Friday, 31 May 2013

Jersey's Dean----- Red Letter Day?????


After a lull in letter writing there appears to have been a sudden two pronged surge questioning the need and cost of the investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s abuse allegation and the Church of England's Safeguarding Policy.

Last Friday 24th May the JEP published a letter from Jennifer Ahluwalia which claimed that given the cost and damage, Bishop Dakin has a lot to answer for. On Tuesday 28th May the JEP published another letter in which the author Bruce Willing included 20 questions which he had sent to Bishop Dakin.

What is interesting is how the original issue of the mishandling of an abuse complaint along with Safeguarding issues is becoming secondary to what now seems to be a Constitutional issue. In neither letters do the authors express sympathy for HG for the abuse suffered at the hands of the original abuser nor as a result of the Church of England’s subsequent actions for which the Dean, Bishop and Archbishop have all issued public apologies, but to date have failed to apologise to HG personally.

In my previous Blogs I have questioned the Dean and the former Bishop's handling of what should have been a straight forward complaint. However what has followed has done very little to instill any confidence in the Church as a whole and the hole is getting deeper.

I don’t have a problem with Bruce Willing’s questions (which can be seen below) but it is the timing and the motive that is questionable. In previous Blogs I have said that I could not understand why the Dean was suspended before any framework had been assembled to conduct the Visitation/Investigation. The details of the panel along with its Terms of Reference and predicted date of completion should have been published at the time the Dean was suspended. Bruce Willing is right to question the tardiness and procrastination but that is now history as the wheels are now slowly beginning to turn.

Very importantly what appears to have been forgotten is that the Dean when apologising for his mistakes is reported as saying “If Christians can’t put things like this behind them and move on then we are all in a mess.” He pledged to co-operate with the investigation (JEP 29/4/2013) so why the letters and late questions if the Dean is taking part in the Investigation?

Above I mentioned the word motive, is the motive behind the letters to brush aside the investigation, and if so why? Jersey has a poor record when it comes to investigating abuse or other sensitive matters, but whilst it concerns Jersey, the Dean Affair is a Winchester matter but it is clearly of concern to those who like to do things the Jersey Way and don’t like “ outside interference” no matter how warranted.

Senator Bailhache, the Dean's knight in shining armour is organising a public meeting next week to discuss "the crisis in the Diocese." Given the Senator's involvement in the matter one may ask is the crisis of his making?

The Investigation/Visitation is being conducted at the instigation and expense of the Diocese of Winchester via the Bishop. He is of the view that there are Safeguarding and accountability issues which are too great to be ignored. While some contents in the Korris Report have been criticised there are issues, which for the Anglican Church in Jersey’s own credibility needs to be addressed. Although I have been critical of Bishop Dakin’s handling of the suspension and tardiness in establishing the Investigation, he is never the less right to conduct it in a timely, orderly and financially prudent manner.

Yesterday the JEP kindly published my letter which is in response to Jennifer Ahluwalia’s mentioned above. I am mindful of the many readers from outside the Island who do not receive the newspaper so for their benefit I publish both letters.

"Given the cost and damage, the Bishop has a lot to answer for."
• From Jennifer Ahluwalia.

As a long-standing member of the Church of England, I have serious concerns about the situation between the Bishop of Winchester, Dean of Jersey and the Anglican Church of Jersey.

This long-standing affair began in Jersey in August 2008 and is covered in the Korris Review, the conclusions of which seem to have been laid down before it was published. I do hope that will not be the case with the Dame Heather Steel inquiry And why was either inquiry necessary? Should the Bishop not have discussed his concerns with the Dean before suspending him, and why did he refuse to discuss this omission in the BBC Radio Jersey interview on 12 April?

The complainant, a vulnerable young woman (referred to as 'HG' in the Korris Review), had unwisely accepted an invitation to stay with a churchwarden and his family against advice. She was offended by some words and/or gestures of her host and made a complaint to the Anglican Church in Jersey.

