Part Two

News, information, doubts and concerns:

In 2011 gaining strength; knowing I hadn’t finished my job, I pulled myself together and took a different course of action that had nothing to do with the duty of care lies of the Anglican Church.

Pushing the Anglican Church for a nation-wide apology:

Thousands of people were affected by abuse in Anglican homes across Australia. For a few months now I have been telling the leader of the Anglican Church of Australia, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, how important it is to stage a truthful face-to-face nation-wide public apology to all victims of abuse. It was important it is to say sorry. Below are extracts from my letters to the Archbishop:

December 8, 2010: “It is time now for the Anglican Church to step forward and publicly apologise for the crippling abuse of children in their care in the various they controlled in Australia.”

February 28, 2011: “Anglican Church children’s home have a dark history of neglect, sexual abuse, violent beatings, floggings, hatred and other forms of sadistic cruelty. Sadly, some of those children have taken their lives; some have been in and out of mental institutions, had professional counselling or psychiatric treatment; have succumbed to alcohol and drug abuse or spent time in prison struggling to cope with the consequences of the merciless abuse – that being the legacy of their years of torment in Anglican homes.

As most Anglican Church children’s homes functioned 50 to 60 ago your time is over due for a face-to-face nation-wide public apology to those people abused by Anglican Church clergy and church workers while residing in Anglican homes and out-of-home care run by the church. Your apology will also benefit the victim’s families, friends, supporters, and child advocates.”

March 12, 2011: “For every moment of every day the Anglican Church spend in denial and refuse to offer the public apology they further destroy the lives of the thousands of people who were physically, psychologically and sexually abused in their homes and out-of-home care made available and run by the Anglican Church.

By giving a nation-wide apology the church may not only save the devastation of a human life but save the life of a human being.”

I received a few answers from Archbishop Aspinall’s aid but there was nothing constructive – more hot air. However, in one letter he did return fire with this double whammy:

 “You may not be aware that in 1999 the Anglican Church Diocese of Brisbane joined other churches and the Queensland Government to apologise to those harmed in Queensland institutions during their childhood.”

And this: “You may be aware that in 2004 the Anglican Church of Australia apologised to the children in Anglican institutions whose experiences caused them hurt, distress and harm.” (That particular apology was drafted on the internet on October 6, 2004).

Comment on the two apologies:

I returned fire and wrote about the Anglican Church joining hands with the Queensland government and a few other churches to give the 1999 joint apology. By doing that, I said, it took the direct focus of abuse off the Anglican Church. And as the apology was issued in the Brisbane area the five other states of Australia were denied an apology.

And, more than 11 years have passed since the joint apology and other victims have come forward with stories of horrifying abuse. I pointed out, that since 1999 more members of Anglican clergy and church workers had abused children.

On that day, by working in numbers, the Anglican Church took the easy way out.

As they did not actually accept any blame for the abuse of children, why were they apologising.

The church must stand alone, face the victims with honesty and integrity and resist riding on the coat tails of others. Just because the church issued a Brisbane apology they cannot worm their way out of the face-to-face nation-wide public apology.

The Anglican Church’s 2004 Internet Apology:

If the Anglican Church thinks the 2004 internet “apology” is an adequate way to treat victims of physical and sexual abuse, they are dead wrong. Imagine a victim writing to a Bishop or an Archbishop and asking for a personal apology and being told to go look up the internet. That would be cruel and cowardly, not to mention stupid.

Because of the seriousness of child abuse, each victim who comes forward should be permitted a personal apology and honest written apology from an Archbishop or a bishop. They deserve that respect. And internet apology is like a cake receipt – its just there.

The 2004 internet apology was the same old rhetoric used over and over again; written by faceless Australians in a private room, or passed to publicity firms and or lawyers with orders on how to phrase it so as not to give victims any leverage. The apology is not suitable for the Australians who were abused in Anglican homes. It must to be updated to suit 2011.

In 2011 I wrote to the church saying: “Since the 1999 and 2004 apologies another generation of victims have come forward exposing more cruelty in Anglican homes and out-of-home care run and provided by the church; telling more traumatic stories of rape, molestation and violent behaviour – stories of abuse the church did not know of and would have like to have avoided. The victim’s stories have taken on a more menacing role – more appalling and shattering than before. The two apologies are feeble and meaningless”. The church did not respond.

