At the very least, if you don't declare a criminal record and you are fund to have one you will probably be fired. Some professions (not sure about the NHS) are also protected, insofar as if you lie about things like your criminal record you may even be prosecuted.
Surely its safer and easier for them to run a check beforehand, rather than rely on you being honest? they'd only find out your lied by checking themselves anyway, presumably? or do they wait to hear from acquaintances, members of the community or ex-employees to spill the beans?.
Surely its safer and easier for them to run a check beforehand, rather than rely on you being honest? they'd only find out your lied by checking themselves anyway, presumably? or do they wait to hear from acquaintances, members of the community or ex-employees to spill the beans?.
CRB checks are expensive, if you have to do hundreds of 'em. They can also take several weeks to complete. While in an ideal world everyone working with vulnerable people would be subject to 24/7 surveillance by six independent agents who would file constant reports to a centralised office for cross-referencing with what the neighbours think, I think that some places save money by checking, say, every other one - but when you apply for the job, you agree to the check but don't know whether you will be so honoured.
CRB checks are expensive, if you have to do hundreds of 'em. They can also take several weeks to complete. While in an ideal world everyone working with vulnerable people would be subject to 24/7 surveillance by six independent agents who would file constant reports to a centralised office for cross-referencing with what the neighbours think, I think that some places save money by checking, say, every other one - but when you apply for the job, you agree to the check but don't know whether you will be so honoured.
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification...so you don't know if you'd be checked or not? it sounded more like we'll only check if you admit you already have a record, which seemed nonsensical to me somehow, like you have to grass yourself up(!).
Of course, what people tend to forget about the CRB is that it is actually designed (whether intentionally or not) to protect employers rather than vulnerable people. If you, as the employer of a person who later goes on to commit atrocities with, let's say, young children in their care, then as long as you can show that you undertook a CRB check and the results came back all clear (or with no relevant convictions), then there is less chance of you being prosecuted and/or sued.
NHS in Scotland require everyone working with vulnerable patients to have a Disclosure check prior to working with vulnerable patients (in mental health at any rate). It's the same thing as a CRB check. I had to do one as a student nurse, a bank nurse and a staff nurse!
The woman abusing children at a Plymouth Nursery would have never been subject to a CRB check and even if she had of done there would ahve been nothing on it.
Apologies if this has already been posted (maybe im losing track a little now im posting more in other topics here too), I wasn't aware of it before so I don't think it was but someone sent me this link to a blog in relation to JS and satanism - they thought whats mentioned perhaps sounds a bit more plausible (in general its a bit less of the robes and masks talk, although it mentions that original story seeming to back it up) though its obviously quite a disturbing/tough read all the same, I'd warn.
someone sent me this link to a blog in relation to JS and satanism - they thought whats mentioned perhaps sounds a bit more plausible (in general its a bit less of the robes and masks talk, although it mentions that original story seeming to back it up) though its obviously quite a disturbing/tough read all the same, I'd warn.
It's the same Express story, and an anonymous one with all the same hallmarks of Valerie 'Satanic Panic' Sinason's fingerprints on it - and once again seems to be a hotch-potch of (non-Satanic) allegations made public since the original Savile abuse story broke, given extra 'spice'.
It looks like a classic case of those pushing their SRA angle trying to piggyback on the high profile of the Savile story. Don't forget Sinason (& the Express owner..) are also part of a charity, which if they give credence to this kind of 'scoop' could benefit from credulous donors from certain quarters who would very much like these stories to be taken seriously.
It's part of the reason the 'Satanists' portrayed so closely resemble Catholic priests in their garb, and their 'rites' resemble perversions of catholic ceremonies, fundamentalists who flog these stories are frequently anti-Catholic christians who regard the Vatican (quite literally) as the seat of the anti-christ. You don't even need to cross the Atlantic to find those with such views, openly expressed. I say this as an atheist btw, but I've followed this stuff for years!
If you try to track the Savile/satanism stories on US sites and note the kind of site giving them prominence, you'll see what I mean.
It's the same Express story, and an anonymous one with all the same hallmarks of Valerie 'Satanic Panic' Sinason's fingerprints on it - and once again seems to be a hotch-potch of (non-Satanic) allegations made public since the original Savile abuse story broke, given extra 'spice'.
It looks like a classic case of those pushing their SRA angle trying to piggyback on the high profile of the Savile story. Don't forget Sinason (& the Express owner..) are also part of a charity, which if they give credence to this kind of 'scoop' could benefit from credulous donors from certain quarters who would very much like these stories to be taken seriously.