The Dean interviewed the accused churchwarden and HG. The Dean's wife acted as a chaperone and witness. Admittedly, it would have been wiser to have had an unrelated witness and the Dean should have made full notes.

Quite properly, the Dean referred this sensitive case to the police, who took no further action because of insufficient evidence. So the case was dropped, but kept on file, and HG withdrew the complaint. In spite of the Dean's suggestions, HG refused to renew the complaints to the church. The churchwarden was asked to stand down temporarily. Then HG became dissatisfied with the Dean's handling of the matter and complained to the then Bishop of Winchester and he discussed it with the Dean. In former years, she had made similar accusations in Guernsey and twice in the Diocese of Winchester.

As the author of the Korris Report failed to interview the complainant, how could it have been accepted? With his commitment to safeguarding, how does the Bishop justify breaching confidentiality in this sensitive case by putting the Korris Report on the internet, without HG's permission, thereby exposing her very private problems to the public? It is not true that the young woman was deported, as stated in the Korris Review. As Sir Philip Bailhache has pointed out, her behaviour led to court charges, she had lost her job and accommodation in Jersey and, as suggested by her advocate, agreed to leave the Island for three years. How can this and other inaccurate statements in the Korris Report be rectified?

Christians should look after their staff. There seems to have been a total lack of concern for them. Has anyone of the Bishop's staff considered the considerable strain that these five years - dealing with the complaint, even though it was not pursued, negotiating and being investigated, as well as keeping up with their other work- have imposed on the Dean and others caught up in this mess?

And has the Bishop realised the damage that he is causing the Anglican Church in Jersey How can that be alleviated? Who is going to pay for all this? I understand that two reports, two sets of lawyers, a PR firm in London employed by the Bishop, the travel costs from Winchester to Jersey and to London for the Bishop and his advisory team, etc, will cost between £500,000 and £1 million. Are we, through the Jersey quota from its Anglican Churches? Finally, how can the reputation and integrity of the Anglican Church of Jersey be saved?

The Bishop seems determined to eradicate centuries- old laws and grind Jersey under his heel. Are the Ecclesiastical Court and the States of Jersey willing and determined to fight and, if necessary, secede from the Diocese of Winchester?

**************************************************************

Below is the letter I submitted to the JEP and published yesterday for which I am grateful and accept that the Editor reserves the right to amend the author's letter. This has occurred and below is a copy of the letter it published and what was omitted is in red.

I was amused to read the headline “Given the cost and damage, the Bishop has a lot to answer for” which preceded Jennifer Ahluwalia’s letter published on Friday 24th May. Those who have closely followed the Dean affair would certainly question whether the current Bishop is the only person who has a lot to answer for. The author rightly describes the situation as a mess but there is little else in her letter I can agree with because it contains many inaccuracies.

I am in regular contact with the lady referred to in the Korris report as HG and have read the relevant background documents. While the Dean’s supporters are entitled to campaign on his behalf it is unfortunate that they appear do so at the expense of HG’s who is very much the forgotten victim, without a voice and still waiting for the Dean, Bishop and Archbishop’s apology.

The author criticises Jan Korris for failing to interview HG but she too has failed to do so hence the inaccuracies, in fact one wonders where she obtained her information.

It is not disputed that HG made a complaint about the Church Warden but it was never withdrawn as claimed by the author. How ever it was the events that followed that led to further complaints against the Dean, the former Bishop and Safeguarding Officer which is now subject to the Visitation/Investigation.

Ms Ahluwalia states that HG unwisely accepted an invitation to stay with a churchwarden and family against advice. This is news to HG but it does suggest that the officer concerned was not above suspicion yet was able to continue in office. Malicious mischievous and unsubstantiated rumours have constantly been spread about HG making similar accusations in the UK and now Guernsey. Where did the author obtain that information and why did she not substantiate it? Even if the allegation was true does being a victim of one abuse deny the right of any victim complaining if they are unfortunate to become a victim a second or more times.

