Jersey's Dean--- More Questions Without Answers

Last week saw the historic handshake between Prince Charles and Gerry Adams which led to a reader leaving a comment on my previous blog stating that if those two people could shake hands why can’t the Dean and Bishop?

It was a good question and on last Friday’s BBC Radio Jersey’s Questions to the Chief Minister Hour I was able to ask our Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst if he would agree to arrange a meeting with the Dean and Bishop and as a gesture of peace and reconciliation they too could shake hands which would not only set a fine example but would restore Jersey’s 500 year link with Winchester.

As is often the case when there are family disputes and parties go off in a huff it requires some one to bring them together. One of course would hope that when people aspire to positions of high office they would see service before self as the path to follow. Sadly this is not the case with our Dean or Bishop. Therefore to avoid further harm and embarrassment to our Island and the Church of England someone of the standing of our Chief Minister should be taking the lead to end the impasse.

The Jersey Dean’s appointment with Letters Patent and a seat in our States Assembly (Parliament) is well past its sell buy date. However as the Dean is in receipt of a States allowance of £26k in addition to his clergy salary and rent free accommodation he should be accountable to those he has the privilege of representing. There will be many who question the Dean’s position and whether it is becoming untenable because how can he lead our Members of the States which includes our Lt Governor, Bailiff, and Crown Officers in prayers when he himself is incapable of forgiving those who trespass against him. I don’t know what “trespass” the Bishop has inflicted but I doubt if it’s bodily harm or anything more than harsh words. How can he ask others to seek peace and reconciliation when he is oblivious to his own shortcomings?

The same could be said of the Bishop and we should not have to wait for Reports to find out who is responsible for the unseemly dispute. I mention Reports because in a rather disappointing answer the only way our Chief Minister could find a way forward was to wait for the publication of the Gladwin, Steel and the Archbishop’s pending review which could take some years before being published. Sitting on the fence is not an option.

Those who have closely watched events unfold will have no difficulty in finding faults on both sides and possibly the two men have been hurt by words and actions. But surely both men should be capable of privately settling their differences or being replaced by people with thicker skins and smaller egos.

I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for allowing me to ask the question and for Team Voice for supplying the video below which will enable Readers to listen to the questions and “answers.”  

  

Jersey's Dean--All Quiet on the Winchester Front.

Jersey has just celebrated the 70^th anniversary of its Liberation from 5 years of Nazi Occupation. In many of the sermons espoused by our Island’s clergy at Services held celebrate the anniversary was the need for reconciliation. 

Unfortunately for some clergy it is easier to talk about the matter than practice it. The same can be said for honesty where not for the first time the Church of England has provided ample evidence of its “Do as I say and not as I do” approach to life.

As an example of its double standards I cite the Jersey Deans infamous handling of a complaint made by a vulnerable person whereby the promised outcome is still awaited.

Although the complaint was made 7 years ago the matter only came to light 2 years ago following a review by Jan Korris. This resulted in the Dean being suspended by Bishop Dakin who soon fell foul of the Dean’s supporters who claimed that because of the ancient practice of the Dean, on appointment, receiving Letters Patent from the Crown, the Bishop was acting outside his remit.

Although the matter is now two years old those appointed to address the matter have either acted as though it never occurred or have arrogantly abdicated their responsibility.

The Dean was hastily reinstated following his "apology" for “any” mistakes he “may” have made and promised to co-operate with any review that might ensue.

Two reviews were undertaken and their outcomes should have been made known at least 12 months ago. 

Two weeks ago in an attempt to seek an update I emailed Tim Dakin, the Bishop of Winchester with a request that the four issues below be addressed. Sadly, but not surprisingly I have not received a reply

This is a copy of the email dated May 4^th.

Dear Bishop Tim, 

It is now 2 years since you suspended and reinstated the Dean. It is also 2 years since you appointed Bishop Gladwin and Dame Heather Steel to review the Constitutional situation and the Dean’s handling of a complaint. To date no reports have been published.

It has been reported that a further review is to be undertaken in respect of the Constitutional issues. If that is the case please could you inform me what steps you are taking to publish Bishop Gladwin’s findings or are they to be incorporated into the new review?

Regarding Dame Heather's Report, you must be aware that there are a number of valid reasons why Dame Heather’s Report can never be published. Apart from the legal issues and Dame Heather’s flawed investigation, there is also the issue of the undertakings referred to in your letter to the former Bailiff last May and those submitted to Winchester Court last June.

My justification for claiming that Dame Heather’s investigation was flawed is because of her failure to interview the main witness, namely the complainant or review her arrest and deportation as recommended by Ms Korris in her Report. Concerns about Dame Heather’s conflict and unsuitability can be confirmed in the transcript of her 3 hour meeting with me in October 2013.

You will recall that before my meeting with Dame Heather it had been agreed that I would receive a copy of the transcript. After the meeting I was again promised a copy but despite numerous requests to you and Dame Heather the transcript has not been provided.

The Dean’s handling of the complaint has caused great distress to a number of people including the complainant, your self, the Dean and a large number of ordinary church goers who have seen their money wasted on flawed reviews and the ending of our 500 year association with Winchester.

The matter has dragged on and I believe it is incumbent on you as the instigator of the suspension, the Visitation, broken promises, distress, and the break from Winchester to come clean with the people you represent and make it known what you propose to do with the finding of the Gladwin Review and the Steel Report.

I know that sometimes it is difficult to accept that we are capable of making mistakes but the appointment of Dame Heather was a mistake as evidenced by the way she conducted her investigation and if her report was published it would cause even further distress. Therefore it should be shredded.

In summary I would be grateful if you would;

1 Update me on what you propose to do with the Gladwin findings. 

2 Confirm that you will not be publishing the Steel Report. 

3 Provide me with the copy of transcript of my meeting with Dame Heather. 

4 Advise me how much the Visitation has cost to date.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and assure me that my requests above will be addressed within the next two weeks. 

It is disappointing that the Bishop has ignored a simple request.  

It is not surprising that Bishop Gladwin has found the constitutional issues to be complex and that is probably why another review is to be undertaken, so why the silence?

The appointment of Dame Heather Steel was a mistake and for reasons above her Report should be shredded. I should also be given the promised transcript. So why continue to withhold it?

It has been reported that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, however no reasons have been given nor whether the Dean has been exonerated.  