It's part of the reason the 'Satanists' portrayed so closely resemble Catholic priests in their garb, and their 'rites' resemble perversions of catholic ceremonies, fundamentalists who flog these stories are frequently anti-Catholic christians who regard the Vatican (quite literally) as the seat of the anti-christ. You don't even need to cross the Atlantic to find those with such views, openly expressed. I say this as an atheist btw, but I've followed this stuff for years!
If you try to track the Savile/satanism stories on US sites and note the kind of site giving them prominence, you'll see what I mean.
.
Actually, she has a blog for some years now and sha has always claimed she was a victim of ritual abuses . She wrote Savile abused her in rituals way before the first Express story appeared. She has read Sinason apparently, but she lives in Scotland. In her blog (the link was posted here) she explains what Satanism is. There are many diferente types. The one which abused her in rituals, she explains, it seems they don't believe in the devil.
I didn't believe in ritual abuse too, until I watched the documentary French Ritual Abuse at YT. There was no Christian preaching and that.stuff. It was very revealing and scary. The "satanic" thing is more of an excuse for sadistic child abusers.
I'm not sure if I believe in her or all that she writes. She herself says her memory is confusing. She says she met some celebrities and politicians in some sessions.But it is an interesting, but scary reading
It's the same Express story, and an anonymous one with all the same hallmarks of Valerie 'Satanic Panic' Sinason's fingerprints on it - and once again seems to be a hotch-potch of (non-Satanic) allegations made public since the original Savile abuse story broke, given extra 'spice'.
It looks like a classic case of those pushing their SRA angle trying to piggyback on the high profile of the Savile story. Don't forget Sinason (& the Express owner..) are also part of a charity, which if they give credence to this kind of 'scoop' could benefit from credulous donors from certain quarters who would very much like these stories to be taken seriously.
It's part of the reason the 'Satanists' portrayed so closely resemble Catholic priests in their garb, and their 'rites' resemble perversions of catholic ceremonies, fundamentalists who flog these stories are frequently anti-Catholic christians who regard the Vatican (quite literally) as the seat of the anti-christ. You don't even need to cross the Atlantic to find those with such views, openly expressed. I say this as an atheist btw, but I've followed this stuff for years!
If you try to track the Savile/satanism stories on US sites and note the kind of site giving them prominence, you'll see what I mean.
I hadn't read that blog/story until the other day. It didn't seem so religious based, or not to me anyway.
I'm not surprised there isn't much mention of satanism in the mainstream media as its quite extreme and would perhaps alienate people. Whether its entirely propaganda based, I don't know.
Actually, she has a blog for some years now and sha has always claimed she was a victim of ritual abuses . She wrote Savile abused her in rituals way before the first Express story appeared. She has read Sinason apparently, but she lives in Scotland. In her blog (the link was posted here) she explains what Satanism is. There are many diferente types. The one which abused her in rituals, she explains, it seems they don't believe in the devil.
I didn't believe in ritual abuse too, until I watched the documentary French Ritual Abuse at YT. There was no Christian preaching and that.stuff. It was very revealing and scary. The "satanic" thing is more of an excuse for sadistic child abusers.
I'm not sure if I believe in her or all that she writes. She herself says her memory is confusing. She says she met some celebrities and politicians in some sessions.But it is an interesting, but scary reading
I don't know if I could watch something like that
I'm not surprised that memories could be confusing or scattered, it'll be a coping mechanism, to blot certain things out, try to forget the worst of what happened so you don't have to confront it so much, surely? mind you, if drugs were involved then that would just confuse things further if you weren't entirely lucid while things may have gone on.
Any connection to Sinason raises suspicions, if somebody takes Sinason seriously despite the farce of the 80-90s, is dancing on the edge, and selectively ignoring her credibility deficit.
.
The one which abused her in rituals, she explains, it seems they don't believe in the devil.
I didn't believe in ritual abuse too, until I watched the documentary French Ritual Abuse at YT. There was no Christian preaching and that.stuff. It was very revealing and scary. The "satanic" thing is more of an excuse for sadistic child abusers.
And that's not the 'satanism' ritual abuse Sinason peddles as fact, and which the rash of Savile Satan stories supposedly involve. That's child abuse, for abuse' sake - everything else is misdirection. Similar to that are reports of children being abused by 'animals', which further investigation allegedly determined had 'zippers' in their fur - ie costumes literally described by young minds.