Your correspondent takes Korris to task by stating that HG was deported when according to the author, who is relying on information provided by Senator Bailhache, HG had lost her job and her accommodation and as suggested by her Advocate agreed to leave the Island for three years. Again this information is incorrect. HG had just risen from her bed and preparing to assist at a charity event when police called at her home at 9am on Sunday 26th September 2010 and arrested her on suspicion of harassment. She was in full employment and when pleading for bail stated that if kept in custody she might lose her job.

Unfortunately HG never returned to her home or employment because she was charged at the behest of the Dean and former Bishop, held in custody at the police station overnight and after appearing at the Magistrates Court was remanded in custody for two weeks. It was then that she was bound over to leave the Island for three years. She was not a high risk terrorist but a harmless soul whom it is alleged had threatened to disrupt a church service to be conducted by the Dean and Bishop because they would not address her complaints.

If the author had read the report written by HG’s legal adviser before her second court appearance, she would have seen that HG was happy to stay in Jersey as she liked doing things here and had friends in the Island. When she was sentenced she was detained in a court cell until driven by police to the airport and put on a plane which deposited her in the UK in the dark and destitute. She was not even allowed to collect any of her personal items which were in her flat. When the Nazis deported Jersey’s deportees at least they were able to pack a suitcase, but this was denied of HG.

HG’s arrest, detention, trial and deportation is a travesty of justice which should be the subject of an investigation but the Chief Minister has repeatedly ignored my requests.

Your correspondent has stated that Christians should look after their staff and asks whether anyone has considered the strain the Dean has had to endure for the past 5 years. That is a good point but she makes no reference to Christians considering the strain the now homeless HG has had and still has to endure.

Concerns have been raised about the damage along with the cost the Bishop is causing the Anglican Church in Jersey, but surely the damage and cost would be far greater to the Church’s integrity and reputation if the Bishop turned a blind eye and shoved the matter under the carpet. Or is that what the author is suggesting? She asks how the reputation and integrity of the Anglican Church of Jersey can be saved. Then claims that the Bishop seems determined to eradicate centuries old laws and grind Jersey under his heel.

If retaining centuries old laws allows for allegations of abuse to be swept under the carpet then surely no true Christian should object nor count the cost of replacing outdated centuries old laws with modern fit for purpose laws under which justice is not only done but seen to be done.

*******************************************************************

The Bruce Willing questions are as follows:

1. Please explain the sequence of actions leading to your decision to commission the Korris Review into a complaint made by a woman (HG) against a churchwarden (no longer in office) and resolved by the Dean nearly five years ago.

2. Why were the terms of reference not discussed with the Dean, The Bailiff of Jersey and the Attorney General (AG) of Jersey prior to the start of the Review?

3. Are you aware of the oath of office sworn by the Dean in the Royal Court of Jersey on appointment as Dean of Jersey? If so, why did you not acknowledge this in your Press release on 8 March 2013 announcing the suspension from office of the Dean, when you knew, or ought to have known, that you had no power to suspend the Dean?

4. Were you aware of the context of the passing into law of the Jersey Canons in March 2012 and the differences that exist between the Jersey Canons 2012 and the Anglican Church Canons 1969 (as amended) on which the Jersey Canons are based?

5. Why was the previous reported behaviour of HG, in two separate Parishes of the Diocese of Winchester, both of which were known about by the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer, not investigated and reported on as a part of the Korris Review? It is mentioned on page 35 of the Review.

6. Page 40 of the Korris Review states: It is debatable whether, once the police case had been settled, this remained a Safeguarding issue. As soon as H.G. began to make complaints against Officers of the Church in December 2008 it may have been helpful for the task of investigating this to have changed hands. If this is a conclusion, why did the Review happen at all?