It could be said that as the Bishop had no powers to suspend the Dean then he has no power to discipline him. Leaving the matter open to speculation is unsatisfactory.

What is also unsatisfactory is that Bishop Dakin has claimed there are serious Safeguarding concerns in Jersey. Given my recent involvement with another safeguarding matter, I have no problem in endorsing Bishop Tim’s concerns. However what are those concerns and who is addressing them?

Given the time taken and of the personal involved the cost of conducting the reviews/investigations are likely to be in excess of the original estimate. The costs are not being met from the Bishop's pocket so why are they being withheld?

When I met a senior member of the clergy two years ago he described the Jersey situation as a mess. Two years on it can be said that not only does confusion reign supreme but the mess is now a much bigger and more expensive.

The issue will not go away and the longer there is a denial of the truth the more harm will be inflicted on the Church of England. It does little for its integrity when its Ministers espouse the virtues of reconciliation yet the Dean of Jersey and Bishop of Winchester cannot bury their differences. It also does little to inspire confidence when it cannot honour promised made.

Sadly I doubt whether anyone at Canterbury really cares, because if they did they would not permit the matter to fester. 

Jersey's Dean--- Let Sleeping Dogs Lie.

Sir Michael Birt has just retired after twenty years service to the Island serving as Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and for the past five and half years as Bailiff. As is customary he was asked of the highs and lows during his term of office. When speaking of the lows he cited the difficulties encountered by the Dean and the way in which he had been suspended, the split from Winchester and failure of Bishop Dakin to publish the Steel Report.

I always found Sir Michael to be fair and courteous and respect his views above however I can think of lows that would come far higher on my list. Given that the Dean was party to much of his own misfortunes of which he has admitted and apologised for he can hardly be seen as an innocent bystander. The Bishop of Winchester has publicly stated that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean or his colleague but has not said that the Dean has been exonerated of any wrongdoings as reported by some of the media. The Bishop has also stated that the Steel Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey. As the Dean is the Head of the Island's clergy is he not responsible for the concerns?

When it comes to suspensions I can think of dozens of ordinary States employees who have been suspended yet when I sought support for them to be represented by a friend at disciplinary meetings, I failed through lack of support. Among those suspended were equally illustrious employees such as the former police chief who was left on suspension for over 18 months until his retirement day whereby he was effectively dismissed by stealth. There was also the senior gynaecologist who was left suspended for far longer whereby he was deskilled. However unlike the Dean their plight was not worthy of support from the perceived great and the good. When propositions seeking support for enquiries into the suspension of the police chief and gynaecologist they were vigorously opposed, where is the consistency, where is the fair play? 

The failure of the Council of Ministers led by the Chief Minister to support the proposition to establish a committee of inquiry into Jersey’s historic child abuse must come high up on everyone's the list of lows. The disturbing reports coming from the Inquiry is not only justifying the decision to establish the Committee of Inquiry but says very little for those who opposed or were silent when it came to supporting the proposition.

Sir Michael also commented on the split form the Diocese of Winchester. The split was down to Dean and the Bishop of Winchester being unable to work together. Where was the peace and conciliation and how could Canterbury consider the vanity of two of its senior members to be greater than 500 years of tradition? 

Regarding the issue of the publication of the Steel Report, whilst I can understand concerns being raised about the delay the more serious concerns should be why was the conflicted Dame Steele appointed in the first place? Also why did the Terms of Reference not include the arrest at the Dean’s behest, of the lady at the heart of complaint and her eventual deportation and being left destitute at Southampton airport on a cold October evening? One may also ask why Dame Heather did not interview the lady concerned or give me the transcript as promised of my meeting with her in which she was uncomplimentary to HG.

It should also be noted that the Bishop had been advised to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact of the Report on HG. He has assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an assessment and would be providing them with a copy of the report and other relevant information once he had received Counsel’s advice. He was asking them to advise him how the Steel Report can be published in such a way as to minimise the impact on ‘HG’ and the risk of harm to her. If the Report is likely to harm HG how Christian is it to press for its publication?

Radio Jersey has reported that following its enquiry with the Bishop's PR company a spokesman said "We don't yet have a date for publication, as the Steel Report is currently continuing to be reviewed by legal and safeguarding experts."   That answer could have been given months ago and in months to come.

The Sir Michael Birt's call for the report has been supported by some Jersey Synod members however there has been no call for any support for those affected by the Dean and Bishop's actions where promises have not been kept and continued speculation of the date of the Report's publication is causing distress.  Those who have followed the sorry saga will be aware of a catalogue of errors that have occurred from the time when HG first made contact with the Dean in July 2008 to this very day. For the reasons given above to publish the discredited Steel Report would be another.

It is said that publication of the Report will bring closure for Dean and Church, that is wishful thinking. Enough hurt has been caused and needless money has been spent on ego trips which have achieved nothing. Now is the time for closure and to let sleeping dogs lie.

These 2 related links will be of interest to readers. I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for this link which can be opened by clicking HERE

Following the Dean's reinstatement I published a blog which can be opened by clicking HERE 

Jersey's Dean----- An Unhappy Anniversary.

A year has passed since my infamous meeting with Dame Heather Steel and the publishing of my blog “The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a whitewash?

That blog reported on my meeting with Dame Heather which led me to believe that her proposed report would be a whitewash. The Blog can be read HERE and gives a useful background to the sorry saga which 18 months ago was described as a mess but unfortunately has now become an even bigger, financial and embarrassing mess.

A year ago I was promised a transcript of the meeting but despite several requests to Dame Heather and Bishop Dakin it has not, and because of Dame Heather’s incriminating comments is unlikely to be given to me.

A year ago Dame Heather told me that her report was almost complete. However we know that her final version was not submitted to Bishop Dakin until last May. One is therefore entitled to ask where is it and why has no public explanation been given for the delay in publication.  

It is no secret that if the report had been compiled by a truly independent and competent person it would contain details of incompetence by a number of senior clergy members and of collusion to dispose of the victim. Therefore it’s not surprising that the report has not been circulated. 

We are also nearing the 6^th anniversary of the spurious suspension of Jersey’s former Police Chief Graham Power.

If the panel of the Committee of Inquiry into Jersey’s historical child abuse adheres to its Terms of Reference it will soon be calling witnesses and hopefully the truth into the suspension will be revealed and the real reason and those responsible for it will be disclosed.