With the Savile claims, there are all the usual hollywood trappings, the pseudo-priestly attendants and the only abuser is the chief of proceedings - making it clear that this is not 'simply' paedophilia we are supposed to read into it.
.
I'm not sure if I believe in her or all that she writes. She herself says her memory is confusing. She says she met some celebrities and politicians in some sessions.But it is an interesting, but scary reading
But the only one named is the dead one in the frame already.
Look at Sinason's claims in the earlier story:
Dr Sinason told the Sunday Express she first spoke to the victim in 1992. “She had been a patient at Stoke Mandeville in 1975 when Savile was a regular visitor.
“She recalled being led into a room (...) Several adults were there, including Jimmy Savile who, like the others, was wearing a robe and a mask.
Then she goes on to describe abuse -solely by Savile.
But she never saw fit to air this while Savile was alive? In 1992? It can't be for patient confidentiality sake - she was stoking the fires with countless other unsubstantiated & discredited claims during that time and since, but only saw fit to publish this one now, regurgitating the same specifics - the focus is not on sexual abuse but 'satanism'.
I
I'm not surprised there isn't much mention of satanism in the mainstream media as its quite extreme and would perhaps alienate people. Whether its entirely propaganda based, I don't know.
There is nothing to report - at least nothing that would correlate with these lurid imaginings.
There are self-described satanists, they don't engage in these antics. There are fantasists and psychotics who decide their motivations are satanic. There are abusers who may cloak their activities by putting on a disguise to discredit any victim accounts.
But this OTT candles and robes grand ceremony with inverted crosses (Satanists are never blaspheming Judaism or Islam, you'll note) and hordes of acolytes witnessing proceedings is a myth, propogated by and pandering to a fundamentalist christian base.
Any connection to Sinason raises suspicions, if somebody takes Sinason seriously despite the farce of the 80-90s, is dancing on the edge, and selectively ignoring her credibility deficit.
Maybe because Sinason and other therapists speak for them, while others ignore what they went through, dismissing them as attention seeking and delusional people. I'm not saying I believe in all she says or that I believe Savile abused her (altough I believe she was sexually abused). Only saying why someone would who went through similar abuse would read/listen to Sinason.
And that's not the 'satanism' ritual abuse Sinason peddles as fact, and which the rash of Savile Satan stories supposedly involve. That's child abuse, for abuse' sake - everything else is misdirection.
Did you watch the documentary? The child and teens talked of rituals with robes and masks. Animal sacrifice. Torture. Child sacrifice. Very similar to the blog's story. The narrator of the documentary decribe it as "Satanic Rituals". Table with candles, the young teen saying she was raped on that table. She described a child being murdered in that same "ritual". Decades ago people described those type of abuse as "Satanic Ritual Abuse", but nowadays is just "Ritual Abuse" because of the hysteria that happened in US in the 80's and early 90's
With the Savile claims, there are all the usual hollywood trappings, the pseudo-priestly attendants and the only abuser is the chief of proceedings - making it clear that this is not 'simply' paedophilia we are supposed to read into it.
Because that's was the newspaper take on it. It was a tabloid, of course they were going to concentrate on "Satanism!"etc. The documentary's take was on paedophilia and the network of abusers, altough they described the ritualistic element of it. I read somewhere the paedophiles who pratice those rituals don't really take seriously the whole "Ave Satanas" mumbojumbo seriously. The ritual is for sadism and to confuse the children.
But the only one named is the dead one in the frame already.
Look at Sinason's claims in the earlier story:
In her twitter she named the living ones.
But she never saw fit to air this while Savile was alive? In 1992? It can't be for patient confidentiality sake - she was stoking the fires with countless other unsubstantiated & discredited claims during that time and since, but only saw fit to publish this one now, regurgitating the same specifics - the focus is not on sexual abuse but 'satanism'.
Well, she said she told the social services workers about what Savile had done to her before he died. I don't know if it is true, though.
Her journal is more of her personal thoughts and daily living, not about her past, which she doesn't want to remember. She talked more of Savile when she contacted the police to talk to Yewtree investigation.
There are self-described satanists, they don't engage in these antics. There are fantasists and psychotics who decide their motivations are satanic. There are abusers who may cloak their activities by putting on a disguise to discredit any victim accounts.
It may be. But it may exists more than one type of Satanism than Anton LaVey teachings of individualism.
