I finally did return to Jersey that I had to see the police, returning to Jersey having lost my car and thus most of my life. I was in a deeply distressed state and had to deal with the police. But Jane Fisher who had not dealt with my complaint, didn’t care.
The police was as confusing as usual, the policeman said it was not about Bob Key and he said something about it being swept under the carpet, and went on about the Dean being answerable to the Bishop and the Bishop being answerable to the Archbishop, but I didn’t know what he was on about. He told me that I was there because Jane Fisher had made an allegation of harrasment on behalf of the Bishop and it wasn’t for Bob key, he said that the Bishop had complained about me emailing and phoning after office hours, I protested that I was supposed to phone Lou out of office hours and she and the Bishop and Jane Fisher had phoned me out of office hours, and that emails could be sent any time, the policeman said that I had made silent phone calls to the Bishop and I said I put the phone down if the Bishop answered when I phoned Lou because the Bishop was hostile and unhelpful. And that the Bishop and Jane Fisher knew I had trouble using a phone. But my side seemed irrelevant. The policeman went on about how I wasn’t in any trouble and he was just getting both sides of things and that the form he wrote out was an allegation of harrasment form and he got the victim support worker to sign it, I never saw it, he also told us it didn’t even go on my record or file or something. I didn’t understand anything except that Jane Fisher was damaging me. She still is, because both the way she has treated me and her dishonesty have caused lasting wounds.
So I went back to a half-life which was very restricted and damaged, and I couldn’t live like that forever, there was nothing left of my life, my employers were upset with me, I was devastated and damaged, and basically, I was not going to be able to keep that damaged life going, so my deportation would have been a good thing if Jane Fisher had been restrained from wrecking my new start on the mainland for no good reason. But the living nightmare of my last six weeks or so in Jersey are omitted. That living nightmare and those three weeks homeless on the mainland are contributors to what finally happened in Jersey.
I believe that jane Fisher thinks that these omissions are not lying and therefore not dishonesty, and that in itself is one of the reasons she is not safe to work with vulnerable people, such dishonesties by omission in the Korris report have harmed me, and such omissions in any case with any vulnerable adult, would harm them. This, added to the inaccuracies and wrong implications in court, where I was powerless to give my side of things, makes Jane Fisher a danger to vulnerable people, and the wounds to me are deep and lasting. I haven’t had a fair trial in either court. And as a result of that and the criminal record and the awful way the Korris report depicts things, I am without any choice but to remain on the streets as I will never be a part of society again, the record I am given not only brands me for life, but is incorrect and also means I will never be safeguarded or able to report abuse again. So is Jane Fisher suitable to be in a safeguarding position? After she safeguarded my abusers, both in life and in the Korris report’s inaccuracies, and she had me criminalized and ruined.
Through the Korris report and being traced and the ‘investigation’ I have had to relive years of trauma that is too much for me, with no support or guidance from anyone in the investigation, the lack of clarity, especially about my part in this and what information is required of me, is astounding and shows complete disregard for my welfare and safeguarding. I should not have been traced or involved, unless I was traced to have my views included in the Korris review, which I was not.
If the Diocese apparently had a court order on me, then why did they have me traced during that? I know of no court order because court is beyond my understanding especially as I have been manhandled and in shock each time. Safeguarding in the Diocese of Winchester appears to mean doing nothing about abusers and wrongdoers and permanently branding abuse victims and ruining them.
The Korris report remaining published and on the Diocese website while it is hurting me and I am protesting is also against any safeguarding, if the report and investigation is about me and my concerns and complaint then why have the Diocese and church of England kept that report there when I have told them it is harming me? Well, because basically it is not about me at all but about them showing off about safeguarding, the new non-transparent transparency, where the needs and wishes and privacy of victims is still ignored and they are screaming and have no voice, while the church show off. The same applies to Bob Key’s ‘apology’ when he was reinstated with no warning to me and said some aimless words that the Diocese and church of England have published as an ‘apology’ to show off even though they, I and Bob key all know that that is not an apology for anything, nor did the Diocese draw my attention to this ‘apology’ or warn me that they were reinstating the Dean without investigation. Basically nothing could be further from caring for my welfare or taking my condition, views or feelings into account.
