With the Diocese of Winchester ever more a threat, I guess I had better try and start sharing my story before I mysteriously dissapear into their police cells and prisons without you knowing anything about it. This is the complaint that Jane Fisher wants a copy of, and it has been ignored by the Church of England completely

This is not written in code, but even in this day and age, people like me can be utterly destroyed while abusers and their identifying features are forcibly protected, so I have had to remove names.
Jane Fisher will be pleased to read a copy of the complaint against her which the church have ignored. 

Two-Part Safeguarding Complaint:
1.Complaint against Jane Fisher, Director of Safeguarding and inclusion in the Diocese of Winchester and 2. Complaint against Tim Dakin and the Diocese of Winchester for the Korris Report and their Handling of the investigation and Visitation since then.

This complaint is mainly set out in bullet points and uses church of England safeguarding documents for guidance in the first part of the complaint.


My name, for the purposes of this complaint, is *************, that was my former legal name, and my name changed as an attempt to protect me from Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester, and while it appears to be the case that they do not know my changed name, I will use my old name ‘***********’ in order to protect myself.
I am also known in the infamous ‘Korris report’ as ‘HG’. And have always wondered if that was done as a joke, hg being the symbol for mercury in the elements table, and the fact that I am mercurial in temper and temperament.

I am classified as a vulnerable adult. This is not my own classification but that of professionals such as doctors, social workers, autism workers, benefits agencies, and safeguarding workers.
I am diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum and having learning difficulties, I also suffer ‘mental illness’ only in the form of depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I am also vulnerable due to having grown up in circumstances that have left me with permenant psychological disturbance and attachment disorder and behavioural problems as a result.
I am mildly physically disabled.
I am also presently classified as vulnerable because I am homeless and destitute.

I came to the diocese of Winchester aged 19, was brought in to the church by an over-zealous counsellor who overstepped her boundaries and took me from the counselling relationship to her home, as a replacement for her step-daughter, as I was almost identical to her step-daughter and she had had to choose between her stepdaughter who she was trying to heal, and her violent-tempered husband who rejected his daughter.
The step-daughter had accused her father of abuse, and despite both father and step-mother working for the church of England, the church of England did not pick up on this accusation nor investigate.
And the husband of the counsellor both sexually abused me and disturbed and damaged me with his temper.
Despite me letting church members know about this, it never appeared to reach the Bishop or Safeguarding officer’s attention. The Korris report claims that I came to the diocese of Winchester’s attention then, but they never made contact with me in any way shape or form, the first contact I had with the Diocese was when I was in Jersey, and JM crossing counselling boundaries and taking me home and getting housing benefit for me and taking over my life and letting me be abused and letting me take the blame was never dealt with, nor was it the Diocese that raised the issue, I did, when JM involved herself in the dispute in Jersey.

This relationship with the counsellor/vicar, who is described in the Korris report at JM, went on for years, and because of the abuse, was never stable. JM denied that I had been abused and refused to see that her husband’s temper was harming me.
JM continued to cross professional boundaries and involve herself in my work and personal life all the time I knew her.
Jersey was no exception, and when I was abused in Jersey she involved herself, to my detriment.
In Jersey I was abused and had my first contact with the Diocesan Safeguarding Director, Jane Fisher, who the first half of this complaint is about.
Jane Fisher was nice at first but became defensive of the church and clergy who were doing wrong things and was hurtful and unhelpful and unclear to me, causing me to react in distress.
By the time Jane Fisher started being ‘nice’ again, the damage was done, and the ensuing fight led to police action. After what Jane Fisher had done I would not trust her and asked the Bishop to withdraw her and deal with my complaint. He did not.

Jane Fisher continued to be involved, intrusively, to my detriment and branding me mentally ill.
Considering her lack of competence in running safeguarding in the Diocese altogether, as I had already been damaged by lack of safeguarding, her continued involvement when I was traumatized by her was wrong, and her continued involvement that has led to me being repeatedly detained and brutalized is wrong. Her title is ‘safeguarding and inclusion’ but she is not fulfilling that title and has had me driven from churches, criminalized, even for my reaction to JM and her husband. And she has had me openly humiliated.

I am thus surprised that the Korris report omits her behaviour and that the Bishop has not suspended or disciplined her, so I am writing this complaint against her as a new complaint, and remain concerned that Jane Fisher is still involved in the visitation, which would explain some of why the Bishop has been unhelpful and not handled this well.