I'm not surprised that memories could be confusing or scattered, it'll be a coping mechanism, to blot certain things out, try to forget the worst of what happened so you don't have to confront it so much, surely? mind you, if drugs were involved then that would just confuse things further if you weren't entirely lucid while things may have gone on.
It is very difficult to watch, it is not something I suggest. Yep, the memory could be more of a coping mechanism. Maybe it is better not to remeber some things.
The satanic thing is, in the UK, bollocks. I have met Crowlwyans, laVeyans, classical fallen catholic Wheatlwy types. All abhor child abuse. I am an atheist and find all ritual funny but nationwide organised abuse is nonsense. Not to say individuals dress up and do unspeakable things. They could dress as firemen for all the difference it makes.
The satanic thing is, in the UK, bollocks. I have met Crowlwyans, laVeyans, classical fallen catholic Wheatlwy types. All abhor child abuse. I am an atheist and find all ritual funny but nationwide organised abuse is nonsense. Not to say individuals dress up and do unspeakable things. They could dress as firemen for all the difference it makes.
I'm atheist as well and I know these religions and philosophies are against child abused. I'm not talking as a fundamentalist Christian here. This documentary was a serious investigation. The "cult" a young women described in that documentary has nothing to do with these philosophies or religions. There may be other forms "satanism" besides the ones you decribed. There are child abusers who film those abuses and does terrible, terrible things with children. One girl, obviously emotionally scarred about what happened to her and what she witnessed, described a boy's foot being sawed from his body in, as the narrator described, a "satanic ritual". The child died from the wound.
How are you so sure this stuff doesn't exist in England? Just because you met some people who follow a philosophy which is not even connected to ritual abuse, it doesn't mean this type of abuse doesn't exist. Watching the documentary I could say this network could take the whole Europe. You may laugh about this type of abuse and not believe people does that to children. You may find ridiculous a young woman describing how her father made her torture a little girl by making her (a child herself) cut the little girl clitoris off. She said she thiinks it was her "initiation" in the cult. Or you may laugh and find it fiction a ritual (yes, with robes, candles, chanting, altar) where her father made her brother kill a young boy. Even if these are delusions of disturbed youngesters (I don't think it is), I don't find it funny at all.
Maybe because Sinason and other therapists speak for them, while others ignore what they went through, dismissing them as attention seeking and delusional people. I'm not saying I believe in all she says or that I believe Savile abused her (altough I believe she was sexually abused). Only saying why someone would who went through similar abuse would read/listen to Sinason.
She quotes Sinason on her blog, an indication of familiarity with her work from the 90s that undoubtedly colours her thinking, and you don't have to read too much to figure out much of it is not merely implausible, but impossible - for example, involvement with a young Julian Assange in satanic abuse, and Jimmy Savile having had satanic birthday parties that end in child sacrifice.
MK Ultra thrown in too. It's a rehash of many, many previous stories from the Sinason catalogue. It's peppered throughout with the writer's own disclaimers and doubts of veracity.
The Savile pieces read like a distillation of all the reports and links that have been made here - with satanism added.
I don't doubt she's troubled and/or scarred - but nobody but Sinason & the Evangelical witch hunters would give any of that the time of day.
It should be noticed that she also expresses anger that having contacted operation yewtree, they "didn't want to talk to someone who had been abused (a lot) by him". You can imagine why, if the same narrative was given.
It would be catastrophic for the credibility of the victims who had come forward already, if they pursued that rabbit once more.
Did you watch the documentary? The child and teens talked of rituals with robes and masks. Animal sacrifice. Torture. Child sacrifice.
And cannbalism (a discredited Sinason claim too). And Snuff movies. You'd think with all the arrests there have been over the years, and seizure of countless caches of paedophile's media, they'd have found one of these - yet no snuff movie has ever been seized. Even 'adult' snuff movies were an urban myth. For the most part, that documentary discusses 'straightforward' child abuse networks we all know exist - the more sensational claims are as suspect as Sinason's, with all the same markers - and it's very difficult to find any credits for the film makers (I tried) to discern any bias or motive behind their backing - even the film's final interview concedes there is no evidence for these claims.