The claim by the Bishop to the press that he has personally apologized to me is another traumatic breach in any safeguarding policy, you cannot claim to the press that you have apologized, at the expense of your victim who you have not apologized to but who has no voice against your statement, it is psychologically harmful to do so and has caused me much distress and frustration, again no sign of caring for my welfare or feelings.
The Korris report inaccurately reports that I was refusing help and diagnosis in Jersey, and this is why Jane Fisher was excused her intervention, it is not the case, there was nothing new to diagnose as I was under my doctor’s care until the end, and being treated for depression, and I was awaiting seeing the new autism specialist psychologist who I had helped to campaign for, Jane Fisher never asked me or had my leave with regard to my personal medical and wellbeing situation! NEVER. And the reason my last days in Jersey were so bad was because jane fisher, the Bishop and Bob Key did not deal with my complaint but damaged me , and most of all, because of that three weeks on the run after Jane Fisher and Tracy’s sectioning attempt, which ruined me, and what I was suffering was Post-Traumatic-Stress-disorder, which I am now finally and thankfully diagnosed with and being monitored for as we attempt to get me into EMDR, which is being affected and delayed by this Diocese of Winchester nightmare. Again the Diocese are harming me and my welfare.
Back to Jane Fisher’s interference in my life, she did not have any permission from me to hold any meetings in Jersey about me with police, social services, mental health services or any services. It is not her role to act as my appropriate adult, guardian, mediator and never has been, nor did she have my permission to do so. I am furious and violated to hear that after everything she had done to hurt me and after I made it clear to the Bishop he was to withdraw her, she violated me this way. I do not understand why me choosing not to have social services involved in my life was any of Jane Fisher’s business, any adult can choose to stop meeting with social services if they are voluntarily under their care as I was. I chose to leave social services care as I was not benefiting from it, it did not bring me any form of relief or help and flashbacks to my childhood where social services were harmful was also a factor as well as my difficulty actually being able to get to meetings with social services.
The reality is that despite the Bishop’s denials later on, he and Tracy both said that jane Fisher had been making enquiries about me to psychological and psychiatric services about me, without my knowledge or consent, basically a violation by someone who had hurt me. Tracy caused me to have a meltdown in St. Matthews café when she handed me something, a card she had got me but had written on the back the details of the psychiatric worker who had messed up her interview with me and forgotten my name a long while before -as described in my evidence. Tracy handed me th card as if hoping I would ask her about the details written on it and then it would be me leading the conversation, and I was furious. This interference by Jane Fisher through Tracy, as Tracy admitted Jane Fisher had been doing the enquiring, was a violation.
The way I have been forced on and it has been covered up is criminal, and the criminal is Jane Fisher, she had no right to interfere and I asked the Bishop hundreds of times to withdraw her and he had me in police trouble for it instead of withdrawing her. The wounds of the violations, added to by the wounds of how the Korris report has excused it, are horrendous.
There is no evidence at all that I was refusing diagnosis, I was certainly frightened of the state I was in but I remember phoning my doctor while waiting for **** and ****** to come and meet me, and talking to him about psychological and psychiatric help as we waited for me to see the new autism psychologist, he said that at the time there was no need to change my referral to psychiatric but he wasn’t saying it would never happen, he was fine with me being on the waiting list for psychological help and for me to continue to see him, I am not sure but he may have talked about my anti-depressant dose at the same time, I was suffering anti-depressants until not long before I was arrested. But because Jane Fisher was making me out to be mentally ill, I was worried, hence talking to my doctor and I was looking up mental illnesses and wondering if I had psychotic depression or manic depression, I knew that I did not have schitzophrenia or paranoia, because my behaviour was only focussed on the people harming me. Whatever Jane fisher says. So her violation, especially as I had now spent months asking for her to be withdrawn, was harmful to me, with my autism and what I was suffering because of the church of England.