There are similarities relating to the suspension of Jersey’s Dean and the former Police Chief, however unlike the Dean who had friends in high places; the police chief was in effect dismissed by stealth.

Like Winchester a review into the circumstances of the suspension was commissioned and parts of the report were leaked but the final outcome was never revealed. It was a costly affair and like Winchester those involved in instigating the review did not emerge with any credit which soon after led me to make the following comment;

“The Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no chief officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others.”

The same could be said of the Archbishop and Bishop, what have they achieved and at what cost? However I suppose one thing that could be said of their appointment of Dame Heather was that it turned out to be a precursor to the equally unwise appointments of Baroness Butler-Sloss and Fiona Woolf to head other reviews.

If these people can’t remember who their relations and friends are or who they socialise with. then how can they possibly be expected to remember the faceless victims and what they have to say. 

The Gladwin and Steel Reviews have been expensive and divisive affairs and are yet unpublished. It might be helpful not let the birthday candles burn out until they have set fire to both Reports so their ashes may join those of the hundreds of thousands of pounds already gone up in smoke in paying for what has become a futile and embarrassing farce.

Jersey's Dean---Steel and Gladwin Reports---Update

It is now 18 months since Tim Dakin the Bishop of Winchester suspended Jersey's Dean Bob Key and announced that there would be an investigation into the Dean’s handling of a complaint against a Church Warden.

The suspension arose from the findings of report by Jan Korris who had in November 2011 been commissioned by the Safeguarding Panel for the Diocese of Winchester. What has never been established is why the Korris review was instigated in the first place? However is should be noted that Tim Dakin was not appointed Bishop until April 2012 so was unlikely to have played any part in that decision.

The Korris Report is dated March 2013 but must have been viewed by Bishop Dakin some time sooner because on 8th March he announced that he had suspended Jersey’s Dean.

At the time of the suspension Bishop Dakin said “Firstly I want to give my unreserved apologies to the complainant for her treatment. Protecting the vulnerable is at the heart of the Church of England's mission. With that comes a duty to ensure those in need are properly looked after. It is vital that robust safeguarding policies are in place and, above all, that they are properly implemented."

“This Independent Report suggests that, put simply our policies were not implemented as they should have been. I am particularly disappointed that the Dean of Jersey refused to cooperate with the review and I have now ordered an immediate and thorough investigation. In the wake of the report, difficult but necessary and decisive actions are required to ensure that, in the future, procedures will be followed properly.”

18 months on it is worth looking to see if there is an outcome of the “difficult but necessary and decisive actions.” On 26th March last year it was announced that John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford would head a Visitation/Inquiry whereby woolly Terms of Reference were published. This eventually led to the Inquiry being separated with John Gladwin looking into the complicated Constitutional issues and Dame Heather Steel being appointed to investigate the Dean’s handling of the complaint against the Church Warden.

It goes without saying that Bishop Dakin soon sailed into troubled and uncharted waters and was quite unaware of “The Jersey Way” of handling matters particularly if it affected establishment figures or constitutional matters. Soon after the former Bailiff but now Senator Bailhache wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury protesting at the Bishop’s handling of the matter whereby the Dean’s suspension was lifted.

The process had all the hallmarks of a “done deal” because the Dean offered a meaningless apology for failings in his administration. I may add that the Archbishop of Canterbury had also offered public but not personal apologies to the victim.

Given the importance of the matter let alone the obscene cost one would have hoped that by mid September 2014 the Gladwin and Steel Reports would have been published. It is worth reminding readers that last November Bishop Gladwin announced that Dame Heather was finalising her Report but based on her findings no disciplinary action was being taken against the Dean and the other clergy member.

I have always maintained that the Steel Report would be worthless for a number of reasons, such as she did not interview the two main witnesses, she did not, as recommended by Jan Korris address the issue of the complainant’s deportation from Jersey and being left destitute in the UK. Dame Heather is a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache a well known supporter of the Dean and in a 3 hour meeting with me she was less than complimentary to the victim and displayed a bias in favour of the Dean. It should be noted that Dame Heather reneged on a promise to provide me with the transcript of the meeting.

In May this year the Bishop informed Jersey’s Bailiff that Dame Heather had sent him her Report and that she had informed him that it was her final report. One gets the impression that Dame Heather had submitted a number of “final” reports and had got fed up with continually making amendments at the Bishop’s behest.

The Bishop made some further but very relevant points in that he was forwarding the Report to Counsel in London to look at defamation and confidentiality but hoped to publish the Report shortly. He had also assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact on the person at the heart of the matter.

The Bishop went on to say that the Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey, including some which were directly connected with the Canons and the laws of Jersey.

We are now in mid September and one is perfectly entitled to know what is going on at Winchester and ask why the Reports have not been published and what if any steps have been taken in relation to the Impact Study and addressing the significant safeguarding concerns in the Island which were also raised by Jan Korris in March 2013.

I have tried to get answers from Winchester and Canterbury but needless to say I have not received replies. If 18 months ago Bishop Tim was of the view that it was vital that robust safeguarding policies are in place and, above all, that they are properly implemented it would be helpful if he, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Dover who now has oversight for Jersey or the Dean would make it publicly known what new safe guarding policies are in place and that when someone makes a complaint against a Church Official they wont end up being deported and left destitute in the UK.

At the same time it would also be helpful for the Bishop to announce that he will not be publishing the Steel Report as it has been so redacted it is now as meaningless as his apologies.

Today the Dean has announced that the Church is to seek the views of Islanders in relation to same sex marriages. It makes one wonder where the Church’s priorities are.

Jersey's Dean--They Have learnt Nothing and Forgotten Nothing

In my previous blog I made reference to a report published on the Channel TV website which said that it could reveal that the Bishop of Winchester Tim Dakin had received the Steel Report, he had formally informed Jersey's Lieutenant Governor that he was not taking any disciplinary action against the Dean of Jersey, Dame Heather had been investigating how Jersey's Church looks after vulnerable parishioners and he had set up an Impact Assessment Group to suggest ways in which the Steel Report can be published without causing harm to HG.

It is possible that the information on the Channel Website came from a letter from Bishop Dakin to the Bailiff of Jersey because that letter contains much of the same information. However the letter contains additional information because the Bishop has said that the Steel Report highlights a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey including some which are directly connected with the Canons and the laws of Jersey.