7. Why does the Korris Review compare the Jersey situation to the Butler-Sloss Report of 2011, when the core issue there was a paedophile ring being operated by clergy in the Diocese between 1970 and 1984, and having no connection with the alleged procedural failures of the handling of the HG case in Jersey between August 2008 and October 2010?

The Dame Heather Steel Investigation.

8. On 8 March 2013 you announced I have now ordered an immediate and thorough investigation. We are now 70+ days after your announcement, yet the investigation has not started and Korris (Page 12) criticised the Dean for a 45-day delay. Why are different rules being applied?

9. Have you agreed the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Investigation with the authorities in Jersey? (The Bailiff, Lieutenant Governor and AG) If so, why are they being kept secret?

10. How will the laity have an opportunity to submit evidence and comment to the Investigation?

The Bishop Gladwin Visitation.

11. Given that the constitutional relations between the Island and Diocese are in question, were the TOR for the Visitation agreed with the Dean, Bailiff, and AG of Jersey before they were announced; if not, why not?

12. Now that you understand the legal position regarding Jersey and the Jersey Canons, will you abandon paragraph 3a of the TOR that seeks to question the validity and relevance of Jersey Canon Law 2012 that was so recently adopted by the States and approved by the Privy Council?

13. How is Bishop Gladwin to be orientated on the legal, social and economic situation in Jersey before starting his Visitation?

Costs.

14. How much has the Korris Review and subsequent actions, including travel and accommodation, legal advice, press releases, the preparations for the Investigation and Visitation cost to date?

15. What are the budgeted costs of the Investigation and Visitation?

16. Given the Dioceses declared economic difficulties, where are the funds for the Korris Review and subsequent actions coming from?

17. Specifically, what is the budgeted cost of the employment of Luther Pendragon, PR Consultants, in relation to this dispute, given that there appears to be a team of three consultants available to the Diocese around the clock?
Miscellaneous.

18. Do you recognise that you unfairly traduced the Dean in your message to the Islands Anglican clergy of 8 March 2013?

19. Do you recognise the hurt you have caused to the Key family, not just through the Korris Review, but through your suspension of Daphne Key from her employment as PA to the Dean, and your instruction to the Dean at the time of his suspension, banning him from speaking to his own clergy in clear breach of his human rights?

20. How do you think you will ever repair the substantial damage to your ministry in Jersey as our Bishop?

*****************************************************************

55 comments:

  1. Senator Bailhache, the Dean's knight in shining armour is organising a public meeting next week to discuss "the crisis in the Diocese." Given the Senator's involvement in the matter one may ask is the crisis of his making?

    More to the point, why's he playing the coward and holding the meeting at Grouville? Is he too scared to come to St Helier?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No I don’t think he is but is being canny, he knows there will not be a great turn and whatever number that do attend will look a lot more in the small assembly room at Grouville

      Delete
    2. I hope you are right Bob, if they get the press involved etc, then it may be quite a turnout.

      Delete
  2. Bob.

    You wrote.

    "I don’t have a problem with Bruce Willing’s questions (which can be seen below) but it is the timing and the motive that is questionable."

    The "motive" could be the real agenda of PHILIP BAILHACHE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Voice,

      It is getting to look as though the hidden agenda is becoming more evident.

      Good Blog, well done.

      Delete
  3. oh, I see, it's no wonder Bishop Michael Scott-Joynt didn't want to deal with things properly, he didn't want 'substantial damage to his ministry in Jersey'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a feeling that the Bishop took early demob leave.

      Delete
  4. Yes, it was a bit of a coincidence, he announced his retirement on October 10th 2010? or was it October 11th 2010?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bishop announced his retirement when I was in custody. HG

      Delete
    2. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/10/11/bishop-of-winchester-announces-retirement-in-may-2011/

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the Links.

      The announcement was on the very day that HG was being bound over and being kicked out the Island. Must try to avoid the word deported as it offends some of my legal friends.