And I also told the Anglican Church that I shuddered at their choice of words such as, “wrongs”, “hurt”, “harm” and “distress” which were used in the internet apology to illustrate the cruel and sometimes horrific abuse that children suffered. Those images would have the general public assuming the only abuse the children suffered was a scolding – a clip under the lug and a kick in the bum. The word “hurt” is some thing that is used when a child skins his knee.

I suggested to the church, “the words bashings, floggings, beatings, physical and sexual abuse violence, cruelty, anguish, pain, and are more attuned to describe the abuse the innocent children suffered. And, the word “experienced” the church used in the 2004 apology to describe what the children went through was not just an experience. It was a frightening, cruel and terrifying experience.” The church did not respond.

E-mail or write to the Archbishop:

At the time this website went up the Archbishop Aspinall and his Anglican Church did not show any interest in giving a face-to-face nation-wide apology to the thousands of people affected by abuse.

It is up to you if want a nation-wide public apology. As 50 or 60 years have passed since Anglican homes started to abuse children, I believe it is time for every victim, his or her family, friends, supporters and child advocates, to e-mail Archbishop Dr Phillip Aspinall  (primate@anglican.org.au) at the Anglican Church of Australia in Brisbane, and ask for a face-to-face nation-wide public apology.

Do not be afraid to stick up for your rights. You have done nothing wrong. Make a difference to the lives of others. Please keep sending those e-mails until the church responds. Or you can write to: Anglican Church of Australia -The Most Reverend Dr. Phillip Aspinall - Primate – PO Box 421 Brisbane QLD 4000.

Below is Anglican Church of Australia’s apology – written verbatim from the internet. The church’s words are deceptive. My reasons why are below the apology

Church Apologies to Victims of Institutions - October 6, 2004

The Anglican Church’s General Synod has issued an apology to people who experienced hurt, or distress in institutional and out-of-home care provided by the Anglican Church.

At its meeting at the University of Notre Dame in Freemantle, the church addressed the experiences of children covered in the recent senate inquiry into Children in Institutional are Report, Forgotten Australians.

The apology said “With deep sadness and regret, this church acknowledges that many of those children suffered abuse and neglect, and a lack of appropriate care and nurture while in institutional care; and a number also suffered physical and sexual assault.”

“The Church deeply regrets that its institutions and personnel did not always provide environments in which these children were protected and nurtured.”

Brisbane’s Archbishop Phillip Aspinall, supporting the apology, said the church was specifically addressing those who had been harmed in institutions. He said the stories of people hurt in institutions were horrific and heartbreaking.

“It is important that this church acknowledges that it happened, that we express out deep sorrow and regret, and that we get our dioceses to look carefully at the report to check again how well we care for people.”

Following the reading of the apology, the Primate, Archbishop Peter Cranley, read the apology on behalf of the church, then called for a minute’s silence.

Archbishop Carnley prayed “we seek your forgiveness for the wrongs the church has committed in the past. Give us grace that we may be transformed, and that the church may be safe and caring place for children.”

The deceptive words:

1) The Anglican Church is saying they only provided the institutions. They are making a point that they did not run them or had control over the everyday running; or had the duty of care.

2) The Anglican Church do not say they apologise for the abuse they inflicted on the children. They do not say they are sorry. Instead they only acknowledge that children were abused in institutional care. And they did not say while in the care of the Anglican Church.

3) Archbishop Phillip Aspinall said he supported the apology and added it was “important that this church acknowledges it happened.” Aspinall only makes the point that the abuse happened, making it appear to be no fault of the Anglican Church.

4) Not anywhere in the apology does the Anglican Church accept any blame for the abuse of any child in their care.

5) Archbishop Peter Cranley only prayed for forgiveness for the wrongs committed in the past. His words were insipid and unrealistic. If Carnley were fair dinkum about the apology he would have written: The Anglican Church seek your forgiveness for the horrific pain of abuse we inflicted on the children in our care.