Those who have read the Jan Korris Report which was published 15 months ago will have noted her concerns and of the confusion arising from the Church of England's Safeguarding Policy and the Jersey Canon Law. The Bishop now lets on that Dame Heather Steel has also come up with that conclusion yet it is only made known 6 months after he announced that no disciplinary action was being taken against the Dean. 

What is now evident is that when it comes to priorities the welfare of people like HG, the vulnerable and the general public are not as important as looking after the clergy particularly those responsible for ensuring that policies are not only implemented but complied with.

I am told that the letter goes on to say "I know that we share a common desire to ensure that safeguarding in the Church of England in Jersey is of the highest standard. I trust that we will be able to work together, with the Visitation team and the Archbishop’s Commission, to ensure that safeguarding in the Island is as good as it can be."

This leads one to ask why was the Bishop writing to the Bailiff who is our unelected Speaker and the Island's Chief Judge who should not be involved in politics. As the matter is now very much political should the letter not have been sent to the Island's Chief Minister who has been questioned on the matter several times in the States. It also leads one to ask who in Jersey is responsible for ensuring that safeguarding in the Island is as good as it can be?   

This is very pertinent question because If the Bishop is saying that the Steel Report highlights a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey but the Dean is not being disciplined then where does the buck stop?

When one looks under the thin Church carpets it is not difficult to find an organisation that has not only failed itself but has lost its way.  An organisation devoid of leadership and anachronistic. An organisation which has lost touch with the ordinary church goer and still believes it can overcome problems by praying for divine intervention rather than accepting that it is the cause of the problems.  

The Church of England is in trouble simply because at the outset its officers were of the belief that their and the Church Warden's status outweighed the complainant's who was dismissed as a trouble maker. Fortunately the public is no longer gullible and have learnt that the likes of Savile, Hall, Clifford and other obnoxious characters not only get exposed but so too the organisations who have protected them.

It was Talleyrand who is credited for the quotation; "They have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing." That could be said of the Church of England as it continues to fail to practice what it preaches and is more content on looking after their own rather than their congregation. 

HG may not have her day in court, but she is very much the winner because she has exposed the Church of England's hypocrisy who having failed her in 2008 has used her to settle an unseemly spat between Jersey's Dean and the Bishop of Winchester which has cost the Church of England hundreds of thousands of pounds and immense loss of public confidence.

To make matters worse the fall out from the Dean/Bishop spat continues as we now learn that complaints have been lodged against the Bishop for being beastly to the Dean who at least was not deported and left destitute in his pyjamas. Perhaps who ever is addressing the complaint might also address HG's complaint about the Dean because that issue is still outstanding. 

The Dean's supporters are hell bent on having sight of the Steel Report which has been compiled by one of its friends. The Bishop has stalled its circulation apparently because of a legal challenge and that the Report was incomplete. We know that there are significant safeguarding concerns in Jersey but no disciplinary action is being taken again the Dean and the Report will harm a person who has not been interviewed. Is anyone listening at Canterbury or is it is a case that no-one really cares?

These are indeed dark days for the Church of England and it could be said that "You just could not make it up," sadly the facts speak for them selves.

Jersey's Dean--The Steel Report--Fit for the Waste Bin

At the States Sitting yesterday Deputy Le Fondre again asked when the Steel Report was being published. For the benefit of new readers Dame Heather Steel was commissioned by the Bishop of Winchester (Tim Dakin) to investigate the Jersey Dean's handling of an abuse complaint made against a Church Warden by a lady known as HG.

There is a view that the Terms of Reference were too narrow and that Dame Heather a former colleague of Senator Bailhache was conflicted. Senator Bailhache who apart from being a former Bailiff was also a Judge and has been one of the Dean's staunchest supporters.

Prior to Dame Heather beginning her investigation it had been agreed by John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford who had been appointed to head the overall Visitation that HG would receive some tangible support and all communications in relation to the Visitation would be directed through me, thus preventing HG further distress. Dame Heather claims not to have been aware of that arrangement. The failure to abide with that arrangement is unforgivable and unprofessional because it has led to HG suffering extreme trauma and understandably complete loss of faith in the Church of England.

Dame Heather has refused to interview HG but last October she did eventually interview me, however before the interview it had been agreed that I would receive a copy of the transcript. Following the interview Dame Heather made a number of excuses to avoid providing me with a copy. However she has since refused point blank to provide me with a copy and we both know why. The reason being that Dame Heather knows that she made a number of unprofessional remarks about HG.

For the past few months I have been emailing the Bishop of Winchester and copying them to a number of interested parties such as the Bailiff, Chief Minister Gorst, John Gladwin and members of the Safeguarding panel. I have been asking for a copy of the transcript and what promised tangible support for HG was being considered. I have also made it clear that there was no way that the Steel Report can be published because HG has not been interviewed and of Dame Heather's unprofessional comments which can be found in the  transcript.

Needless to say, my emails have been ignored, however I continue to send them. Last week I heard that Dame Heather was apparently giving her Report to Bishop Dakin and also questions relating to the report were being asked at this week's States Sitting. I was also aware of HG's serious concerns as to what the report might say about her. Therefore in my latest email which I sent on our Liberation Day last Friday I asked what provision was being made to assist HG who was likely to be further traumatised when the report is published.

My email is below

"Dear Bishop Tim,

With reference to my previous emails requesting the transcript of my meeting with Dame Heather and for tangible assistance for HG. As yet I still wait a reply let alone action.

I have heard that there is movement regarding the Steel Report and I write to ask what action you are proposing to take to assist HG who may well be further traumatised by its contents. You know that she has not only been deeply affected by the arrest and deportation from Jersey at the behest of the Dean, his wife and the former Bishop, but also from the ramifications of your decision to commission Jan Korris to investigate the matter and the events that have followed. I include the promises made by John Gladwin and Christine Daly but have been broken.

69 years ago today Jersey was liberated from the German Occupation and on that day I went with my father to what was the Weighbridge to meet the British troops. Today is a Bank Holiday and there will be the usual Special States Sitting where our Chief Minister Senator Gorst will be giving the Address. Afterwards there will be the usual re-enactment in which the Dean will play a prominent role and no doubt will be speaking about freedom and justice. All or most of the Island's clergy will also be in attendance.

I will not be attending the event and I know that my absence will not be noticed but I feel I cannot be in the presence of people who proclaim to be Christian but do not practice what they preach, have not lifted a finger nor have voiced any concern about HG's welfare.