Having to relive this when it has been too traumatic to even address in therapy yet is a trauma in itself, and again this is due to being dragged back into it with the police and the Korris report.
During my time in prison, I was again interfered with and forced on by Jane Fisher, in the form of her being able to interfere through chaplaincy, and I am furious beyond anything to hear about this, to actually hear about is like waking up having been date-raped. I had asked Jane Fisher to be withdrawn and because she never was, she was able to have me arrested, in prison I wrote to the warders specifically asking to see the Roman Catholic or Methodist chaplain, can you imagine having to actually see one of the organization who put you in prison for pastoral help when you are in prison? Can you imagine one of your destroyers arranging that behind your back and getting her side of things across to the chaplain? Can you imagine having your request for a chaplain from another denomination ignored and your enemy who put you in prison overriding it and forcing someone she could communicate with on you? Can you imagine that chaplain being able to discuss me with Jane Fisher after everything that had happened?!?!?!??!!? Do any of you think that was acceptable??????????????????????? I do not, and it feels as if jane Fisher drugged me and date raped me, that is the equivelant, the violation!!!!!!!!
By the time Jane Fisher had been cold and rude to me in 2009, she should have been withdrawn, if she had been and someone competent had stepped in, I would still be a real person instead of branded, I would still have a home and an occupation and not be as physically and mentally damaged as I am now. Her attempts to teach me lessons, her denials of my complaints, her defence of the Keys and A’s, is all disgusting. Basically if she has done this to me, she is likely to have done similar to others, and the people she works with are vulnerable. So It is time she was stopped, as most people she works with will either not be able to stand up for themselves or will be disbelieved as ‘mentally ill’ which is what she tried to brand me while violating my life and breaking the law in doing so as well as going against all safeguarding policies and procedures in her illegal violations of my privacy and social and medical care.
It appears that some or all of people involved may be muddling my relationship with Victim Support with my relationship with social services. Be aware I left social services some time before I left victim support. I self-referred to Victim support, the police never even suggested it. Victim support were of some help but due to several breaches of my faith in them, things did not work out, the first was a long time ago and I do not remember all of it well, it was to do with the Victim support worker telling me that RA had been given a police warning for going round maligning me and claiming he had been cleared, further enquiries to the police by me about this showed that this was not the case, or so the police told me, and the police were not always accurate but at the time I believed them. So I said I did not want to see that support worker, and as a result she cancelled a counselling appointment she had made with a counsellor linked with the service, even though I still wanted the counselling. I then referred myself to the counsellor as a private client but by that time counselling was not effective, as it isn’t now, because the trauma is too severe and because I am autistic and for the most part counselling does not work with me. Anyway, I also connected Victim support with that police station trauma where an interview was run without an appropriate adult and when the victim support worker turned up they told her ‘not to bother with me’ within my earshot. I have trouble trusting and I certainly did in that case.
I was given a second Victim support worker and she was the one who was there when the ‘allegation of harrasment’ interview took place at the police station. She was trying to help me with civil legal action against RA but she was told, immediately after the policeman said that form was not on my file or record, that any solicitor would be able to look this up on my record and it could affect the civil legal action.
I stopped receiving help from Victim support because of an incident when the victim support worker was drunk.
She told me I could ring any time, because my situation was so desparate after the three weeks in England and in the time after the police interview and I was isolated with no car and half my life gone and a recent suicide attempt during the three weeks, so I did phone her one evening.
She was drunk and said so and started going on about repatriating me back to the UK, and I said no, she was not being very nice or helpful, nor was she coherent, so I said goodbye and rang off, and rang ********, who was still my friend despite everything.