The Anglican Church’s 2004 internet “apology” was an “apology” that wasn’t an apology. The Anglican Church’s “apology” is a speech.

Tell it how it is:

The Anglican Church of Australia and the Dioceses of the Anglican Church tread carefully on the subject of child abuse, always striving to distance their church from the horror. Although the church mean well, it is not uncommon for their words to be “doctored” to escape their connection to child abuse in homes or elsewhere. (That happened in my case) I have written to the Anglican Church suggesting their internet “apology” was not an apology. They did not respond. If I were wrong surely they would have responded.

The Anglican Church work diligently at not accepting blame for the abuse of children in their care; and they work hard at avoiding an honest apology. Their explanations are boarder-line. They come within a whisker of taking the blame. Reason being; a person who was sexually or physically abused, or locked in a dark room without food or water while in a Anglican home, might just happen to rise above the pain, pluck up the courage and take legal action against the church for the abuse. And that would cost them dearly – especially if other victims also come forward.

Unfortunately, the bottom line of everything in life is money. By not admitting the truth in delivered apologies, the Anglican Church has their own special escape clause. And by not paying compensation they are increasing their capitol to their benefit.

Below is an example of how the Anglican Church makes and spends their money:

On Monday April16, 2007, The Australian reported that a luxury mansion in the swishy suburb of Hamilton Brisbane, where the leader of the Anglican Church of Australia Archbishop Phillip Aspinall (pictured below) resided, “was sold for $11million-plus.” As the Archbishop couldn’t possibly live in a humble home the Anglican Church acted swiftly, dipped into the kitty and bought an exclusive dwelling with four bedrooms and four bathrooms in the elite suburb in Ascot, Brisbane. That little beauty cost the church “$2.6million.” The bold heading in The Australian read:  “Blessed with an $8million profit on sale.”

The Bank of God:

My opinion is; and I believe many people realise that the Anglican Church’s main interest is money – and lots of it – tax free money. They are not keen for the general public to know about their wheeling and dealing. They don’t let it be known, but they run a big business. And when you get down to the nitty-gritty, it’s not really the church of God – it’s the Bank of God. It’s a big business. God is a silent partner. Let’s buy another block of land – let’s sell a block of land – lets build a school. That’s the basis of it.

The Anglican’s are businessmen and they run the church as a profitable business. They want to keep their finances nicely tucked away. And they don’t like to give it away – especially to victims of abuse. (Of course, if they really have to pay compensation or a support package to victims, they will – but only when they are ready.

Published in The Australian 2007: “ The Anglican Church has one of the most sought-after property portfolios in Brisbane.”

And: “ Its general manager, Peter Read, is also overseeing the sale of a heritage-listed former youth hostel near Hasting Street in Noosa, (Queensland Australia), and vacant land.”

And, “ Mr Read, who could not be contacted yesterday, has previously said the church would spend the profits on new schools, chaplaincies and community services.”

At that time, the people from the church involved in the land deals “declined to comment on the church’s property dealings.” Oh boy, and here I was thinking the church had nothing to hide.

Comment: Education is important. I do not begrudge the church building schools (which after all are moneymaking ventures for them). Nor do I disagree with them helping the community. But it’s sad to see that helping victims of abuse is not on their list of things to do with their finances.

All abused victims are entitled to a ‘Pastoral Support Package’:

Important: Many people abused in Anglican homes do not know they are entitled to a ‘Pastoral Support Package’, that being a form of monetary reimbursement, and if required, counselling which the church pay for. Some diocese will consider medical expenses and education. The Anglican Church is obliged to offer a ‘Support Package’ to those who were abused. No lawyer is required. You don’t go to court. You get paid when you pass go.

I am of the opinion the Anglican Church isn’t doing enough to notify victims of their rights. They say they are making “every possible effort to encourage victims to come forward so that they can be properly supported by the church”. I know that is incorrect. There is more that can be done. Below is extracts of my letter to the Anglican Church advising them how I informed victims of their entitlements:

January 1, 2011: “Many a poor soul suffered abuse in Anglican Church homes. And a number of those do not know they are entitled to a ‘Support Package’ from the relevant Diocese in which the home was located. And they are not aware the Anglican Church offers and pays for counselling to those who grieve.