Don't forget there were a few high profle documentaries even in the UK (never mind a slew of them in the US) that turned out not only to be bogus (and ruinous to the accused) but also to have had the unseen hand of fundamentalist christians behind them, for example a C4 Dispatches for one:
Because that's was the newspaper take on it. It was a tabloid, of course they were going to concentrate on "Satanism!"etc. The documentary's take was on paedophilia and the network of abusers, altough they described the ritualistic element of it. I read somewhere the paedophiles who pratice those rituals don't really take seriously the whole "Ave Satanas" mumbojumbo seriously. The ritual is for sadism and to confuse the children.
Abusers putting on a front to confuse & discredit victims is not in doubt, all bets are off there.
However, the thrust of the Express stories (source: Sinason) is the satanism angle. The entire setup, requiring props and many witnesses, serves only to provide the sexual act for one person. It's using Savile's current notoriety to promote the same old satanic panic, from the same old source. With a specifically christian vision of satanism via hollywood (& Wheatley as interpreted by Hammer).
The Express's owner is connected to Sinason. That must help some uncritical coverage....
Maybe bring a few donations from certain quarters to sponsor the 'good work' too.
Would they tally with the slew of names that have been bandied about since Yewtree began, perchance? Twitter is awash with people dishing out names, maliciously, mistakenly or simply misguidedly unfortunately.
Well, she said she told the social services workers about what Savile had done to her before he died. I don't know if it is true, though.
Maybe she did - but if so it's very unlikely in the wake of the 1994 Jean La Fontaine report (& subsequent Government sponsored goose chases) that any higher ups would have given the claims any serious attention.
I see in the blog she only mentions having 'emailed yewtree' with these allegations in December last.
Her journal is more of her personal thoughts and daily living, not about her past, which she doesn't want to remember. She talked more of Savile when she contacted the police to talk to Yewtree investigation.
She certainly recalls a lot of specifics if it's something she doesn't want to remember. It reminded me of people who claim past lives - they were always somebody more interesting. Peppered with caveats though. I don't doubt she's troubled.
It may be. But it may exists more than one type of Satanism than Anton LaVey teachings of individualism.
Just not this particular baby-eating, accessorising, snuff-making. celebrity attended yet somehow never caught variety. It's the invention of and mirror to christian fundamentalists. Some even suggest, not entirely implausibly, that it's their own, only acceptable form of pornography.
Nobody is arguing that organised child abuse isn't taking place, or that it's not sometimes 'disguised' to cover tracks. But this vision of 'Satanism' is a myth - and it's one perpetrated not to expose child abuse but to further the aims of wack job religionists who are less concerned about the abuse than they are about godlessness.
She quotes Sinason on her blog, an indication of familiarity with her work from the 90s that undoubtedly colours her thinking, and you don't have to read too much to figure out much of it is not merely implausible, but impossible - for example, involvement with a young Julian Assange in satanic abuse, and Jimmy Savile having had satanic birthday parties that end in child sacrifice.
MK Ultra thrown in too. It's a rehash of many, many previous stories from the Sinason catalogue. It's peppered throughout with the writer's own disclaimers and doubts of veracity.
The Savile pieces read like a distillation of all the reports and links that have been made here - with satanism added.
I don't doubt she's troubled and/or scarred - but nobody but Sinason & the Evangelical witch hunters would give any of that the time of day.
It should be noticed that she also expresses anger that having contacted operation yewtree, they "didn't want to talk to someone who had been abused (a lot) by him". You can imagine why, if the same narrative was given.
It would be catastrophic for the credibility of the victims who had come forward already, if they pursued that rabbit once more.
And cannbalism (a discredited Sinason claim too). And Snuff movies. You'd think with all the arrests there have been over the years, and seizure of countless caches of paedophile's media - no snuff movie has ever been seized. Even 'adult' snuff movies were an urban myth. For the most part, that documentary discusses 'straightforward' child abuse networks we all know exist - the more sensational claims are as suspect as Sinason's, with all the same markers - and it's very difficult to find any credits for the film makers (I tried) to discern any bias or motive behind their backing - even the film's final interview concedes there is no evidence for these claims.
Don't forget there were a few high profle documentaries even in the UK (never mind a slew of them in the US) that turned out not only to be bogus (and ruinous to the accused) but also to have had the unseen hand of fundamentalist christians behind them, for example a C4 Dispatches for one:
Abusers putting on a front to confuse & discredit victims is not in doubt, all bets are off there.
However, the thrust of the Express stories (source: Sinason) is the satanism angle. The entire setup, requiring props and many witnesses, serves only to provide the sexual act for one person. It's using Savile's current notoriety to promote the same old satanic panic, from the same old source. With a specifically christian vision of satanism via hollywood (& Wheatley as interpreted by Hammer).
