The Diocese of Winchester’s reply to this may be to publish the Bailhache (Steel) report, that will be interesting. I am just predicting that they wont like me telling the truth and will offer to publish the slightly less than truth.
I guess one way or another, this waking nightmare I live in has to end somewhere and I guess the Diocese are just going to publish that report when they choose.
Basically I do not believe that anyone has stopped them, who could? who would be so affected by it? who knows what is in it to feel that they have to stop it being published? It is a puzzle, isn’t it? Because it wasn’t me, the Diocese have only contempt for me and my screaming at them to stop harming me as I did last year and got threatened by the Bishop in reply.

The Bailhache report, from what I have heard, a) isn’t worth the paper it is written on, and b) contains defamation of me, c) it omits my side of things, and d) it was not professionally carried out, having been controversial throughout.
Why was it controversial?
Well, from the beginning, it was suspected to be conflicted, and the concerns were raised with the diocese about this, and they ignored them.
These concerns grew as Dame Steel’s terms of reference were not released and the Diocese refused to address this.
Then there was further confusion around adverts in the JEP.

One advert that some people found intimidating and cold was apparently an advert for ‘witnesses to inappropriate clergy behaviour’.
In Jersey, with people in powerful positions backing the smear campaign against me and with the Church in Jersey making a big impact against me and against the Diocese, I doubt that anyone would have dared to step forward on my behalf, such is the Jersey way, they would risk being ruined.
But no doubt many people could be used as ‘witnesses’ against me, with the smear campaign and the people of power running the Jersey campaign against me and the Diocese, such an advert was a bad idea indeed.

But then there was another advert, a full page advert, apparently done by the church laity but done anonymously.
This advert was against Bishop Tim Dakin, and because of the awful and harmful way he has behaved, I believe he should be under a formal complaint, but anyway, this advert by the Jersey church, named Dame Steel as their advocate, their contact for a complaint against Bishop Dakin.
This showed a conflict of interests because if she was investigating the Jersey church on behalf of Bishop Dakin, how could she investigate him on their behalf?

Concerns about this continued to be ignored, and Bob Hill repeatedly tried to contact Dame Steel, but got no reply.
Until she was apparently ‘in the closing stages of her report’, and agreed to see him, although I asked what was the point of seeing her now if she was finishing her report, having not heard our evidence.
She made it clear she didn’t care about me or my evidence but had used the report to brand me and rework the story of what happened when I reported the churchwarden, completely omitting my side and making me out to be a normal non-disabled person who was violent and threatening.
This was backed up by Gavin Ashenden, former lawyer, now Jersey clergyman and supporter of the Dean and wrongdoers, telling Bob that the ‘Dean’s case was watertight’, and that he had been interviewed about me, despite the fact that he had never met me, wasn’t there when I was in Jersey and had branded me on what he had apparently heard from the Lihous and Warrens.
He was interviewed despite never meeting me, was able, just as Philip Bailhache and Senator LeMarquand were, to use his combination of legal expertise and position in the church, to damn me and ensure that the Dean was let off, all without me even being heard.

Now, does the Bishop want to publish this report in reply to me finally speaking up in exasperation? Does he want to continue to harm me?
I think the statement about the safeguarding in the diocese of Winchester is a joke. It doesn’t matter how much they have changed to cover things since I started speaking up, it does not change the fact that Jane Fisher has commited misconduct and harmed me and has put the Church’s reputation before my welfare, and this is even documented in the Korris report, her and the Bishop’s concern over scandal and then their concern for the internal review, which is why her bullying of me and the harm done is omitted from the Korris report, cover up, not safeguarding, so no, the Diocese are not now good at safeguarding because Jane Fisher has not been held to account, and I remain suffering as a result of the lack of safeguarding and Jane Fisher’s conduct.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s