Adding my support to that problem, on December 29, 2010 I placed a notice in the Sydney Daily Telegraph ‘In search’ column which is for people wishing to contact others (and various other reasons). My notice read: “Seeking any person who resided in any type of Anglican Church home in any state of Australia.”  My phone numbers were included.

Judging by the response it shows the Anglican Church is not trying hard enough to contact victims of abuse to confirm their entitlements. The Anglican Church has a code of the ethics that has to be honoured. They must uphold the promises you made when you were ordained. There are victims out there who desperately need your help.”

I explained to Archbishop Aspinall that after the notice appeared in the Daily Telegraph, 18 people contacted me. 14 of those said they suffered abuse in Anglican Church homes. Only two of those were aware of their entitlements. But they did not know how to claim it. (I also had a notice in the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2011. (As this went on the internet I had received four phone call)

Extract from Archbishop Aspinall ‘s return letter of January 12, 2011:  

“Your commitment to supporting other victims is appreciated. I would request that you encourage those persons who may come to you to contact the Diocese in which the particular children’s home was located so that they can receive the support available to them.”

Please Note: That was a positive response for the Anglican Church. They admitted straight out that they are willing to help victims of abuse to receive the support. Great!

In that case, I advise all those who were abused in any Anglican home to come forward. Any person who was abused in an Anglican home is entitled to be cared for by the Anglican Church with a ‘Support Package’ without repercussion from the church.

However, it is up to you if you want to come forward with a complaint. It is, at times, degrading and heartbreaking to bring up your abusive past. And you will only do that when you are ready to disclose the abuse you suffered.

The details of your abuse will be between you and the church – no one else will be involved.

You were abused as a child. You deserve to receive a support package. The church destroyed your life. They should pay for the horrible abuse you suffered.

Because of the pain and shame of the abuse some victims may not come forward. But remember the church have encouraged victims to come forward to accept the support.

Pounding on Archbishop Aspinall’s door in the hope the church would do more to find victims of abuse. Extracts from that letter:

January 2011: “The Anglican Church must now advertise in major newspapers around Australia asking for all survivors to come forward to receive support.”

And: “It is your social duty and your duty to every person abused in Anglican homes, to notify them of their entitlements. The easiest way to spread the good news is to publish public notices in newspapers across Australia noting a brief explanation how and where victims can receive pastoral care.”

Archbishop Aspinall replies:

“The Anglican Church has made and continues to make – every possible effort to encourage victims to come forward so that they can be properly supported by the Church”.

Comment: In my opinion, that is not correct. The church is not making every possible effort. Several times I asked Archbishop Aspinall to advise me how the Anglican Church encourage victims to come forward, but he failed to do so. I suggested that the church should take leaf out of my book and published a public notice in major newspapers across Australia asking victims to come forward to be supported. I wrote: “If I can attract 18 people just imagine how many victims would seek help if the church had national coverage”.

On a mission to write my complaint of abuse:

I was certainly on a mission when I wrote my complaint of abuse. Nothing else mattered. It took me a month.  At times it was painful but I thundered on like a man possessed. I wanted the Anglican Church to know how they made me suffer and how they ruined my life. It was on August 29, 2005 when I sent my complaint. I was so proud I got through it. Below are extracts of my letter:

“It doesn’t please me to have to write to you under such difficult circumstances. Listed below is important information I should have told the Anglican Church authorities about many years ago but lacked the self-worth to do so. I have now the courage, need and desire.”

And, “I lived in the children’s home for almost 14 years and most of those years were complete and utter hell. During that time I suffered horrifying cowardly physical, verbal, emotional and sexual abuse from the staff and clergymen, especially from the Matron (Martin) in charge. These pitiless people ruled my life and many other children, with such brutality it can only classed as horrendous and heartless without regard for human life.”

And, “I was made stand on one leg for as long as possible. If I put the other leg down I would be beaten. I collapsed to the floor unable to stand the pain. I was beaten again. One time I was locked in a cupboard.”

And: “ Reverend Morgan was a bitterly vicious and callous man who cold-heartedly flogged the boys and girls using the belt from around his cassock. At the height of his anger he would use the buckle.  At times he would yell, “You will go to hell!” Then he would go across to the church and pray.”