***** stayed on the phone with me for some time and talked, she was fully aware of how bad things were as it was her house I had gone to after my suicide attempt.
After I rang off from talking to *****, which I remember clearly as it was evening but I was at work, catching up some of my lost hours from the three weeks on the run, I found many missed calls and voicemails and texts from the drunk victim support worker who was going on about me having my phone switched off and she thought I had commited suicide and she was going to call the police.
I rang her and said my phone had not been off but that I had been on the phone to my friend.
I did not want to see the victim support worker after that, I was highly stressed and did not need more stress.
I spoke to victim support and said I did not want to see her after that and could I see someone else, but they went on about how their support workers had been so kind and I was ungrateful and the victim support worker had been entitled to be drunk in her own time, which was not the point, and told me to go to the mental health advocacy, what for? They couldn’t explain, and I suspected interference from Jane Fisher again, this attempt to force mental illness on me and drive me from any real support or help.
So the Korris report and other people are unclear as to what is meant by ‘social worker’ but I was not simply ‘refusing help’ I was under my doctor and awaiting psychological help and also receiving Pastoral care from ***** and *******- with Jane fisher and the Dean interfering again! I also still had faint hope of going to hospital in the UK for treatment for trauma and breakdown and also hope of behavioural help, but my life conditions were absolutely dire since I returned from that three weeks on the run. I was living on my overdraft.
It was the most terrible time of my life, that last bit of time in Jersey, I was utterly traumatized and invalidated.
And if the Diocese had had any care whatsoever for my welfare, or Jane Fisher was not covering up for herself by ensuring my side was omitted, then this side of things would be in the Korris report, and the Korris report would not be damaging me as it is.
Very basically, Jane Fisher did not deal with RA adequately or in a way that would either stop him offending again or stop him being in positions to offend or even in positions of authority in the church or for the church, he has since been noted a number of times to be in positions where he could abuse again.
Jane Fisher, as far as I know, never dealt with my complaint against the M’s at all, not F for abusing me, nor J for her crossing of boundaries and defence of the abuse. J. angrily told me she had had to defend F., presumably against Jane Fisher or the Bishop, and that I was a serial liar and malicious troublemaker. In the Korris report this safeguarding breach continued with the abuse by F. being played down and blame put on me for presumably ‘abusing god nature or hospitality’ basically a cover up again, and again the responsibility of Jane Fisher, who instead of dealing with the M.s, left them to it and used their side of villification of me against me.
Never asking for or getting my full story. Never doing anything about J.’s repeated, repeated crossing of professional boundaries, especially the way she took me home when she was supposed to be my counsellor. Jane Fisher’s handling of this to blame me and let the M.s off and cover it up in the Korris report is an utter disgrace! Jane Fisher should not be in her position, if she has done this to me, she has done it to others who have no voice. The Korris report claims it was all settled, and appears to blur it with other relationships, avoids making it known it was a church matter and claims it was apologized for and sorted out, when basically nothing was apologized for or settled, I lived with the wound of what F. and J. did and remained friends with J. even though it hurt me. And as those of you who view my evidence will see, I was still going to stay with J. and the Lihous while I was in Jersey, and I asked the Lihous to meet with me to conclude after they upset me. So it is interesting that Jane Fisher has damned me to other people over those matters instead of investigating properly.
Another note is, if I was so much trouble to the Lihous when I ‘lodged with them’ as they claim, why was Jill brokenhearted that I had left to go to college in Dorset while they were away in Jersey when she had wanted me to stay until her family from Jersey came over at half term in October and why did she insist on me coming home every weekend to stay with them until another conversation with the Warrens behind my back meant it changed to fortnightly, my anger was not the change but the way it was done behind my back and not even explained to me. Which was how my whole friendship with the Lihous was! But as I said, my side was not investigated before I was vilified, mainly by Jane Fisher.