Whilst you were not party to HG's arrest etc you are in a position to right a great wrong. I know that you too have become a victim of the consequences of your decision to commission the Korris review however it is in your gift to right the wrong inflicted on HG and in light of the Archbishop's recent Radio Jersey interview, I await with interest of the action you are proposing to take."

I have not received a reply, however this morning on the Channel TV website the following can be found.

" A report into the way abuse allegations are dealt with by Jersey's church is being delayed so that its impact on an alleged victim can be properly considered.

ITV News has learned the Bishop of Winchester is seeking advice on the best way to publish it without causing the woman harm.

He's set up an "Impact Assessment Group" to suggest ways the report by Dame Heather Steel can be made public.

She's been investigating how Jersey's church looks after vulnerable parishioners.

We can today (Wednesday) reveal the Bishop of Winchester, Tim Dakin, has formally informed Jersey's Lieutenant Governor that he will not be taking any disciplinary action against the Dean of Jersey who was originally suspended from office when details emerged of the way he handled an allegation of abuse involving a parishioner.

Bob Key was subsequently reinstated.

ITV News understands the Lieutenant Governor has been told by Bishop Dakin that he is unable to give a specific timetable for when the report will be out but it should be within the next few weeks."

I have no reason to doubt the website's contents, therefore if that is the case I really question why Bishop Dakin has set up an "Impact Assessment Group" when he and fellow clergy have not lifted a finger to assist HG or allow her to formally give her side of events. I also question whether Dame Heather has been investigating how Jersey's Church looks after vulnerable parishioners. 

If an "Impact Assessment Group" has been set up, is it because of my suggestion, if so why have I not been informed and more importantly why is HG not party to the proposal? Also does anyone really believe that Dame Heather has been investigating how Jersey Church's have been looking after their vulnerable parishioners. It is not within her TOR. Also this is a lady who has refused to interview HG or investigate HG's arrest and deportation, has made derogatory remarks about her and has refused to deliver a promised transcript which would confirm Dame Heather's bias.

One has to ask what new game is Winchester playing as it stumbles from one disaster to another. The Report is as meaningless as the apologies given to HG by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester and Jersey's Dean, Bob Key.

Dame Heather's TOR in respect of what happens to her Report are as follows;

10. The Investigator shall deliver a copy of the report to the Bishop of Winchester. Upon receipt the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy of the report to anyone against whom disciplinary action is recommended and to the Bailiff of Jersey, the Dean of Jersey and the Ministry of Justice.

11. The Bishop of Winchester shall, within a reasonable period of time, notify anyone against whom disciplinary action is recommended whether disciplinary action will be taken and the complaints which will be considered.

12. The Bishop of Winchester shall provide a copy of the report of the Investigation to the Commissary of the Visitation of the Parishes of the Deanery of Jersey, Bishop John Gladwin. The report of the Investigation may be used to inform the findings of the Visitation. 

13. The report of the investigation or a summary of its findings and conclusions will be published in due course, and / or after the conclusion of any recommended disciplinary proceedings. Where necessary the report may be summarised and / or redacted for legal reasons or to protect the identity of any person who features in the report or who has provided relevant information to the investigation.

As one can see the TOR allows for the Bishop to summarise and redact the report as he wishes and I am sure that there will be major redactions. No disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, Winchester has now split from Jersey, I am not going to receive the transcript and whole sorry affair has been a night mare for HG and will continue to be as long as the Report exists. The best thing the Bishop can do is to bin the report because no good can come from it not only because of the harm already inflicted but because it will only bring further ridicule and discredit on all those involved in what has become a disaster for the Church of England hierarchy.

Jersey's Dean --- Archbishop of Canterbury BBC Radio Jersey Interview

Yesterday morning BBC Radio Jersey broadcast an interview between Matthew Price and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. It is believed to be the first time that the Archbishop had spoken publicly on the fall out between the Diocese of Winchester and Jersey can be heard by clicking here

Thousands of words have been written since the Jersey Dean, Bob Key was suspended in March last year. Very few, if any of the main players have emerged with their hallos still in tact and having listened to the Archbishop I was not inspired. I understand that he was given sight of the questions with sufficient time to be properly brief yet he came across as remote, distant, ill informed and disinterested.

The Church of England has found itself in a mess simply because of its lack of leadership and having listened to the Archbishop it is easy to see why. He had the opportunity of putting the record straight and re-assuring Channel Islanders that the Church of England really cares for every one and in particular those who come to it when in need. It will be for readers to form their own opinion on the Archbishop's answers but the following are my thoughts.

The Archbishop described Bishop of Winchester Tim Dakin as outstanding and wonderful. I believe there are a number of people who might not support that view and that is why they welcome the news that a temporary arrangement is now place whereby the Islands are now within the Bishop of Dover's remit thus breaking a 500 year old link. We heard that it was a result of discussions between the Bishop and Archbishop but we heard nothing of any consultation with the rank and file members of the Islands' congregation.

We don't know how long temporary arrangement is or how long the proposed Commission will take as no time scale was given nor who will be commissioned to conduct it, but does seem that procrastination will be the order of the day. We know that Bishop Dakin commissioned Jan Korris to investigate the Dean's handling of a complaint by a lady known as HG but we don't know what his motivation was because the complaint was made in July 2008. However we know that the fall out has caused great distress particularly to HG, hundreds of thousand of pounds have been spent (wasted) on the subsequent Visitation and a break from Winchester yet no one is accountable.

Some readers may find it surprising that the Archbishop has met Dean Bob Key only once but he has no reason not to have confidence in him. Given the shenanigans that have arisen over the past 15 months one wonders why the Archbishop has not taken the trouble to be better informed or meet the Dean because it is evident that he is in close contact with Bishop Dakin. Often more than two sides to a story but it appears that he has only listened to one side.

The Archbishop says that he stands by his apology to HG and accepts that the Church has let her down. He can keep saying that until the cows come home but it is quiet evident that he has no interest at all in HG yet he adds insult to injury by saying that he has to make sure that she is receiving "pastoral care" If he really cared and practised the spiritual love he talks about he would have personally apologised to her and ensured that she received the tangible support promised by Bishop Dakin last June.