I wrote five pages of hell. I did not hold back with my feelings. In the sixth paragraph I wrote of how when I was ten the Anglican Church allowed my sister Suzanne to be taken from me and given away like a dog in a refuge to George and Elsa Wilkinson – a dysfunctional couple to say the least. Suzanne was put to work as a baby-sitter for their seven children. She was to cook, clean and wash and iron the clothes – and put out the garbage. Suzanne was the unofficial mother. Before that, she was a frightened 12-year-old child who looked after me, tried to survive and knew nothing of life outside the home.

I missed Suzanne so much I fretted constantly. So much so I wouldn’t eat or drink. My body my feeble and undernourished, tired and frightened. Eventually I was taken to live with my sister in the rural town of Kyogle, New South Wales in Australia. Eating food I’d never seen before, I quickly regained my health, languishing in the luxury.

But the Wilkinson’s took a dislike to me, branding me an “outcast and a rebel.” I was told I was a “shocking pig of a boy who was raised by animals.” (Animals did raise me) After a while, unbeknown to Suzanne I was taken back to the home.

Extracts from George Wilkinson’s letter of October 5, 1959 to the Anglican Church Home Secretary explaining why they wanted to get rid of me:

“For the past week my wife has been very ill in bed mainly due to the fact that Richard is proving a problem. We have had pleasant chats with him but its like water off a ducks back.

Both the wife and I have found out his dirty habits that have persisted despite lectures and explanations of what we would like him to do.”

Suzanne has behaved better than we could have expected”.

We cannot really bring Richard back to the home with out continually upsetting Suzanne. You know that blood is thicker than water”. 

Home Secretary, A.J. Arnett’s reply to the Wilkinson’s letter dated October 20, 1959:

“We the committee are so sorry that you have been inconvenienced by this boy. Send him back to the home at your convenience. Ring or write when he will be arriving. We are then able to make the necessary arrangements. Trusting that Suzanne will be a joy”.

Comment:

I can receipt those cruel words with my eyes shut. They are chipped into my brain. Boy indeed. Did the Anglican Church check the Wilkinson’s credentials? No. But they obviously thought it was okay to break up a family who had already been through torture before.

It was cruelty at its worst and no one did anything to stop it. My sister was all I cared for in my life and vice-versa. 

Because of the church’s stupid and cruel decision Suzanne and I were not to see each other for seven years.

Extract from my complaint of abuse, which I believe was the most chilling that ever happened to me:

“One night in the dormitory, standing with the other boys beside our beds I was flogged so brutally the skin on my back split open. That was for not knowing the words to the ‘Apostles Creed’ and for saying no to Matron Martin’s forceful repeated demands for me to do so. To this day I still bear the scars on my back from that terrifying beating.”

Comment: I remember vividly that I was left whimpering and convulsing on the floor too terrified to cry loudly in case I was flogged again (which often happened to the children). There was blood on the floor. Many times Matron Martin was so angry she would flog the children so violently stopping only when she was exhausted. This was one of those times. Even today I still hear her rapid raspy breathing and the foul alcohol and cigarette smell that seeped from her skin.

Here is an example of how to write a complaint of abuse to the Anglican Church:

I am not the sharpest crayon in the packet; just as I didn’t, some people would not know how to write a complaint to the Anglican Church. I will give you the basic idea. It is only a guide No need to follow what I write. Write the way you wish using your special skills. There is no special way the church want the complaint to be written. However, from my experience it is better to give as much detail as possible. Take your time and take a break when needed.

* Your name and address.

* There’s no need to supply your phone numbers.

* No e-mail – a personal letter is always the best.

*As I did, you can write your complaint on a computer.

* Name the Anglican home and where it was situated.

*Why and how and who put you in the home.

* Note if your siblings were with you.

* The year you arrived and the year you departed

* Name the staff. If you can’t it is not important.

* How many children lived in the home when you were there (it doesn’t have to be exact).

*It’s okay to name other children in the home with you. No one will be in trouble.

* Write what you know about the home. This information gives you credibility and further proves you lived there, but is not important.