      Delete
  5. According to our Vicar, the former Bishop of Winchester actually stayed too long! I am not sure if that is in terms of outstaying his welcome or simply being too old to be in the position.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Winchester vs. Jersey, Get popcorn, come and watch the show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t know about the pop but I expect there will be a lot of corn.

      Delete
  7. The Establishment Sir Philip Bailhache have a set pattern, it was done during the Child Abuse enquiry and it is happening again. 1) Cover up. 2) Speech by Sir Philip Bailhache. 3) Ends up another enquiry and a costly affair. My advice, face the issues when the Bishop comes to Jersey, take the advice and have care for HG. I promise you this Sir Philip Bailhache you will be a better Man if you do. But my guess is you won't! your arrogance lets you down everytime!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Senator’s involvement is quite interesting because at first it was to question the validity of the suspension and to pressure the Archbishop to intervene. That goal appears to have been achieved with the Dean being re-instated along with an apology for his mistakes and an agreement to co-operate with the Visitation/ Investigation which the Senator now appears to oppose.

      It should be recalled that the Senator was one of only 4 States Members who recently did not support the proposition establishing the Committee of Inquiry into the Historic Child Abuse.

      It is evident that the Senator has little if any interest in the original abuse complaint because I am not aware of him expressing any sympathy or concern for HG or encouraging the Dean to personally apologise to her.

      Delete
  8. Great blog Bob. This is essential reading to anyone that is following this saga.

    How sad it is in Jersey that so many show such disregard for the victims time and time again when these stories crop up. Our priority should always be to get to the bottom of accusations of abuse and make sure it can't happen again. It should not be to protect our own image and reputation in the rather protectionist way that seems to be Senator Bailhache's speciality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Sam for your comment and interest.

      I hope the attendees at the forthcoming meeting will have read my Blog but also others published by Voice For Children, Rico Sorda, Tony’s musings and Trevor Pitman’s Bald Truth Blog.

      Each in their own way have informative and posed many questions of the Dean, Bishop and others involved in what is now a messy affair where the abuse complaint and the truth are very much in a secondary position.

      Delete
  9. Dear Bob, when those attend the 'meeting' lead by Sir Philip Bailhache all those church going people. We will see those that go to church for the right reasons and those that do not. They themselves know who they are, the Church, the bible, the gospel is about caring for those in society that need us. Not about who sits at the front pew with Sir Philip Bailhahce and yes Sir Birt that includes you! those who like to be seen! The proof will be at that meeting just how caring Jersey is, I do find it also ironic but not surprising that Sir Philip keeps his Sir title, he wants to be Independent? (bread buttered on both sides, comes to mind!), and that when the Bishop does arrive 'he is now' a threat to Jersey, oops I mean Sir Philip! Sir Philip does not represent me nor the rest of the Island, I want him to remember that! he represents himself, he made the rules he will now have to look at himself and face his own destiny!
    Sam Mezec, go into politics, you have my vote, you are a vision for the future of Jersey! and by goodness we certainly need it! Superman can't do it! but you can!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be interesting to see how many ordinary church goers will be attending.

      Like you Senator does not speak for me. I heard his interview on Radio Jersey this morning and noted that he had been asked to chair the meeting but did not say by whom. When asked whether anyone was attending from Winchester to put across its view, the Senator ignored the question and went to talk about what Winchester’s motives were. It looks as though there will be very little balance to the meeting.

      I agree re Sam, but he should finish his studies first.

      Delete
    2. Quick! Book the Bishop a ticket!

      Delete
  10. It wasn't difficult to identify the same Bailhache bullying pattern with HG's defenders, as with those who stood up for child abuse survivors. Denigrating victims and reversing blame, attacking his critics as dangerously wrong aggressors, and ultimately creating an illusion that those responsible for abuse are the real "victims" as are all those who "care about Jersey." Speaking the absolute truth is somehow considered an unpatriotic betrayal of Jersey.