‘Stalking’. In court in Sussex, Jane Fisher and the Bishop tried to make my behaviour out to be stalking, and the police asked me if I loved them, I made it very clear that I hated Jane Fisher, I had very little by way of any feeling for Scott-Joynt but was disgusted with the way he hadn’t dealt with the complaints. I told the court I liked his wife for trying to help me. But if Jane Fisher thinks I am a stalker for trying to get her and the Bishop to handle my complaint, I wonder if she realises that her persistent violation of my privacy in every way possible when she knew very well I was angry and unhappy about made me feel I was being stalked, and not only was I being stalked but the police refused to protect me against Jane Fisher or believe me when I made complaints, it was the all-powerful diocese against someone who was treated as if she was mentally ill, and that stalking and oppression are unacceptable. Especially as Jane Fisher could see very well that her interventions were not only not helping me, but that they were making me angry and ashamed and frustrated. Basically she was allowed to malign me and violate my personal life and prevent me from getting help by her interventions, but I was not allowed or able to seek any help to prevent this ongoing violation.
And Jane Fisher knew very well, because I told her, that she had got me into police trouble and that thus she was disqualified from involvement in my life, what kind of person gets someone a record and then ‘helps’ them, against their wishes and to their shame and pain? There was nothing she could do to help me and nothing she could do that I would trust after what happened in Jersey, and believe me, the emails she sent about it not being her and the Bishop’s doing, and some further emails, were for show, for the investigation which she was not going to be able to stop, and again, she has managed to protect herself to a certain extent in the Korris report but not completely. But why has she been allowed to ‘stalk’ me and get me into trouble for reacting, and my overreaction is because I did not believe she would ever go away but would continue her wrecking wherever I went, and to a certain extent she did, both personally and in the way I am excluded from society and most forms of help because of the record she got me for reacting to her.
I did not authorize Jane Fisher to contact or liase with any services in Winchester about me, I referred myself to the housing office due to the ‘support workers’ at the nightshelter being slow about doing anything, but the shame of the criminal record and knowing I would not survive in Winchester’s ‘criminals’ hostels where people have been murdered, and knowing that housing me on a council estate with the other ‘criminals’ would not do me any good meant that I saw no point even in my own referral before I knew that Jane Fisher was interfering and getting the diocese’s side across. I specifically told the nightshelter staff that no information about me was to be shared with anyone from the church of England and that was ignored completely, the Bishop was the patron of the nightshelter and basically I was open to any interference that Jane Fisher wanted to do to cover the Diocese’s back and malign me, so I was treated like dirt, still in shock and distress from prison and being bullied in the nightshelter.
I did not give Jane Fisher permission to be at any meeting about me with the authorities and police and homeless services and basically, despite it being my right both to have privacy and to turn to sleeping rough after the nasty experience of the nightshelter, repeated interventions by Jane Fisher and the Bishop that led to me being shouted at, shamed, trapped and threatened and left very distressed were not dealt with by the police, who treated me as if I was mad and the problem, even though I was reacting to things that should not have been happening. And yet, Jane Fisher is still working with vulnerable people.
In court in sussex, Jane Fisher claimed I had been harassing her since September 2010, even though I had been in prison in September 2010 and I had been told to plead not guilty to her and the Bishop’s charges in Jersey, it was also in Sussex in court that it was claimed I was convicted in Jersey for Jane Fisher and the Bishop. I did not return to the UK until October 2010 and made no contact with the Diocese at all until intervention and maligning of me and harm to me by Jane Fisher and the Bishop and his wife had become unbearable and I was desparate after fleeing Romsey after interference from Jane Fisher meant that Tim Sledge flung J. and F.’s side of things at me saying I had ‘caused trouble’ but he was unaware of F. abusing me and was nasty and hostile and attacking and tried to tell me to ‘go back to the nightshelter and Trinity centre’ all of which was none of his business but he told me he had been ‘speaking to Jane Fisher about me’, he was very accusing and nasty and when I asked him if he knew about me being abused or my side of things he tried to turn away and block me and say that his curate, J** had not offered to use her psychotherapy skills and experience of autism to help me.