It was also interesting to hear how he sidestepped the question about the Dean claiming he had been exonerated because he has been put back in post. Readers who have been following my and other Blogs will be well aware of the pressure put on the Archbishop by Senator Bailhache and others to reinstate the Dean, therefore he should have given an honest explanation as to why the Dean was reinstated and stated that whilst no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, he has apologised for the mistakes made in his handling of HG's complaint so therefore cannot be exonerated of all blame.

The Archbishop should also have been aware that the report he spoke about ( the Dame Heather Steel) has not been published and cannot be published because of Dame Heather's conflict with the Dean supporters and her bias against HG which can be found in the transcript of my meeting with her last October which neither she nor Winchester will let me have. Thus breaking a promise made before the actual meeting.

In my view the Archbishop did little to allay any fears for the future and it is a case of not doing what I do but as I say. Its no wonder why Church attendances are falling.

I thank BBC Radio Jersey and Matthew Price in particular for his interview and for providing me with a copy of the interview which can again be heard by clicking here.

Jersey's Dean----Steel and Gladwin Reports On The Rocks

It was last March that the Bishop of Winchester Tim Dakin suspended Jersey’s Dean, Bob Key. It was also last March that I published my first Blog on the matter. One year on I thought I would look back at what has or has not happened and what has been achieved.

The Dean was suspended following a review conducted by Ms Jan Korris into his handling of a complaint made in 2008 against a Church Warden by a young lady known as HG.

One question that has never been answered is what prompted Winchester to engage Jan Korris to conduct a review and what did it hope to achieve particularly as neither HG nor the Church Warden were ever interviewed. HG was never made aware of the review or received a copy of the report nor asked to comment on it.

The Korris Report contained a number of the recommendations and also identified a number of failings by the Dean and the Parish Vicar in the way they dealt with the complaint. The report also recommended that the way HG in 2010 was arrested, detained in La Moye Prison for two weeks, then removed/deported from Jersey in her pyjamas and left destitute at a UK airport on cold October night should be investigated.

The Korris Report is dated March 2013 yet within a matter of days of it's publication the Dean was suspended, unreserved apologies given to HG  and it was announced that a Visitation would be conducted by John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford. Quite dynamic action but thereafter it has been down hill all the way as those at the helm have struck one rock after another and is now stranded.

In looking back what has been achieved? At some stage it was unwisely decided that John Gladwin would only address the Constitutional issues and Dame Heather Steel would address the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint but no immediate Terms of Reference were published. However when published they were narrow and unclear. There was also the issue of Dame Heather's perceived conflict which has never been addressed.

It was soon evident that Winchester was totally unaware of “the Jersey Way” and that questioning any establishment figure would be seen as an attack on Jersey. It only took a letter from Senator Bailhache to the Archbishop of Canterbury to lift the Dean’s suspension even before he had been interviewed by the Investigators so why he was suspended in the first place.

However it should be noted that on being reinstated the Dean apologised for mistakes made in 2008 and publicly apologised to HG, but not personally.

Last June with HG I met John Gladwin and Christine Daly in London and some very important promises were made. Meetings would be recorded and reports to be agreed. Further interviews would be arranged so that HG’s side of story could be recorded and acted upon. Tangible assistance would be given to help her and to avoid unnecessary stress all communications would come via me. Also reference was made of Dame Heather’s perceived conflict. It is now evident that these promises were not forwarded to Winchester or Dame Heather, why?

In early August a full page advert on behalf of the Jersey Laity appeared in the Jersey Evening Post. It asked members of the public who had experienced inappropriate or unbecoming behaviour by Bishop Dakin to write to Dame Heather Steel. The advert clearly placed Dame Heather in both camps but neither she nor Winchester took any steps to refute or clarify the Adverts’ claims.

Dame Heather’s investigation has been a disaster where she not only failed to interview HG or the Church Warden but her report which she claimed to have completed last October is apparently still incomplete. I wrote to Dame Heather on seven occasions asking to meet her but somehow my emails which were also copied in to the Bishop’s Chaplain and John Gladwin were ignored until late October when by that time Dame Heather had almost completed her report.

It was hoped that HG would accompany me to Church House in Westminster but on learning of her visit, the venue was changed because the powers that be refused to allow her on the premises. Unfortunately HG did not attend the meeting but Dame Heather promised that my meeting with her would be recorded and I would be given a copy of the transcript.

However Dame Heather has reneged on her promise and has refused to give me a copy. I have made repeated requests to Bishop Dakin for a copy but although first promising to let me have it he now fails to even respond to my further requests.

In November Bishop Dakin announced that although Dame Heather had not completed her report no disciplinary action would be taken against the Dean and the Vicar. He also announced that the Bishop of Dover would now have oversight over Jersey and that another review would be commissioned on the Constitution issue.

We are now into the third week of March but what has been achieved? It might be easier to ask what has not been achieved. For a starter John Gladwin has not published his report but now that a similar review has been commissioned his report is irrelevant.

Dame Heather submitted her report at the end of October yet almost 5 months later we are told that it has not been completed. If that is the case why has she refused to see HG or arranged for some one else to interview her so that her account of events is recorded? At the States Sitting on 4^th March Deputy Le Fondre via a written question asked the Chief Minister to provide an update on the likely date for the publication of the Dame Heather Steel review?

Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst replied “The position has not changed since I made my statement to the States Assembly in January. I continue to expect that the Bishop of Winchester will honour the commitment made in the terms of reference of the investigation by Dame Heather Steel that, upon receipt of the final report, the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy to the Bailiff, the Dean and the Ministry of Justice. Lambeth Palace confirmed in January that the reports being conducted by Dame Heather Steel and Bishop Gladwin will be completed in due course. I hope that the Steel report will be completed as soon as possible in order that our community can be strengthened through reconciliation and healing based upon integrity and transparency.

I thought the Chief Minister was being hypercritical because he has commissioned a report on HG’s arrest which has not been satisfactorily investigated because like Dame Steel, the investigator Ms Glenys Johnson has not interviewed HG so her report will be as worthless as Dame Heather’s. Where is the integrity where is the transparency?

Following my meeting with Dame Heather I published a Blog on 28^th October 2013 Jersey’s Dean--- The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a whitewash? At  its conclusion I said the following, “What is becoming abundantly clear is that the Visitation is a waste of time and money, the guilty will be found innocent and the innocent condemned. What sort of message is the Church of England sending out to the poor, needy and vulnerable members of our society?