    The forced back down by the Church of England reminds me of Frank Walker's bullying of the BBC until They issued an apology they had no reason to issue. In both cases, Jersey's elite demand the BBC and now the CoE to issue an apology for doing their utmost duty. In my opinion, neither the BBC nor CoE can even claim the ethical right to apologize or back down.

    Elle

    ReplyDelete

  11. Thank you for raising the apology issue but I don’t think Senator Bailhache had any say in the 3 given and I doubt whether he believes they should have been given. Although they are hollow because they have not been personally given to HG, they do represent an acceptance that she has been wronged by the Church including the Dean.

    It is evident that the Senator has little interest in any abuse claims and there is little likelihood of him given a factual account of the circumstances that led to the Visitation. Or ask the attendees what they would have done if they were in the Bishop’s shoes and what they would have done if the officer conducting an investigation into an allegation of abuse was rebuffed by those being investigated.

    Winchester’s procrastination has played into the Senator’s hands but it does not mean that it is wrong to instigate the Visitation. However it would be a betrayal if it allowed itself to be bullied into withdrawing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. CTV Gary Burgess 1 - Phil Bailhache 0

    Phil Bailhache looked stupid for not having asked the Dean whether the fears had any justification. Whereas, GB had asked the Dean and found the answer was no - so why is Bailhache wasting his time giving a talk without checking the facts!!

    Who asked Bailhache to chair the evening?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I know who I would trust and it's not Philip Bailhahce!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not see the interview so I can’t comment. One assumes that if Senator Bailhache was organising the meeting he would also organise the chairman, so I don’t why he said he was asked to chair it.

      As for the meeting it was not about the circumstances that led to the Visitation but the motives behind it.

      The Visitation has come about because of the Dean’s mistakes in handling HG’s case for which he has apologised. He has also agreed to participate in the Visitation so one may ask what was the purpose of the meeting apart from taking pot shots at Winchester who were not represented at the meeting.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the Link.

      Interesting to see that it was a crisis meeting, but is it some one trying to make a crisis out of a drama.

      Senator Bailhache is quoted "We're really trying to understand what the Bishop of Winchester is trying to achieve. And to discuss whether that is reasonable or not."

      If that is so why did he not invite the Bishop to what was a one sided meeting. Had he done so we might have had some real answers, rather than "I believe" "apparently" and "I have heard" to most aswers.

      Delete
    3. Exactly! Supposition is not good enough - we need solid answers. It is not for Sen Bailhache to decide whether what the Bishop want is reasonable. I was impressed by your interview with Matthew today - it cleared up a few things. I am not impressed at all with determination to protect the church by trashing HG and want to add my thanks for your willingness to speak for her as I am a very disaffected churchgoer at the moment.

      Delete
    4. Thank you,

      I regret you are one of many disaffected churchgoers who feel that the Shepherds are more interested in looking after themselves than the lambs and sheep.

      Delete
  14. Bob.

    Full credit to you for standing HG's corner last night at the Grouville meeting, and a hostile crowd. I will, hopefully, publish your question(s) to Philip Bailhache and his "answers" some time tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank Voice and I look forward to reading your new Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bob.

    Senator Bailhache's Grouville Parish Hall MEETING

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bob

    I just listened to the recording of your interview with BBC's Matthew Price. I was absolutely stunned by Matthew's whole demeanour! It's far too soon to think that the BBC is truly starting to do some proper reporting but, if this interview was anything to go by, it would seem that the BBC will be keeping a close eye on developments.

    Well done to you, Bob!! Keep it up .......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind comment.

      Matthew Price does get it in the neck sometimes but give credit when it’s due and Matthew is to be complemented for his depth of knowledge and understanding of the Dean Affair. It should be recalled that he asked Bishop Dakin some challenging questions.

      The art of a good interviewer is to know the answers to the questions being asked. It is evident that Matthew is doing his home work, (dare I say he is reading the Blogs) and his interviews are being appreciated and acknowledged by Radio Jersey listeners.