The House of Bishops policy ‘promoting a safe church’ from 2006, states:

We are commited to respectful ministry of all adults in our community -Jane Fisher has not been respectful of my need to worship, to be away from her inaccurate views of me behind my back to church leaders and congregations. She prevented me from settling in a church in Jersey and gave her opinion so I was refused prayer ministry, had pastoral care withdrawn and was shunned and maligned, incredibly she appears to have facilitated the rumours against me about George and Jill and JM, not just in Jersey but also on my return to Hampshire, I was shouted at by the Vicar of Romsey Abbey on her behalf as soon as she knew I was there, and the pastoral care I had been receiving there was withdrawn. She also facilitated rumours to places such as St. Peters catholic church which made me out to be abusive and omitted my autism or the abuse I had suffered. Unacceptable, and once again I was shamed and driven out. Please note the contrast, she did NOT DO THIS TO THE M********S OR THE A******S OR LIHOUS, THEY REMAINED IN CHURCH POSITIONS WITH THEIR BAD BEHAVIOUR COVERED UP, AND NONE OF THEM ARE VULNERABLE, TWO OF THEM HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED ME.
As a result of the above, I was driven not just from the Diocese of Winchester but from the church of England, but found the Catholics much more loving and inclusive and became a Catholic.
The House of Bishops says in their policy ‘we are commited, within our church community to the safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people. – during my time in the Diocese of Winchester I saw no sign of any adequate safeguarding or protection. JM was allowed to take me from college to her home, knowing she, as my counsellor had crossed many safeguarding boundaries, or maybe she had never heard of safeguarding, but she was aware that her husband had been accused of abuse by his own daughter who was now estranged, she was also aware of his violet temper and my vulnerability and her parents’ mental health problems. She took me out of college to take me home and ‘rehabilitate’ me, and waited until her husband gave his approval before moving me into her home and getting housing benefit for me – I wonder if church house were made aware of this? But anyway.
Again in Jill and George Lihou’s case, the Vicar knew they took me home, it was not a ‘lodgings’ arrangement, the Vicar frequently met with them about me and I was discussed behind my back, leaving me embarrassed and unable to even say hello to the vicar, Jill was known to be mentally ill and she took me to the doctor and asked them to give me a strong medicine that they would not normally prescribe to someone like me, she told them she was a nurse, told them she would administer the medicine, and later blamed me for making her ill by asking her to look after the medicine.
Jill and George would talk with all and sundry about me and leave me embarrassed, one of my old tutors, my old employers, the vicar, etc. But when asked to sit and discuss our friendship they would not.
They spent all the time I knew them boasting about everything their family had and could do, ad nauseum. I asked them if they could be more considerate and if we could discuss something other than their family and their good lifestyle, because I was struggling miserably.
Basically, I was not being safeguarded or protected in the case of George and Jill or the M*********s, I was being hurt, and already disturbed and more so by medicines that made me worse, I reacted, but Jane Fisher has repeatedly had it flung in my face that I am the trouble, not the lack of safeguarding or the way I have been treated and reacted. In 13 years of knowing the Diocese of Winchester I have not been safeguarded, included or treated with respect, I have been made to feel small, bad, to blame for abuse and to be the problem rather than my abusers, and that is Jane Fisher’s responsibility, both for not properly reinforcing safeguarding in the diocese and for her attitude to me and how she has passed on, through other people, that she blames me for George and Jill, the M*******s and the Jersey situation.
The House of Bishops says;• We will carefully select and train all those with any pastoral responsibility within the Church, including the use of CriminalRecords Bureau disclosures where legal or appropriate.
RA moved to his positions at St. A’s despite his sacking from St. Pauls for misconduct and his known record of inappropriate behaviour, he was not supervised as claimed in the Korris report. J and F M were never investigated over F’s daughter but came along and picked me up and hurt me, for which jane Fisher blames me and nothing was ever done about F, he and J moved to their new parish with no apparent query. RA remains in church positions despite his CRB reading that he has not been cleared of what he did to me. Jill and George’s positions have never been questioned despite Jill being seriously mentally ill and telling me she was my ‘carer’. None of this has been taken into account in the positions taken up by these people since their involvements with me, and none of their previous problems were taken into account when they came into the positions they held when they were involved with me, and as I continue to be vilified in Jersey, R, George and Jill will continue in church positions while Jane Fisher drove me out of the churches instead. Jill is never publicly disgraced as I have been for her behaviour, neither is RA, so basically, safeguarding? What safeguarding? Oh, that thing where abusers and wrongdoers are protected and victims are vilified!
The House of Bishops policy says: We will respond without delay to any complaint made that an adult forwhom we wereresponsible has been harmed, cooperating with police and the local authority in any investigation.
Well, Bob key did not respond appropriately, Jane Fisher responded but nothing was done, and that remains the case, and then Jane Fisher destroyed me and left the abuser laughing and supported as I was left homeless and destitute after years of stress that was too much for me, the refusal of the Bishop to withdraw Jane fisher and nothing ever done about my complaint, nothing was done about Fand J as well as nothing being done about the A’s.