I stand by that statement, the Visitation has been a meaningless and financial disaster as events have overtaken it. John Gladwin’s report is pointless and Dame Heather’s should be confined to the dustbin. Not only has she failed to conduct her investigation in a satisfactory manner but her conflict and bias is evident by her failure to see HG and supply me with a copy of the transcript in which Dame Heather was less than discreet in her support for the Dean and her condemnation of HG.

The promise to assist HG has not been kept and Winchester’s decision last November to refer her to the NSPCC without consulting her or me was a disgrace. In his press statement dated 22^nd November the Bishop said he was praying that HG would accept what she had been offered. He knew full well that his offer was totally unacceptable and has since been reminded that it is action not prayers that is needed, but alas my advice is still being ignored.

Over £200k has been spent, no reports have been published, Winchester no longer has oversight for Jersey, apologies have not been given personally, promises made have not been kept and HG is still being ignored. What is interesting is that the Church Warden is certainly still within the fold and it is strongly rumoured that he is a candidate for the Church Warden’s position at the Town Church. If that is the case then God really does move in mysterious ways.

I have tried to find the positives from the past 12 months but to no avail. Perhaps readers may be able to inform me.

Jersey's Dean---States Police or Police State?

On Wednesday Tony the Prof published another thought provoking blog in which he reported on some of the comments that had been reported in the Guernsey Press. It included a comment from Guernsey Deputy Ellis Bebb when offering a view on the possible break between the Diocese of Winchester and Jersey and Guernsey in which he said "I think that the question we should ask ourselves is whether Winchester is the right diocese for Guernsey. I think that what happened in Jersey poses a lot of questions, but I'm convinced that as with any breakdown in relations, there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone. One small correction, the woman wasn't deported but bound over by the Jersey courts; the decision to do so was at the courts discretion and nothing to do with the church."

Tony corrected the statement because the Court case was all about the Church as it was their Clergy which levelled the complaint and pressed for charges as Readers will see below.

At the States Sitting on Monday afternoon the unelected Deputy Bailiff drew Members attention to the Bishop's press release and then said that Members would be pleased to know that the Dean following an investigation by Dame Heather Steel had been exonerated. Thus wrongly echoing his brother's remark and now repeated by the Dean during an interview with the BBC. What the press release said was that no disciplinary action was being taken, but certainly did not state that anyone had been exonerated, that may well the case but until the Steel Report is published it is wrong to speculate.

What is fact is that Dame Heather did not interview the Church Warden or HG nor did she fully investigate HG's arrest, detention and deportation in line with the Korris recommendation. Therefore how can she honestly arrive at a decision not to recommend disciplinary action? What is interesting is that the Bishop published a press statement saying for legal reasons he can't circulate the Report, yet at same time saying that Dame Heather is still finalising it. It should be recalled that when I met Dame Heather on 24^th October she was finalising her report and intended submitting it by the end of the month. How long does she want before she finishes finalising her report? I will also add that I was promised a transcript of the meeting but that too is being withheld by Winchester.

The (miss) information given by the Deputy Bailiff was met by a round of appreciative foot stamping from States Members in the presence of the Dean who like the Deputy Bailiff is an unelected Member. Soon afterwards answers to Written Questions were formerly lodged which are often unreported by the media. Included in the Written Questions was a question to the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Le Marquand from Deputy Mike Higgins. 

It is evident to those who have been closely following the Dean's handling of HG's complaint is that the Jan Korris Report is slowly being rubbished and it wont be long before she and HG will be seen as the real villains and the Dean, his church colleague and the Church Warden are the victims.

There is no doubt that having failed to be satisfied by the Dean, the Bishop and the Safeguarding Officer's handling of her complaint HG was zealous in her pursuit for justice. Not only did she complain about the alleged abuse but also at the way it was handled by the aforesaid Church officials but her complaints were ignored. She was clearly an embarrassment to the Church and a way had to be found to silence her, particularly as they wrongly believed that she might disrupt a Confirmation Service being held on Sunday 26th September.

Readers will know that I have previously written how HG after appearing the Magistrates Court on Monday 27th September was remanded in custody in La  Moye Prison for 2 weeks before appearing  before Magistrate Richard Falle and being bound over to leave Jersey where later that evening where she was left destitute at Southampton Airport whilst still wearing her pyjamas.

Thanks to questions being asked by Deputy Higgins the truth is slowly emerging of the shocking and callus way in which HG was treated when held in custody and denied bail on that fatal Sunday whilst the people responsible for levelling the complaint which led to her arrest were conducting a Confirmation Service at St Mary's Church.

 It is all very well for Deputy Bebb from the safety of the Guernsey shores to claim that no blame can be attributed to the Church. It is all very well for Messrs Philip and William Bailhache and indeed the Dean himself to claim that he has been totally exonerated. No disciplinary action is being taken but can the Dean be really proud of the part which he, his wife and former Bishop Scott Joynt played in incarcerating and eventually deporting HG because she may have disturbed their Church Service.

I receive a number of calls from people who cannot believe that we in Jersey could allow such uncaring action against a vulnerable young lady of previous good character who had made Jersey her home, had a job and a home but all were snatched from her thanks to senior church figures. I have previously published official documents which although are in the public domain are rarely to be found in what is called the mainstream media.

Below is the written answers given to the questions asked by Deputy Higgins and are in the public domain but I have added my comments in red. 

Question,

Will the Minister set out a detailed timeline showing from the time of the arrest of the woman known as HG to the moment she appeared in court to face charges of harassment, the times anyone interacted with her, who those interactions were with and the times at which witness statements were taken, the charges were drawn up and read to her?

Answer

This timeline covers the period from the time of arrest to the time when HG first appeared before a Magistrate.  The timeline does not deal with routine interactions with the custody staff or other routine matters.

26 Sept   9.34    Arrest

At 0934 hrs on Sunday 26th September HG was arrested at her home address by a Police Constable. She was arrested on suspicion of harassment. Another officer was also in attendance.  She was calm and following caution answered the officer’s question about the location of her laptop.  She walked unaided to the police officers’ car where she remained while a search of her room was carried out.

While waiting in the car HG started to show slight signs of distress. On arrival at Rouge Bouillon Police Station (10:17) HG was able to walk to the Custody suite.  Once there she sat on the floor and began to show signs of distress. 