That is when I first made contact in despair, with Wolvsley and Jane Fisher and sent the email round a number of people in Winchester and those at Romsey Abbey who rejected me and treated me badly for Jane Fisher. So, Jane Fisher’s case in Sussex was not right, and yet I had no voice. All the wrongdoing of both the Bishop and Jane Fisher was omitted from court, both times, so tell me, was it a fair trial? Was my record correct? No, and Jane Fisher is still working with vulnerable people after destroying one, is that right? She shouldn’t be, and I object, and if the Diocese refuse my objections and complaint then they are deliberately putting vulnerable people at risk.
Jane Fisher and the Bishop claimed that they had ‘tried to help me to be housed in Winchester, but omitted that they interfered with my housing, leaving me permanently homeless, and that I would have been housed if they had not interfered, firstly I would have been housed in Winchester, then Romsey and then Sussex, if it had not been for the Bishop and Jane Fisher. At no time did their interference do anything but drive me out, I did not ask for their help and objected to their help and did not give them consent at any time to interfere in my housing or any area of my life. The only good thing I remember about that court case was that someone read out that I had been driven from Winchester by Jane Fisher and the Bishop.
Be aware that it was Jane Fisher and the Bishop, who brought complaints against me for themselves, not Wolvsley or the Diocese, and I had not been in any contact with Wolvsley or the Diocese for some time then, because it was Jane Fisher and the Bishop who had hurt me and who had refused to deal with my complaint and that and the fact that I could not get over what had happened or feel safe again was why I continued to make contact with Jane Fisher and the Bishop.
Jane Fisher said in court that she wanted to ‘go on helping me’, does she really not understand that you cannot go on treating someone as she treated me and credibly claim to be helping them? You cannot wreck someone’s life and give them a long and inaccurate police record and ‘help them’!!! And the very thought despite my pleas that I was responding to her unwelcome interventions and harm to me, I was ignored and she was intending to go on violating me, which she really seems to think is ‘help’ and go on getting me into trouble. Basically, when you get someone done, especially if it is unjust, they are very very very unlikely to want you to help them, once someone has a police record, they are reduced to unemployment forever, and council housing or homelessness, they lose choice of where they can go, what they can do and they carry shame like a millstone round their neck, as I do, and in my case trauma as an even heavier millstone, so how could the person who had done this to me, ‘help me’? when what all this was about, from Jersey in 2009, was me wanting to be free from Jane Fisher and her condemnation and refusal to take my complaints seriously.
If the Bishop and Jane Fisher had put even as much effort that they put into destroying me into my complaints instead of denying my complaints, then things might be very different now.
My complaints being dealt with now is ridiculous, the damage is done and the church of England are using me as a pawn in their ‘look at us caring so much’ game, to my detriment, which is a continuation of bad safeguarding practice, because behind the scenes, here I am screaming with pain while they ‘care’ in the press, and publish damaging reports and apologies and look good for themselves while further damaging me.
The korris report makes F. and J. and other problems into a blur, as if that was nothing to do with the church or even relevant, and puts the blame on me, even though, those of you reading the information transfer blog will see that that is not the case, why was Jane Fisher allowed to make it look as if it was the case? And make me look bad to boot? There are a number of emails and my statements that make it clear that J.’s interference in Jersey is what brought that F. and J. matter into things and that jane Fisher was made aware of the matter -having not apparently been before and there are emails from her saying that what F. did is wrong. And on the night that Bob Key called me wicked and said I wasn’t abused, J. said that I maliciously reported people when I didn’t get what I wanted, which does not add up or connect to anything but it damned me, she added that she had had to work really hard to ‘clear F.’s name’, this indicates that the Diocese did some sort of attempt at investigation, but F. remained in church positions as R. did. If J. thought F. was innocent, why did she tell me that Sally had complained of him abusing her and why did she explain his impotence to me when I told her he had told me he was impotent? He told me he he lost his erection when he penetrated a woman, and when I told J. that, she said he became impotent when she started to refuse him sex because of his temper. So, why did the Korris report, obviously checked or advised by Jane Fisher, make this out to be an irrelevant part of the past and my fault? When in reality the M.s and their liason with the Keys and A’s was an important part of the Jersey nightmare, because they made it much worse for me, ganging up on me to make me out just to be a troublemaker.