The Express's owner is connected to Sinason. That must help some uncritical coverage....
Maybe bring a few donations from certain quarters to sponsor the 'good work' too.
Would they tally with the slew of names that have been bandied about since Yewtree began, perchance? Twitter is awash with people dishing out names, maliciously, mistakenly or simply misguidedly unfortunately.
I see in the blog she only mentions having 'emailed yewtree' with these allegations in December last.
She certainly recalls a lot of specifics if it's something she doesn't want to remember. It reminded me of people who claim past lives - they were always somebody more interesting. Peppered with caveats though. I don't doubt she's troubled.
Just not this particular baby-eating, accessorising, snuff-making. celebrity attended yet somehow never caught variety. It's the invention of and mirror to christian fundamentalists. Some even suggest, not entirely implausibly, that it's their own, only acceptable form of pornography.
Comments
Surely its safer and easier for them to run a check beforehand, rather than rely on you being honest? they'd only find out your lied by checking themselves anyway, presumably? or do they wait to hear from acquaintances, members of the community or ex-employees to spill the beans?.
CRB checks are expensive, if you have to do hundreds of 'em. They can also take several weeks to complete. While in an ideal world everyone working with vulnerable people would be subject to 24/7 surveillance by six independent agents who would file constant reports to a centralised office for cross-referencing with what the neighbours think, I think that some places save money by checking, say, every other one - but when you apply for the job, you agree to the check but don't know whether you will be so honoured.
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification...so you don't know if you'd be checked or not? it sounded more like we'll only check if you admit you already have a record, which seemed nonsensical to me somehow, like you have to grass yourself up(!).
It's a funny old world.
I did notice that myself. Good to be informed and to be able to make up our own minds.
See:- http://renegadesblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/the-devil-inside/
http://twitpic.com/bzpnsn
It's the same Express story, and an anonymous one with all the same hallmarks of Valerie 'Satanic Panic' Sinason's fingerprints on it - and once again seems to be a hotch-potch of (non-Satanic) allegations made public since the original Savile abuse story broke, given extra 'spice'.
It looks like a classic case of those pushing their SRA angle trying to piggyback on the high profile of the Savile story. Don't forget Sinason (& the Express owner..) are also part of a charity, which if they give credence to this kind of 'scoop' could benefit from credulous donors from certain quarters who would very much like these stories to be taken seriously.
It's part of the reason the 'Satanists' portrayed so closely resemble Catholic priests in their garb, and their 'rites' resemble perversions of catholic ceremonies, fundamentalists who flog these stories are frequently anti-Catholic christians who regard the Vatican (quite literally) as the seat of the anti-christ. You don't even need to cross the Atlantic to find those with such views, openly expressed. I say this as an atheist btw, but I've followed this stuff for years!
If you try to track the Savile/satanism stories on US sites and note the kind of site giving them prominence, you'll see what I mean.
And there are many of them.
I watched the CH4's "Britain's Hidden Child Abuse" last night. Yet another 'authority' to add to the list.
I don't understand why children are not more protected and abusers are, particularly if they are in prominent positions.
Actually, she has a blog for some years now and sha has always claimed she was a victim of ritual abuses . She wrote Savile abused her in rituals way before the first Express story appeared. She has read Sinason apparently, but she lives in Scotland. In her blog (the link was posted here) she explains what Satanism is. There are many diferente types. The one which abused her in rituals, she explains, it seems they don't believe in the devil.
I didn't believe in ritual abuse too, until I watched the documentary French Ritual Abuse at YT. There was no Christian preaching and that.stuff. It was very revealing and scary. The "satanic" thing is more of an excuse for sadistic child abusers.
I'm not sure if I believe in her or all that she writes. She herself says her memory is confusing. She says she met some celebrities and politicians in some sessions.But it is an interesting, but scary reading
I hadn't read that blog/story until the other day. It didn't seem so religious based, or not to me anyway.
I'm not surprised there isn't much mention of satanism in the mainstream media as its quite extreme and would perhaps alienate people. Whether its entirely propaganda based, I don't know.
I don't know if I could watch something like that
I'm not surprised that memories could be confusing or scattered, it'll be a coping mechanism, to blot certain things out, try to forget the worst of what happened so you don't have to confront it so much, surely? mind you, if drugs were involved then that would just confuse things further if you weren't entirely lucid while things may have gone on.