Despite repeated efforts to calm her down officers were unable to communicate with HG and she was eventually carried by three officers into a cell where she was placed on the floor and a cell guard posted.  At this time the police Force Medical Examiner (FME) was unable to carry out any assessment of her due to her demeanour.

10:45 Detention Authorised Did the FME actually assess HG before this decision was reached?

Detention authorised by Police Sergeant on 26 September 2010 at 10:45:00. The grounds for detention are: I am satisfied that the arrest is lawful, proportionate and necessary. There is insufficient evidence to charge at this time. I authorise the detention for the purpose of obtaining evidence by questioning and process. It is incumbent on the police to take immediate steps to obtain the evidence, but it appears that the process did not begin until 3 pm when the first statement was taken from the 3 witnesses.

11:12  Doctor  (FME)

Doctor's comments:  Removal to cell observed, not possible to assess because of agitation I suggest minimal stimulus in terms of intervention until HG is calmer and then assessment may be possible.  Currently, fit for detention, I will assess fitness for interview at 12:45 What background medical information did the doctor possess or attempt to obtain which would helped him to understand why HG was agitated. It should have been obvious that the agitation was aggravated by HG being confined in a cell which because her health concerns was causing her untold harm. 

13:00 Doctor Fit for detention, I will review again in 2 hours. It was now three and a half hours since arrest yet no statements had been taken which was totally unfair. Those who made the complaint should have placed that action ahead of their other arrangements and the police should have ensured that it was the case..

13:10 Duty Sergeant note of Medical Review,

Task Medical Review Required completed. Comments: Medical review complete fit for detention FME to return in two hours

15.00 Duty Sergeant’s entry

Police officers’ notes:  Appropriate adult located. When was it decided that an Appropriate Adult was required and why did it take so long to obtain one? After numerous phone calls to a number of agencies I have been put in touch with the on call Mental Health Social Worker via the hospital switch board and she has stated that she has heard of HG and will be happy to act as an Appropriate adult.  Will be attending at 17:30hrs  This is now 8 hours after HG's arrest.

15:04-15:45 Statement recorded - Statement of first witness taken from Mrs Key, the Dean's wife at the Deanery. Why was her statement not taken earlier, she was not conducting the Church Service?

15:48 Duty Inspector

Duty Inspector’s notes: I have attended with the intention of conducting the formal review of detention. however HG appears to be in a heavy sleep and is unresponsive to attempts to wake her.  HG is in the care of the Custody staff and the FME is also in attendance.  It is therefore intended to let the FME assess HG prior to additional attempts to conduct the review process Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) stipulates that a review of detention before charge must be conducted after 6 hours of being in custody. This review is not conducted by an independent person but by another police officer. 

16:00-17.00 Statement recorded - Statement of second witness Former Bishop Michael Scott Joynt at the Deanery

16:28 Doctor

Seen in cell, since last review, now lying on the floor. Have spoken with Mental Health Social Worker who will read hospital notes prior to arrival.  Fit for detention at present.

17:20-17:45 Statement recorded - Statement of third witness The Dean at the Deanery.

17:43 Doctor

I have contacted the duty consultant psychiatrist directly, who will attend in due course.

18:21 Doctor

Seen by duty Consultant Psychiatrist, for detention, no mental illness 

19.30-19.45 Statement recorded - Statement of Arresting Officer Why was this not taken soon after the arrest when the facts were still fresh in his mind.

19:47 Entry -Charged by Centenier Phillip Coffey whose report shows that he charged HG at 2030 hours and remanded in custody. Jersey does not have an independent Prosecution Service and the decision to charge rests with an unpaid voluntary/Honorary police man. Pleaded guilty after charge. When a person is charged they are cautioned and what they say is recorded. It would be interesting to know where HG’s alleged plea is recorded.

21:43 PACE Status Changed

PACE status changed from PACE to Non PACE for the following reason: 

Centenier has refused bail in order to prevent further offences. Why was HG not bailed, what evidence did the Centenier have to deny bail, she had been arrested from her home and was of good character she had been receiving medical attention since her arrival at the police station and was clearly distressed and unwell so what evidence was to hand that HG would commit further offences? 

Held at Police HQ overnight

27 Sept 2010 07:52 Doctor (FME) Comments

No evidence of dehydration although not drinking fit for detention and court

09:50 ENTRY

Handed to court officers and taken to court

10:00 Magistrate’s Court Sitting

Seen by Duty Advocate Jane Grace, Appeared before a Magistrate at 1216 hours. Represented by the Duty Advocate who was not in court when he decided to remand HG in custody at La Moye Prison for two weeks, why?

Readers will know from my previous Blogs that HG later appeared before Magistrate Richard Falle, pleaded guilty and agreed to be bound over. On paper it appears that HG was dealt with according to Law and proper procedure. However it is claimed that the Clergy’s decision to press charges was for HG’s own good, if that is so what did they actually do to help HG to benefit from being arrested. The Dean and Bishop were conducting a church service whilst HG was detained in a police cell waiting for them to write their statements. It would be interesting to know what the sermon was, but hopefully it was not based on “Judge not lest ye be judged” or “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

It is evident that HG was sending any number of emails and was proving to be a nuisance however it does appear that a sledgehammer was used to crack a nut which has had a life changing affect on HG, for which the Archbishop, Bishop and Dean have all publicly apologised.

Was it necessary to arrest HG, was she deserving of the callus and unchristian treatment she received and is it some thing that the Island and the Church of England can be proud of?

It is not disputed that HG contacted the Dean’s wife and the Bishop early on the Saturday evening when it is alleged that HG was rude and allegedly said she would see the Bishop in St Mary’s Church, but did it mean that she was going to attend or what were her motives. There is no mention of that question being asked by the arresting officer. Why was the decision to inform the police left until early Sunday morning and was it necessary to arrest and go to such extraordinary lengths to detain and deport HG from Jersey?

The decision to arrest HG has left no winners but only shame on those involved with the arrest and subsequent action. The States Police will say that they were responding to an allegation of harassment but could be said HG was treated even handily. If it was decided to arrest her why it did it take so long to obtain the evidence and why was she not bailed? Was the Force's action an example of good States Police practice or more akin to that of a police State? 

Unfortunately neither Winchester nor Jersey cares a damn about HG or Safeguarding and it is doubtful whether these matters will even be discussed by the two Bishops during their flag waving visit to Jersey.