The way jane Fisher has vilified me for the M.s and Lihous without interviewing me about them, or arranging a competent and reasonable person to do so, is disgusting.
The way Jane Fisher sent an email round behind my back on my return from Jersey and didn’t tell me that I was ‘known about’ and shunned, while I was shunned, is disgusting.
The way Jane Fisher apparently sent that email or another to J., who, having no professional boundaries at all, would have shared it with F. and her family, and who forwarded that email to Anne, who started on about how ‘Jane Fisher hadn’t thought I would be back so soon’, this was a horrifying way to have my friendship with Anne, which had been 10 years, to end just before she died, with Jane Fisher and J.’s intervention. There is no safeguarding or inclusion in what was done to me. F. M. laughed at me in the street with the ********‘s, ******* ****** having been one of the people who I told about F. abusing me not long after it had happened, and ******* ***** also being someone who, not trained in counselling, had tried to counsel me, and had restricted my friendship with her and ***** into sessions where I sat there and she pried and tried to give her opinion, including telling me that as a woman I should not be doing the heavy gardening work I did. But Jane Fisher didn’t vilify the ******’s or F., she tried to tell me that being laughed at in the street was ‘not humiliating’, believe me, it was, and everything I suffered because of Jane Fisher’s cover-ups and vilification of me was humiliating.
Jane Fisher did not handle my complaints about F., J., the A’s any of my side of things competently, and she harmed my life relentlessly and ignored my feelings and the damage she was doing to me.
I just published on the information transferral one of a number of Jane Fisher’s empty or inane emails that she sent me. She makes me out to be harassing her, but not only did she repeatedly send empty or meaningless email, perhaps while drinking, but she also made my life a misery through emails and texts and got me into trouble for my response, and I was not given adequate time or facilities to provide my defence and my side of things, which would have involved me using a computer and even being in a fit state to speak, which I wasn’t after police brutality and shock and asthma attacks and being locked in when I suffer claustrophobia.
The letter that prevented anyone providing me with pastoral care on my return from jersey to Winchester was not only grossly wrong and defamatory but was also Jane Fisher’s way of ensuring that hers and the Bishop’s side of things was the side that was heard.
The prevention of a perfectly safe and workable pastoral relationship with J** at Romsey Abbey was not only grossly wrong and harmful but also broke my heart. I had done no wrong there when Tim Sledge came shouting and accusing because he told me he had ‘heard from Jane Fisher’, the church are supposed to support and provide pastoral care for abuse victims, and Jane Fisher once again prevented pastoral care, in a very nasty way, worse than in Jersey where her opinion and her interference had caused me to be rejected and then her interference in my friendship with Tracy and then her failed attempts to influence **** and ********. Jane Fisher has treated me as if I was an abuser, because of her personal grudge because I stood up to her, and has done nothing about the real abusers, and this side of a criminal record, I see no point in this new ‘just-for-show’ investigation which is once again exonerating Jane Fisher.
The lack of correct safeguarding information and knowledge in the Diocese all along is one of the reasons I have had problems over the years, not just my own disabilities. Jane Fisher has a discriminatory policy banning vulnerable people from clergy houses, but J. crossed that boundary and even got money from the council for keeping me, she also crossed boundaries by going from being my counsellor to taking me home as I reminded her of the step-daughter she had lost, taking me to church, home and allowing F. to abuse me and blaming me, Jane Fisher didn’t come onto the scene until Jersey and damned me for J.’s side of things, even though Jane Fisher is responsible for not providing safeguarding training or awareness and not doing anything even though a number of church people knew I had said F. had abused me, and everyone knew I was living at the Rectory.