The House of Bishops policy says: We will seek to offer informed pastoral care to anyone who has suffered abuse, developing with them an appropriate healing ministry. -This is definitely not what happened to me! Pastoral care was suddenly withdrawn by the Harkins, with no explanation, but because I knew they were friends with the Dean I believed that to be why, as it is, as I have got to know how Jane Fisher maligned me and put in place the ‘secret policy’ of abuse victims being shunned from clergy houses, even though abusers are welcome, I wonder if she told Sue that she was not to meet with me. As I previously used to meet with Sue at her house for lunch.
The shunning continued with St. Pauls refusing pastoral help and not explaining why, and the Bishop excusing them! Saying they did not know how to make provision for me! Though it was known that Reverend Paul Brooks had ‘problems’ with ‘mentally ill’ people and did not want to ‘get into trouble again’ and I was considered by all to be ‘mentally ill’ rather than that I had been abused by RA. Paul Brooks had a very nasty and discriminatory notice on the door of the church kitchen about ‘how to deal with mentally ill people’, and this notice went on about calling the police and things, it did not distinguish between any mental illnesses or what the situation might be. I remain outraged and disgusted, and despite telling Jane Fisher, she was as helpful as usual, not.
No pastoral care was provided for me in Jersey after the abuse, Tracy LeCoutuer Bromley worked with me of her own accord, but her work with me was wrecked by Jane Fisher’s involvement and the fact that she told the Dean I was at St. C’s.
******  and ******* pastoral care of me was also interfered with by Jane Fisher so that I was treated in a way that made me feel small.
The Bishop, when asked by me to provide pastoral care, said that ‘there was a priest but he was on the mainland’, and said and did no more about it.
After Jersey, Jane Fisher’s slander of me drove me from every church in Winchester.
When the police traced me in March of this year, they talked about ‘local church groups’ for me, as if anything arranged by or connected to the Diocese would feel safe for me!
Believe me, no safe healing ministry has ever been provided for me by the Diocese, even the attempts at ministry were sabotaged by involvement by Jane Fisher, who treats me as if I was dirt on her shoe, while in her opinion, my abusers were ‘Christians who got things wrong’ and Bob key ‘made mistakes’.

The Bishops council says: We will challenge any abuse of power by anyone in a position of trust: This has consistently not been done, The Dean was not challenged, RA was not challenged, Bishop scott-Joynt was not challenged, Jane Fisher was not challenged- and it is time that she is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! J and F were not challenged. Basically no-one has been overseeing the Diocese of Winchester or providing effective safeguarding for a very long time, and that needs to change, either by Jane Fisher being disciplined and properly trained for her job, so that each parish is trained and has a safeguarding representative, or by her removal for misconduct and replacement with a proper safeguarding team, not just one domineering self-righteous woman like jane Fisher but an accountable team!

The Bishop’s council policy says: We will care for and supervise any member of our church community known to have offended against a vulnerable person.
Well, ironically, the A‘s,M‘s, and Lihous have been much better cared for than me, with the Avertys going to tea with the *********’s throughout this complaint and Rleading a team containing children to do *********‘s garden for him, and the A’s going to events with the Keys.  While I was driven out, shunned and maligned.

What, if anything, was ever done about the M’s? Basically, the church didn’t even care for me, so basically the A’s and M’s have continued ‘business as usual’ in any church. The Bishop claimed that ******** and ******** were ‘supervising’ R, but what is the point of him being supervised by friends who think he has done no wrong? Basically the church have given both those men the impression that they are innocent and I am the wrongdoer! F M. laughed in the street when he saw me, homeless and ashamed, he laughed with two other people who have crossed boundaries and not been pulled up for it, including one who tried to counsel me when she was not trained, and again, nothing was done about that. So basically, in the Diocese of Winchester, the above policy from the house of Bishops doesn’t apply.

The safeguarding policy goes on to say that church should be a safe haven.
For me it never has been, and in the Diocese of Winchester it is not a safe haven, jane Fisher’s attitude, her lack of empathy and coldness and trotting out the rules without actually understanding human beings and suffering, as well as the lack of uniformity across the Diocese, means that the Diocese remains unsafe. It is too big a diocese for one person, especially someone as unprofessional as jane Fisher, to oversee on her own, and I have noticed that she usually turns up at a church to give a safeguarding talk AFTER an abuse complaint is made.