* Write every thing about the abuse suffered. What parts of the body you were abused and what you were punished with. If you were assaulted in any way that is abuse. When you were abused, even if it didn’t hurt much it is still abuse. Even a clip under the ear is abuse. A punch on the arm is abuse. Any abuse is a criminal offence. We all have different ways of reacting to abuse.

* Mention if you were sexually abused. You do not have to give every single piece of detail. You can name the person/persons who abused you. There is no shame in that.

* Note the threats from the staff and the feeling of fear you would have had that you would be abused again. Explain how you felt.

* Note how the abuse affected you as a child, your teens, and as an adult.

* Write how the abuse affects your life today. Did you drink alcohol to dull the pain; take drugs to escape and the others things that affect your wellness.

* Explain if you had any counselling or psychiatric treatment. Remember many people suffer in silence. Many people do not want treatment. Many people do not react to treatment.

* Sign and date it.

Please Note:

When you have finished writing your complaint I suggest you put it aside for a few days. (Keep copies for your file) When you decide to send it, check the details carefully as there might be more information you may need to add, or remove.

When you are satisfied send a copy of the complaint to the person in charge of the Anglican diocese in which the home was located. It could be an archbishop, bishop or a garden variety minister, or 'to whom it may concern'.

Also send a copy to the Professional Standards Unit who will untimely be handling your details. If you don’t know the diocese or the address of where to send your complaint, phone the Anglican Church closest to where you live now, or in the nearest capitol city. Tell them you wish to send a complaint of abuse and you need to know the address where to send it.

Also ask for the Professional Standards Unit address too (it could be the same address – maybe not).

I believe its best to send two copies of your complaint to two different people just in case one is mislaid either by the post office or the church (which can often happen).

Follow your purpose and do not let others dissuade you.

Later, the church may ask you a few questions concerning your complaint. You are under no obligation to talk to any person connected to the church but they are there to help. You have already sent a complaint of abuse; that should be enough. There is no need to go through a grilling.

You are under no obligation to except a visit from anyone from the church. You are under no obligation to have counselling but if you wish to do the same tell the church. The church is obliged to help you and pay for the counselling.

If the church asks you to see a psychiatrist or psychologist or a councillor you are under no obligation to do so. If they insist tell them to go to buggery.

When all is in order the church will send you a letter explaining the next step. This is the easy part. With that letter they will include what is called a Deed of Release.

A Deed of Release is a document you sign (and have witnessed) before the church sends you the 'Support Package.' It explains rules you need to obey. However, you need not be concerned about that, as the letter the church will supply will explain that you take the Deed of Release to a lawyer of your choice who will explain it. The Anglican Church will pay for your visit to the lawyer. If you need a second visit that is allowed. It’s all too easy.

Be Aware:

If the Anglican Church does not respond to your complaint in, say, three weeks, either write to them post haste or phone them at the address you sent it to. Do not let them tell you it will take months to receive your 'Support Package.' It should not. I am sorry, but it is up to you to make sure that doesn't happen. Do not let the church make excuses that at times they will and they have. Be firm in your decisions. You deserve that 'Support Package' now and not when they are ready.

Warning! Warning!

There is no cause for alarm but I need to tell you this. Some church dioceses are on the ball when it comes to acknowledging their 'Pastoral Support Package' obligations.

Some churches have a bad track record. Even though they say they are committed to helping victims of abuse to receive their 'Support Package', they have short memories, short pockets, and a short attention span. They might try to stall you. I have helped people who received their 'Support Package' and I have also had some people who were put in a pot to boil.

Examples in brief of some of the people who were victimised by the Anglican Church:

Comment: When a victim has written their complaint of abuse it is such a huge relief. As I did, and as other victims I have helped, it’s a though the weight of a sack of potatoes has been lifted from your shoulders. It’s a pretty good feeling. Then, you just want to get it away to the diocese and have it dealt with quick and smart, without any bother. The monetary 'Support Package' given to you by the church, no matter how much it is does make a difference to many a life. It gives the victim a huge sense of achievement.