Any connection to Sinason raises suspicions, if somebody takes Sinason seriously despite the farce of the 80-90s, is dancing on the edge, and selectively ignoring her credibility deficit.
And that's not the 'satanism' ritual abuse Sinason peddles as fact, and which the rash of Savile Satan stories supposedly involve. That's child abuse, for abuse' sake - everything else is misdirection. Similar to that are reports of children being abused by 'animals', which further investigation allegedly determined had 'zippers' in their fur - ie costumes literally described by young minds.
With the Savile claims, there are all the usual hollywood trappings, the pseudo-priestly attendants and the only abuser is the chief of proceedings - making it clear that this is not 'simply' paedophilia we are supposed to read into it.
But the only one named is the dead one in the frame already.
Look at Sinason's claims in the earlier story:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370439/Jimmy-Savile-was-part-of-satanic-ring
Then she goes on to describe abuse -solely by Savile.
But she never saw fit to air this while Savile was alive? In 1992? It can't be for patient confidentiality sake - she was stoking the fires with countless other unsubstantiated & discredited claims during that time and since, but only saw fit to publish this one now, regurgitating the same specifics - the focus is not on sexual abuse but 'satanism'.
There is nothing to report - at least nothing that would correlate with these lurid imaginings.
There are self-described satanists, they don't engage in these antics. There are fantasists and psychotics who decide their motivations are satanic. There are abusers who may cloak their activities by putting on a disguise to discredit any victim accounts.
But this OTT candles and robes grand ceremony with inverted crosses (Satanists are never blaspheming Judaism or Islam, you'll note) and hordes of acolytes witnessing proceedings is a myth, propogated by and pandering to a fundamentalist christian base.
http://msjenniferjames.blog.co.uk/2013/01/31/dpp-wanted-paedo-charges-lowered-to-protect-diplomat-transcription-15486714/
Maybe because Sinason and other therapists speak for them, while others ignore what they went through, dismissing them as attention seeking and delusional people. I'm not saying I believe in all she says or that I believe Savile abused her (altough I believe she was sexually abused). Only saying why someone would who went through similar abuse would read/listen to Sinason.
Did you watch the documentary? The child and teens talked of rituals with robes and masks. Animal sacrifice. Torture. Child sacrifice. Very similar to the blog's story. The narrator of the documentary decribe it as "Satanic Rituals". Table with candles, the young teen saying she was raped on that table. She described a child being murdered in that same "ritual". Decades ago people described those type of abuse as "Satanic Ritual Abuse", but nowadays is just "Ritual Abuse" because of the hysteria that happened in US in the 80's and early 90's
Because that's was the newspaper take on it. It was a tabloid, of course they were going to concentrate on "Satanism!"etc. The documentary's take was on paedophilia and the network of abusers, altough they described the ritualistic element of it. I read somewhere the paedophiles who pratice those rituals don't really take seriously the whole "Ave Satanas" mumbojumbo seriously. The ritual is for sadism and to confuse the children.
In her twitter she named the living ones.
Well, she said she told the social services workers about what Savile had done to her before he died. I don't know if it is true, though.
Her journal is more of her personal thoughts and daily living, not about her past, which she doesn't want to remember. She talked more of Savile when she contacted the police to talk to Yewtree investigation.
It may be. But it may exists more than one type of Satanism than Anton LaVey teachings of individualism.
It is very difficult to watch, it is not something I suggest. Yep, the memory could be more of a coping mechanism. Maybe it is better not to remeber some things.
I'm atheist as well and I know these religions and philosophies are against child abused. I'm not talking as a fundamentalist Christian here. This documentary was a serious investigation. The "cult" a young women described in that documentary has nothing to do with these philosophies or religions. There may be other forms "satanism" besides the ones you decribed. There are child abusers who film those abuses and does terrible, terrible things with children. One girl, obviously emotionally scarred about what happened to her and what she witnessed, described a boy's foot being sawed from his body in, as the narrator described, a "satanic ritual". The child died from the wound.
How are you so sure this stuff doesn't exist in England? Just because you met some people who follow a philosophy which is not even connected to ritual abuse, it doesn't mean this type of abuse doesn't exist. Watching the documentary I could say this network could take the whole Europe. You may laugh about this type of abuse and not believe people does that to children. You may find ridiculous a young woman describing how her father made her torture a little girl by making her (a child herself) cut the little girl clitoris off. She said she thiinks it was her "initiation" in the cult. Or you may laugh and find it fiction a ritual (yes, with robes, candles, chanting, altar) where her father made her brother kill a young boy. Even if these are delusions of disturbed youngesters (I don't think it is), I don't find it funny at all.