There was no mention of safeguarding and no-one named at St. Catherine’s Littleton until after M. Ee, who worked closely with me and my youth group, was arrested for peadophilia and child porn, then all of a sudden there was a notice in the porch naming my friend Anne  as safeguarding appointed person, but nor was it mentioned in a service or explained to anyone. I had never heard of safeguarding at the time.

The policy says ‘vulnerable adults should be treated with respect and dignity, their privacy should be respected, they should be entitled to the full protection of the law the same as anyone else:
I have not been treated with respect and dignity in the Diocese of Winchester and I have so many points on this that I may not fit them all in here but I will get a few examples in.
JM crossed counselling boundaries when she was my counsellor as well as local vicar, she spoke about me to anyone she liked throughout the time I knew her, starting with college staff and going on to people in the church community, and humiliated me, but not only that, she shared her caseload with me as we walked, telling me of her parishioner’s disabilities, personal problems, bereavements, divorces -shocking me once because I told her I was upset at hearing of a friend’s divorce and she disclosed another divorce thinking I was talking about that! So basically, everyone knew her side of me, even though she had been my counsellor and that was not appropriate, but also I knew her side of everyone’s troubles.
George and Jill- as previously mentioned, Jill would talk about me to my old tutor, and also persistently to my old employers despite my anger, also to a man who got me to sign a bit of paper saying he would do my finances, and then abandoned that because of his jealous wife, and also the vicar and other people in church, I was left with no privacy.
Rand JA. were the same, and got people to talk to them about me rather than talk to me myself.
In Jersey I was talked about and not given privacy all the time, but most shockingly Jane Fisher being involved ‘about me’ all the time, especially with Tracy without my leave, and her meetings with Tracy about me and without my consent, of which no notes or minutes were passed back to me.
But worst of all was Jane Fisher’s illegal intervention behind my back with police, social services and mental health services, in Jersey and the same again and also the homeless services on my return to Winchester, not only was jane Fisher invading my privacy but she was also violating my life and trying to force me to be branded as mentally ill, instead of withdrawing as asked and passing the matter to someone competent. Jane Fisher is not competent, she gets by in her job by bulldozing.
Although I have been damaged by lack of privacy and dignity in the way I have been treated, no-one, not Jane Fisher or anyone in Jersey maligning me has taken into account the damage done to me by this.
Jane Fisher’s most horrifying rape of my privacy is the way she sent an email round when I returned from Jersey, having me shunned behind my back and sending that email to JM who’s crossing of boundaries as my counsellor and onwards and into the Jersey matter had damaged me for life, J sent that enail to my friend Anne and Anne died estranged from me, it is thought that the email went to other friends of mine, and those friendships, of over 10 years were destroyed in the ongoing horror of Jane Fisher’s destroyal of me. She tried to get me to go and sit in an empty church with Anne’s remains at night so that FM, my abuser and no friend of Anne’s, could go to her funeral in peace.

From the safeguarding policy:
All adults, including vulnerable adults, have a fundamental human right to
choose how and with whom they live, even if to outsiders, this appears to involve
a degree of risk. The only occasion when that right should be superseded is in
situations where other people are also put at risk or where the adult is mentally
incapacitated and decisions need to be taken on the basis of their best interests.
Every individual’s right to live their lives free from violence and abuse is
underpinned by the duty on public bodies under the Human Rights Act(1998) to
uphold the rights of citizens.

The Diocese of Winchester, represented by Jane Fisher  have breached my human rights by their interference since the abuse. I have suffered much worse trauma at jane Fisher’s hands by her interventions with the police and other agencies since the abuse, than I suffered as a result of the abuse. Some of Jane Fisher’s motive appeared to be to force me off the streets but I lived on the streets due to trauma inflicted by her, and she has no right to judge how I should live. The one thing she could have done to help me was set the record straight about how I was autistic and abused, but she preferred to drive me mad and punish me for my reaction.
Jane Fisher’s interventions against my wishes in Jersey and since I left Jersey are harrassment, her meetings with the police and social services without my permission and her slander of me to churches and prevention of me getting the help I needed are harrasment. And yet she was allowed to have me brutalized and detained for responding to her, and because she had branded me as mentally ill, my complaint in reply was ignored and I was jeered at by police and social services and left still vulnerable to her interference, this led to me going on the run, changing my name and being unable to approach or accept help or housing, and living deeply ashamed and unable to explain my past to anyone. Dispossesed. Social services not only refused my complaint but illegally tried to refer me to a mental health nurse at the homeless centre that I would not go near because of Jane Fisher’s interventions! – this forcing of me to be mentally ill rather than have a legitimate complaint against jane Fisher has nearly killed me and left me psychologically scarred for life.1

The policy says:
All those working with vulnerable adults, whether in paid employment or on a
voluntary basis, should be appropriately recruited, trained, supported, supervised and monitored. It is important to actively promote the interests of vulnerable adults by: Ensuring that the PCC has a safeguarding adult policy and procedures. Taking steps to protect vulnerable adults from abuse of any kind. Working to minimise risks wherever possible in conjunction with the person and those involved with their care.