* A Queensland lady in her late sixties lodged a complaint. She had never told her husband of her abuse or the pain which had been screwing with her mind for many years. When she thought all was going along the church told her she had to go see a psychiatrist. (To see a decent psychiatrist when you live in the bush is a problem and when you do get an appointment, it takes many months to be seen) And her feet was ripped out from underneath her when they told her she may have to wait nine months before she received her 'Support Package'. The church's actions are deplorable.

* Because of the cruel actions of the Anglican Church in New South Wales, a man who was brutally abused had to wait eight months before the church took any action. He never even received a letter, a phone call or an e-mail to even acknowledge him. The church's actions were deplorable. When I raised the alarm the church moved to fulfil their promise.

* Another lady in Sydney put in a complaint to the Anglican Church. She waited for three months for an answer. Then she phoned them a few times. At one stage she was told: ''You aren’t the only person we are dealing with''. If it wasn't for her persistence she would not have received any answer whatsoever. The church's actions were deplorable.

* A troubled man from Melbourne I helped, took 12 months to write his complaint He wrote four pages. He was proud of what he achieved. He waited for a reply. There heard nothing for three months and that was after I pushed him and he plucked up enough courage to contact the church. He was intimidated by the church. I told him not 'to take any heat from the church. It is the church that should be taking heat from you. The church actions were deplorable.

Comment: When I advised the Archbishop Phillip Aspinall of the diocese' not responding to the victims letters of complaint, he was most concerned. He encouraged me to advise the victims they could contact him so the matters could be addressed. That is a kind gesture by the Archbishop.

Would you like to say something?

Before the information was put on my website I wrote to various clergy from the Anglican Church asking if they wanted to add any information, negative or positive. There was no response.

Could the abuse have been prevented?

Many children from the home attended school with welts, bruises, gammy legs and heaven knows what other injuries. If the teaches or the students had the balls to speak to the principal or the police, maybe some of the abuse may have been prevented. But as far as I know, no one did.

If the police had acted on complaints by some of the children who were abused maybe the abuse could have been prevented.

I ran away from the home with a couple of girls to escape the abuse. When we were nabbed by the coppers and taken back to the home I remember saying we were too frightened to go back to the home because the matron would flog us. The police did nothing.

It various members of the St. Andrew's clergy (the ones who weren't abusing the children) had reported the abuse to the authorities, maybe it could have been prevented.

Poison Pen Letters and other Rubbish:

During the battle with the Anglican Church I received a hand written 'poison pen' letter in the mail. It had few measly threats; one of which advised me ''to pull out of the claim''. I didn't take it seriously. I screwed it in a ball and lobbed in the bin.

Later, I received a nasty phone call from some galah who wasn't too keen on my stance. I told him to piss off and slammed the phone down. It must have made an impact on his eardrum because he never rang back.

Then I received another 'poison pen' letter. It was a full page written on a computer. This one I didn't play basketball with. This letter contained spelling mistakes. I wasn't sure if the galah did that on purpose to throw me off the scent or he needed a few spelling lessons.

What was written in the letter could have only have been known either by someone within the church or the lawyers office – someone who had the inside drum. However, I wrote a letter to the church's lawyers advising them of the contents of the letter. The law firm denied it was involved. I didn't write to the church because it would not have answered.

Extracts of the second 'poison pen letter' letter: (written verbatim)

*''I am one of the guys that has to look at the rubbish that you send to Comben…''

* ''You are being taken.''

* ''You have not got a case.''

* ''Give up!!!

* ''And their’s a hole lot of people who lived with you in the home lined up already saying how good the place is.''''Your mates are leaving you, your scabs are taking you.'

* ''Many of us have been unhapy that Comben has settled a number of these matters with good benefits going to the person being abused. A Tasmanian guy got $60,000, the woman on television with Archbishop Hollyngsworth is getting some money from us…''

* '' He was also starting to get money together to pay you…''

*''…we are one of the pooest Dioceases…''

* ''You'll be sucked dry by the scabs You cannot win the case…''

* ''… ask about the differnce in payouts between NSW ($70,000) and Brisbane ($300,000). The church will not be paying any costs.'

* ''… you'll get virtually nothing each and that will be cut in half by the scabs fees.'' Signed Good luck.

Continued on page 4

If you feel strongly about this can you sign my petition to the Anglican Church here