She quotes Sinason on her blog, an indication of familiarity with her work from the 90s that undoubtedly colours her thinking, and you don't have to read too much to figure out much of it is not merely implausible, but impossible - for example, involvement with a young Julian Assange in satanic abuse, and Jimmy Savile having had satanic birthday parties that end in child sacrifice.
MK Ultra thrown in too. It's a rehash of many, many previous stories from the Sinason catalogue. It's peppered throughout with the writer's own disclaimers and doubts of veracity.
The Savile pieces read like a distillation of all the reports and links that have been made here - with satanism added.
I don't doubt she's troubled and/or scarred - but nobody but Sinason & the Evangelical witch hunters would give any of that the time of day.
It should be noticed that she also expresses anger that having contacted operation yewtree, they "didn't want to talk to someone who had been abused (a lot) by him". You can imagine why, if the same narrative was given.
It would be catastrophic for the credibility of the victims who had come forward already, if they pursued that rabbit once more.
And cannbalism (a discredited Sinason claim too). And Snuff movies. You'd think with all the arrests there have been over the years, and seizure of countless caches of paedophile's media, they'd have found one of these - yet no snuff movie has ever been seized. Even 'adult' snuff movies were an urban myth. For the most part, that documentary discusses 'straightforward' child abuse networks we all know exist - the more sensational claims are as suspect as Sinason's, with all the same markers - and it's very difficult to find any credits for the film makers (I tried) to discern any bias or motive behind their backing - even the film's final interview concedes there is no evidence for these claims.
Don't forget there were a few high profle documentaries even in the UK (never mind a slew of them in the US) that turned out not only to be bogus (and ruinous to the accused) but also to have had the unseen hand of fundamentalist christians behind them, for example a C4 Dispatches for one:
www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/devilvid.htm
www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/bcamp.htm
Abusers putting on a front to confuse & discredit victims is not in doubt, all bets are off there.
However, the thrust of the Express stories (source: Sinason) is the satanism angle. The entire setup, requiring props and many witnesses, serves only to provide the sexual act for one person. It's using Savile's current notoriety to promote the same old satanic panic, from the same old source. With a specifically christian vision of satanism via hollywood (& Wheatley as interpreted by Hammer).
The Express's owner is connected to Sinason. That must help some uncritical coverage....
Maybe bring a few donations from certain quarters to sponsor the 'good work' too.
Would they tally with the slew of names that have been bandied about since Yewtree began, perchance? Twitter is awash with people dishing out names, maliciously, mistakenly or simply misguidedly unfortunately.
Maybe she did - but if so it's very unlikely in the wake of the 1994 Jean La Fontaine report (& subsequent Government sponsored goose chases) that any higher ups would have given the claims any serious attention.
I see in the blog she only mentions having 'emailed yewtree' with these allegations in December last.
She certainly recalls a lot of specifics if it's something she doesn't want to remember. It reminded me of people who claim past lives - they were always somebody more interesting. Peppered with caveats though. I don't doubt she's troubled.
Just not this particular baby-eating, accessorising, snuff-making. celebrity attended yet somehow never caught variety. It's the invention of and mirror to christian fundamentalists. Some even suggest, not entirely implausibly, that it's their own, only acceptable form of pornography.
Nobody is arguing that organised child abuse isn't taking place, or that it's not sometimes 'disguised' to cover tracks. But this vision of 'Satanism' is a myth - and it's one perpetrated not to expose child abuse but to further the aims of wack job religionists who are less concerned about the abuse than they are about godlessness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse#Skepticism.2C_rejection_and_contemporary_existence
http://www.theholliegreigcoverup.net/the-valerie-sinason,-eva-harding,---tavistiock-connection.html
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/258/satan_in_suburbia.html
http://barthsnotes.com/2011/11/23/bogus-satanic-ritual-abuse-accusation-resulted-in-another-tragedy/
All what you said above, I agree.
Off to bed as I have dentist appt in the morning and it's costing a fortune. Will probs come back to this thread Saturday.:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/law-report-excessive-libel-damages-cut-rantzen-v-mirror-group-newspapers-and-others-court-of-appeal-lord-justice-neill-lord-justice-staughton-and-lord-justice-roch-1452545.html
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3470982