RA, already sacked and under a very flimsy monitoring policy, was constantly allowed to be alone with me, despite his past behaviours, no-one explained the policy to me at any time, the Korris report is wrong, and no one did uphold that policy, R spent many hours alone with me in all kinds of circumstances, and misbehaved, and he was allowed positions of authority, the weak vicar revelled in letting take the lead in running the church.
F M was not supervised, in fact none of the people who have been involved in hurting me, for which I have got the blame, have been adequately trained or supervised, nor their pasts taken into account, but Jane Fisher has vilified me! Got ME a criminal record! Told people I was the trouble in the D benefice! When I was being hurt and abused! Basically she has said that I am the one in the wrong, she has not got F or R the terrible record she has got for me! She has got me a terrible record in front of the men who abused me, not only is Jane Fisher not any kind of a ‘safeguarding and inclusion director’ she is the opposite of a safeguarding and inclusion director and she is not even a Christian! She has done all this damage and a Christian would be so filled with remorse that they would resign, they would take responsibility for their harm and they would resign, and yet the Bishop has allowed her, unreprimanded to continue to be in her position and to be involved to this day! Hence the shambles and nothing in the visitation including Jane Fisher’s behaviour!


Every parish should have a safeguarding person.

Who was safeguarding person at any of J’s churches? After M Ee was arrested, a notice appeared in the porch saying that Anne was the safeguarding person. It was not announced nor was safeguarding ever mentioned in church nor was any appointed person known in any of the other churches
The same in O, A etc, no sign of a policy or appointed person.
The Same in Jersey.

Neither Anne nor anyone else raised the FM issue with the Diocese as far as I know, if they did and I was not contacted then no proper investigation was carried out, nor were appropriate boundaries put in place as he continued to be allowed to be alone with me, and J still invited me to stay over even in the time I was in Jersey and she still blamed me for the abuse and was of the opnion, which she shared with Jersey, that I was an abused person who tried to seduce people and reported them out of spite etc. So if Jane Fisher WAS ever made aware of the situation  with the M’s before I told her about it when J was interfering in Jersey, she did NOT DEAL WITH IT, the Korris report suggests it was dealt with. It was not.

I was not safeguarded very well in the D benefice but on the other hand I managed to integrate by helping with church duties and church and community events and did have loving and stable friendships there, but I was abused and I was made to suffer about mentioning M Ee when J wanted it all hushed up, I was made out to be as a bad as an abuser in God’s eyes, for my disability. Which is not safeguarding.

The church should have Safe Buildings to help disabled people: I remember how I was always having to go outside the church hall because it was noisy and echoey and a sensory nightmare, JM used to cuttingly say that I was acting out.
Maybe she needed some training and her buildings needed updating, but sadly there was no knowledge of safeguarding and inclusion in the parish. It was a rich parish and the mainly very wealthy older people were not used to disability so they believed J when she said I was playing up.  My fault, Jane Fisher, where have you been all these years while I have not been safeguarded or included? Too busy?

Important: where are the records of the conversations I have had with J about F abusing me? And the conversations I had about Fred to HS, SL and MF? Were they used in the Korris report? If so, why is it unclear as to who, if anyone, absolved the situation and why the matter never went to safeguarding, and if it did, why it was not dealt with, ie, why was I not contacted and why was F still left alone with me and why did Jane Fisher not let me know of the matter when I finally reported it to her in Jersey?
I have the email where I let Jane Fisher know about F, and her response was not that she knew, or had the records, but that F shouldn’t have done what he did.
Jane made no apparent efforts to ever investigate my complaint about F.

Why, if JM knew of the Diocesan safeguarding policy, or the same for the other people who also held roles in ************** church, was the matter not disclosed to safeguarding and not looked into? Did they not know the policy? JM told me I was to blame and she took me to New Zealand but I was still fuming and could not enjoy myself and I was very frightened at being so far from home and JM refused to make allowances for that. She also gave her friends in new Zealand an unhelpful account of me and why I was behaving differently, because she would not accept my autism, the abuse or my bewilderment at being so far from my friends and home.
But Jane Fisher told Romsey Abbey and everyone else about ME being trouble!