The same with the Lihous, everyone knew Jill was mentally ill and had a history of some quite concerning behaviours, including wishing and hoping her own daughter, Heather (Warren) would have an accident or die. But Jill and George took me in and people are claiming I was their lodger, but Jill wanted me to stay and was ‘heartbroken’ (her words) when I left and wanted me ‘home every weekend’ which disrupted my new life and other friendships until she changed it without consulting me, to every other weekend, and wanted to phone me on Fridays which was not convenient to me, instead of phoning me every day as she had done. I am damned for this without Jane Fisher even asking. And in every troubled relationship I have had in the Winchester Diocese, the other people have been severely troubled themselves. But jane Fisher has done nothing about my side of things and the fact that all these breaches of safeguarding occurred with these people with their own troubled histories, but has damned me and had me treated like an abuser with secret policies about me in churches and with people who have hurt me.
Jane Fisher is responsible for the lack of uniformity of safeguarding in the Winchester Diocese, and is responsible for all harm I have suffered as a result of lack of knowledge of safeguarding and lack of information so that no concerns were ever raised until I raised concerns to the Bishop when Bob Key tried to close my complaint down in Jersey.
Jane Fisher has hurt and damaged me, to the point of no recovery, there is no coming back from the one-sided criminal record that she has got me, she did bring charges against me in Sussex, not for the church or the Diocese, but because she liased with Bishop Scott-Joynt and they were apparently trying to have me put away as insane, again, as if the last beating and detention that failed to have me put away was not enough and as if the last assesment of me that said I was not mentally ill could be incorrect. I cannot recover my life after the depth and severity of damage to me by Jane Fisher. I cannot go on writing about it indefinitely and it has traumatized me to write this, but she did in every way fail me, fail to safeguard me and subject me to tremendous damage through negligence, failure in promoting safeguarding in the Diocese, deliberate harm to me in order to protect herself, the Bishop and the Diocese, untruths, maligning me and allowing me to be maligned, promoting practices that were not good safeguarding – ie trying to get me to sit with Anne ‘s remains in an empty church at night so that F. M. could go to Anne’s funeral in peace; and meeting with me alone when she knew how severe my dislike for her was, protecting wrongdoers and excusing them and damning me for my anger, and her total and utter lack of understanding of how abuse victims react and how church communites treat abuse victims, and her lack of understanding of learning difficulties and disabilities. Basically an exhaustive list, just as this complaint is exhaustive and should be treated as a snapshot of the whole picture of the terrible way Jane Fisher has behaved and treated me.
This is a formal complaint about safeguarding and should be responded to promptly and correctly, if Jane Fisher is left working unsupervised with vulnerable people after this complaint, then the Bishop is liable.
A final note, Jane Fisher told me she gets hundreds of complaints a month about abuse and misconduct. Considering how many churches those hundreds of complaints are coming from, that is unacceptable, why is the Diocese not promoting proper safeguarding or employing a competent safeguarding team? Jane Fisher’s comments were made to me in 2009, how many more people have been ruined by Jane Fisher being in sole charge and no proper safeguarding promoted within the Diocese? The church of England is a government department, if even one government department had hundreds of complaints of abuse every month something would be very wrong, I can only hope that other diocese are doing better, and in my experience they seem to, once I left Winchester I crossed many diocese and experienced the church of England elsewhere for the first time in my life and realised just how much the problem lay with the Diocese of Winchester. I saw excellent safeguarding in Chichester and several other diocese, one other diocese with a bit of a problem like the Diocese of Winchester but even there they were better orientated to disabled and isolated people.