      Delete
  18. Is HG still homeless in London or is she in Jersey, and homeless?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HG is homeless in the UK.

      Delete
    2. I am not in London, I do not know where the 'London' rumour is from but I am rarely on the streets of London as it is very harsh there. HG

      Delete
  19. Bob, Thank you for asking your questions at the meeting. It is of note that Sir Philip said that he was not qualified to answer your question as he has no pastoral or medical training. Presumably your question was about her treatment by the judicial authorities. He can hardly claim that is beyond him though he might say that he would not wish to undermine members of the judiciary.
    He does suggest that you read the transcript of the case and that he has done so. I cannot see why he should have privileged access to the transcript so he can share it with you and you can publish it on the blog. Then your readers can form their own views.

    ReplyDelete

  20. It was clear that Senator Bailhache did not want to give an answer and that is why he passed it on to Rev Ashenden who really should have told the Senator that it was direct question and only he should answer it.

    I regret that helping HG is the last thing that people like Senator Bailhache and many other attendees have in their agenda. I miss-heard his question about the Transcript, I definitely have read it and my Blog, “Did the punishment fit the crime?” is based on the Court Hearings where I state that HG was expediently removed from the Island by a behind the court deal.

    It is all very well for Senator Bailhache to say HG was treated in a proper manner, but I suggest he speak to HG who will tell him that was not the case.

    The Transcript is a public document and Readers should visit the Magistrate’s Court and read it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Senator Bailhache is not interested in me or my welfare, he has his own agenda. Thank you all for your support. HG

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bob, two days ago HG wrote on the Voice for Children blog, (Quote,The long post by Bob Hill which claims to tell what happened to me in the past is incorrect and had me in tears, Unquote,)can you comment on this statement, maybe tell us which part is incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your interest and only too pleased to clarify the position.

      The issue was about a claim published in a letter in the JEP and repeated at the Grouville Meeting, that HG had complained previously in the UK and Guernsey. Much mischief has been made of these allegations which are untrue. There have never been any complaints re Guernsey, however there have been a couple of issues in the UK which were not complaints but in trying to be helpful I quoted what Korris had said about them in her Report. Unfortunately in HG’s view Korris has not reported the issues accurately as such she was upset.

      It should be noted that Korris never interviewed HG so she was basing her comments on hearsay. Has she spoken to HG the matter would have been more accurately reported and HG would not have been upset.

      Neither I nor Voice would wish to upset HG so it was decided to withdraw the Comments.

      Delete
  23. Thank you BoB for your explanation at 00:03,

    ReplyDelete
  24. My view of the Korris Report is that of course it's skewed if the main witness was not interviewed. As neither of you want to upset. HG I hope she continues to post on the blogs to get her side of the story out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know that HG is appreciative of the support she has received from the authors of the Blogs and its readers.

      Delete
  25. Bob.

    Previously banned US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, returns to Jersey EXCLUSIVE.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bob,

    I have got from the JEP the address of the Visitation Panel for written submissions regarding the Dean situation and hope it will help HG if she is not able or willing to talk to them directly. It is:

    The Visitation Panel
    131A Marford Road
    Wheathampstead
    St Albans
    AL4 8NH

    If anyone wants to talk to the Administrator, Dominic Kirkby contact dominic.kirkby@winchester.anglican.org Tel 01962 854050

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for the info.

    Fortunately HG and I have now met the Visitation Panel and I will be covering the meeting in my next Blog.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I hear there are issues in a Parish church and that the Dean has been called into intervene. Interesting timing with the forthcoming visitation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have heard rumours, but that is all if you receive anything definite please let me know.

      Delete
  29. He might handle it properly and compassionately in order to prove his competence, thats good.

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2013/06/haut-dela-garenne-bergerac-operation.html

    Filming Bergerac whilst HdelaG still housed vulnerable children. Simply shocking.

    rs

    ReplyDelete