To bring to your attention another thing that has not been mentioned in any other statement. JM once slapped me. I only recently remembered this.
Because I come from a background containing violence she should not have done.
Despite being a counsellor and a priest, she took me from college where she was counselling me and into her home and her family, who had problems, when F. abused me, her family were nasty about me and blamed me, said I was leading him on but also said about what he did to his daughter. I got angry about J’s mum and sister being spiteful and I said something and J slapped me.
No doubt this would be included in Jane Fisher’s policy of ‘protect abusers and destroy victims’ as acceptable.

Lack of safeguarding goes on in most parishes in the Diocese on most weeks, it is in the form of the wealthy and older people in the diocese, who make up a large proportion of the congregations and who are also the segment who hold positions in the church, shunning the few poor or disabled who come in, not bothering to speak to them, leaving them out of events and news, talking down to them and patronizing them, ensuring they don’t take up roles in the church etc etc.
That is very much present in the D Benefice and markedly more so in Jersey! But Jane Fisher is too busy to ensure safeguarding.
The other side of lack of safeguarding in Jersey is the very cultlike actions of forced signs and wonders, pushing people over for Jesus, driving out of demons etc, all done in a very American cult way, with the Jersey old-fashioned prejudice against disabled and disadvantaged people.

I recall how, while I was homeless in 2011, Jane Fisher was ‘advertised’ as giving a talk at L. about safeguarding, and having gathered that she only does this when something has happened, I wondered who else had suffered. I remember how the paragraph read happily ‘Jane is a very busy lady and is taking time to come and tell us what goes on behind the scenes in safeguarding.
I wondered if she would tell them how she had licence to destroy me and how she is busy getting up at 10am as she told me she does, and if she is busy not safeguarding anyone and destroying vulnerable adults. I doubt she told them that and I wonder if she used that talk as an excuse to excuse herself what she had done to me, to my old friends at L. friends I never returned to because of her interference.

What church abuse victims are now taught by the survivor’s charities is: go to the police, the church will not help you and will hinder your complaint and sometimes prevent justice, I know that is true now, take the abuser as a person rather than a church person and do not let someone like Jane Fisher harm you, because once you go to the police, the church can contact you but you have gone to the correct authorities to bring anyone to justice, and the church are unlikely to do anything effective but the police might. I know now that that is the case, the church of England have not been responsible for any justice for me, they have inflicted terrible injustice from which I will never heal.

The church of England has guidelines as to how to respond when vulnerable adults talk about being abused:
These guidelines were not followed by JM when I told her about F or by Bob Key when I told him about RA.
Philip , not a member of the church of England, did follow these guidelines.
I don’t think Jersey is the only problem, the Diocese of Winchester under Jane Fisher does not know how to safeguard or include vulnerable adults.
No-one who knew of my complaint about F. contacted ther Diocese, or if they did, nothing was done.
Nor did Vicar **** contact the Diocese after I first spoke about R. abusing me, the A’s ‘took advice’ but neither the ********’s nor NB nor the Keys, contacted Jane Fisher and reported the matter, despite the theoretical policy about R. because of his previous behaviour.

Don’t meet with a vulnerable person alone: as the email evidence will show, Jane Fisher often tried to meet with me alone, her emails talk about meeting me alone in Jersey and since I left jersey, and the very fact that I had sent hundreds of messages expressing my hatred for her and asking for her to withdraw should have raised questions. She met with me alone several times in Winchester and tried to meet with me in Southampton and was still badly behaved and contradicting herself. When I asked if I could bring someone with me to the meeting in Southampton she said only if she could bring someone, which makes her sound dodgy.
I was alone with her in Southampton and scared when I fainted and other people got involved, she probably got them as her witnesses as I told those people she had destroyed me and then I ran for it.
Jane Fisher is a danger to vulnerable adults and should not meet with them alone, she should be supervised.

The House of Bishops has a policy about offenders in the congregation but despite this:

FM and RA continued and continue to hold positions in the church, R. was recently reading the lesson at the town church in Jersey, and F, last time I saw, was reading prayers at church despite that being some time after me reporting him. Basically a Diocese that allows a vulnerable person to see their abusers holding positions of respect in churches is a Diocese that doesn’t give a damn about vulnerable people and safeguarding.

The House of Bishops has guidelines about recruiting individuals into employment in the church:

But despite this, F and J have managed to take up another post with no supervision or disciplinary action noted.
RA was able to go from being sacked in one church to being in positions of authority and not adequately supervised in another, as I think about it, the ‘supervision’ that is mentioned in the Korris report may be made up. There was no sign of it, and I saw R touching and fondling all the time. He was also in trouble at work for being tactile, but he was not supervised at St. A’s and I have a feeling that St. A’s made it up to cover their backs, nor is the Korris report correct about me being told about this policy, I was not.
R. not only worked alone with me but made out that he had ‘had to talk with Vicar **** about still working with me’ after I spoke up about the abuse the first time. He made it out to be my fault.
And yet, where was Jane Fisher, didn’t anyone know her number? No, it is nor readily available in any church I have been to in the Winchester Diocese, neither are any safeguarding details.

R must have been have been aware of safeguarding but ignored it, knew he could, after all, his friend Bob key was not going to reinforce it, nor was ****.

The safeguarding policy states that people working with vulnerable adults should be adequately trained:
Was R. adequately trained? Was he adequately supervised? Was Jill trained to call herself my ‘carer’ and have me put on meds? Etc.
Why does Jane Fisher blame me for the lack of safeguarding in her diocese? Why did she vilify me? Does she not understand vulnerable adults and responsibility? At very least she needs training and supervision!

Why was R. not removed under the safeguarding of vulnerable groups act? Why was Jill Lihou and the M’s and even Jane Fisher not removed under this act?

My plea is that because of how Jane Fisher has bullied me, not protected me from harm but inflicted harm on me to the point of leaving me destitute that she is removed under the ‘Safeguarding of vulnerable groups act 2006’.

Under the definitions of abuse according to Church of England Safeguarding Policy, Jane Fisher has abused me, under the definition of mental abuse and abuse by neglect:

She has violated my privacy, in most horrifying ways and has left me scarred and struggling with trust
She has played a part in having me repeatedly brutalized, detained and having my posessions searched, those are not things that someone with autism can withstand and I remain suffering physically and mentally
She played a part in having me removed violently and suddenly from my home, posessions and normal way of life and left destitute and without the things I needed to pacify myself as I am autistic.
She has told untruths to the police including about only helping me, about dates, times and circumstances to do with her charges against me, having to hear those untruths and not being able to answer has been one of the major causes of psychological damage to me over the last two and more years.
Her concerted efforts to take my liberty from me
Her initial bullying of me and rudeness and defence of wrongdoers in Jersey, how dare she say I am to blame for being shunned and that the Keys just made mistakes and the A’s are just Christians who got things wrong?! You think a serial abuser is a Christian? You think he is being Christian to go round saying he has been cleared and making his victim’s name mud??!!
Jane Fisher’s bullying is what led to me finally being destroyed, she would not deal with my complaint but hurt me instead.
Jane Fisher’s lack of action over my complaints to her is abuse by neglect.
Jane Fisher’s comments about my behaviour being to blame rather than the wrongdoers behaviour, her refusal to even take my side of the Lihou and Warren situation or even the M’s but the way she slated me instead, is also a form of abuse.
The fact that she holds her position but claimed in an apology to me about her behaviour that she ‘didn’t understand autism’ is a serious form of abuse to do with her being in a position that she is not trained for, and using my autism as an excuse is pretty damn appalling to say the least.
Bullying – she bullied me through being rude and unhelpful
Exclusion, she excluded me from churches by interfering and slandering me, to the point that I will never be a part of the church of England again.
Lack of respect and blame of me.
She has covered up for her behaviour and that is shown in the Korris report, this also deems her unsuitable for work with vulnerable adults. If she can hurt someone and cover up, then it is not just me who is suffering! There will be others!
She ensured my complaints against her and the Diocese were not taken seriously as she labelled me ‘mentally ill’.
Jane Fisher is unsupervised, does what she likes and does it knowing that she can, as my evidence, including evidence of some of the above is being made available to Christine, she will see the one about how Jane Fisher told me that my complaint was irrelevant because I wouldn’t meet with her and when I said I would complain, she told me she could make the Bishop understand, which is just it, Jane fisher is in control and not the Bishop and no-one else is supervising her.
The criminal and detention record that Jane Fisher has, as a safeguarding and inclusion director, got me, after failing to protect me from abuse, maligning me, ensuring I was isolated, felt unsafe in a church and then destroyed me, should mean that she never works with vulnerable adults again. She did not make such a huge effort to get my abusers a conviction, her action against me and refusal to release evidence prevented civil legal action against RA, and Jane Fisher is responsible for my detention on 14/02/11 at Winchester and jointly responsible for my detention in West Sussex two years ago, when her lies in court caused me such pain. She did get me convicted and is responsible for it, even though her lack of safeguarding of me is the reason that that happened.

Working With abuse survivors, church of England Policy:

It would have been possible for St. C’s church in Jersey to keep working with me and healing me if Jane Fisher had not become involved and started discussing with Tracy about emails I had sent to Jane Fisher in anger, for which Tracy tried to tell me off, and the first cracks appeared in the friendship. Jane Fisher should have been concentrating on doing something about my complaints, or she should have been withdrawn by the Bishop by then and a competent person put in place instead.
The working with survivors policy goes through all the difficulties I have had as a result of abuse, but the Diocese didn’t help me or support me, they destroyed me.
Jane Fisher tried to use the police that she set on me to offer me counselling when things were much too serious for counselling and it is heinous that she could even bring herself to think that attacking me with the police and offering me counselling at the same time was ok.
Jane Fisher refused to take my complaint about Bob and Daphne Key calling me wicked seriously and instead she and Tracy echoed each other about me turning up at the Deanery, as if that excused it and blamed me instead, I turned up at the Deanery because Lou Scott-Joynt gave the impression that nothing was being done about the Keys, and I didn’t turn up shouting and swearing as Key untruthfully said in court.
Jane Fisher has enabled the Keys to do wrong and enraged me, not a good way to treat a survivor of abuse and bad practice, and since jane Fisher knew that the Keys had already done wrong, why did she condemn me?
Nothing practical was ever done to ensure that I could attend church and church events safe from F. or R., I was the one left upset and hurt each time I saw them, because Jane Fisher had made me out to be the bad one. I couldn’t go to Tracy’s ordination, because RA’s car was parked in the car park with all the other attendees cars, Bob key was there of course, with the Bishop; and only me, the abuse survivor, was not welcome, could not be there.

The descriptions above are my complaint against Jane Fisher and the Diocese of Winchester regarding Safeguarding, and lack of safeguarding, this is a formal complaint using the House of Bishops 2006 guidelines and the Church of England’s Safeguarding policy.

I am submitting it to the Bishop, Archbishop, and appropriate safeguarding people, with copies to Bishop John Gladwin and also Christine Daly, with a copy to my mediator, Bob Hill.

I have a concern that my complaint about Jane Fisher, and her behaviour have been omitted from the Korris Report, which shows again how Jane Fisher is able to exonorate herself from bad behaviour, and it is noticeable that her behaviour is absent from terms of reference of the investigation and it is also noticeable that she has not been suspended pending enquiry as the Dean was.

I have a grave concern that Jane Fisher, having escaped discipline, has continued to be involved in advising the Bishop about the current investigation, and that would explain the Bishop being cold, uncommunicative and threatening me at least, Jane Fisher would be covering up her wrongdoing again.

So, as we continue to lack clarity on the investigation and visitation, and there is no sign of Jane Fisher being disciplined, trained correctly or supervised, I am submitting this formal complaint.

My full range of concerns include:

Lack of adequate safeguarding across the whole diocese
The abuse I have suffered as a result
Failure to deal with my complaints
Failure to be civil and reasonable with me
Bullying and blaming me while excusing others
Lack of clarity
Intervention behind my back in churches and other agencies
Repeatedly having me detained
Refusal to submit evidence for civil legal action against my abuser
Lack of clarity
Excusing other people
Playing a part in driving me from churches
Having meetings behind my back with people close to me, including Tracy, who was my friend, not making me aware of this or sending me minutes of this.
Along with the Dean and Bishop, destroying me and leaving me homeless and destitute
Further damage by maligning me to churches in Winchester, omitting the abuse and autism and making me out to be trouble, this includes non-church of England churches.
Further brutal police detentions which will never heal, along with efforts to brand me mentally ill
Further interference through meetings with homeless and other services without my permission and behind my back.
Untruths told to the police and read out in court in Sussex causing me lasting emotional anguish
The records that I got due to Jane Fisher have continued to cause me problems and maybe always will unless someone sets the police, social services, and medical services straight on what has happened.The Korris report does not set the record straight.

So, this is my complaint against Jane Fisher, and no doubt, as she did in Jersey she will say it is just my ‘perception’ of it.
Well, I must be mentally ill then! Sadly I am not, I am autistic and traumatized and have experienced the second worst diocese in England for safeguarding. But jane Fisher tried so hard to brand me as mentally ill to cover her own back, and in the anguished and distressed state I was in, she had an easy time doing so, but not on mental health team’s records, because I am not mentally ill.
And, look at it this way, no-one can just ‘percieve’ all that, as Jane Fisher knows herself, abusers try to make vulnerable people’s memories into ‘their perception of it’ just as mental illness is a common excuse for abusers.

This is a formal complaint and the Bishop must now withdraw Jane Fisher at least from the investigation and visitation if not yet from working with vulnerable adults.
I did not go mad for nothing, I don’t.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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