David's little trantrum reminds me of a little child who won't eat his
veges which are good for him, but turns his head from side to side,
trying to evade the food, and if the mother that has the childs good
at heart does actually get some into the mouth the protesting child
spits it out.
Sanity and common sense is not exhibited while the child is throwing a
tantrum and spitting out what is good for it.
Eventually the child will grow up and face reality and truth, but will
David?

On 14 Feb 2003 07:13:15 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT
DONT BE ARROGANT
READ the CLAIMS I MAKE,
and STATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE LIES
Discuss without chicanery, the points I have made, don't obfuscate

I wrote
When someone throws a childish tantrum and destroys a list of facts it
doesn't like to read by snipping, and then snipes that because of
anonymity a discussion has not been entered into, I see no reason to
alter my comments either before or after the cake has been taken.
A desire to have a full factual discussion means that facts have to be
fully presented, examined and considered.
Brian Field often used to say "a text without a context is a pretext."
The childrens and their parents claims, need to be examined in its
context.
 Where did they come from, what was their origin, what other evidence
needs to be considered etc.

I don't champion Ellis. I have never met, written, or spoken to him.
What my concern is that the injustice of our justice system continues,
from one false accusation to another.
Until we have the corrupt Rob Pope procrastination and coverups
admitted and addressed, the same abuse of the innocent goes on.
We have Judge Eric Andersons wimping away, but no ordering the lying
Sergeant Tony Greigs' and the lying paid professional Cathy Crawfords'
from his court. A wimper will not stop the rot of false accusations
being taken to court without the evidence being PROPERLY examined
before the arrests.
The abuse by the police and their 'specialist witnesses' on innocent
people will continue. The professional abuses of Ward 24, Glenelg
Health Camp, Banks Avenue, Civic Creche Case continue again and again.
When prosecutors such as Sergeant Parkes haven't even read a third of
the evidence they are using to gain a conviction, when the police
refuse to get the evidence they are told, when Judges don't allow the
accused to speak in their own defense and tell the truth of what has
been going on - WE HAVE CORRUPT PROSECUTIONS - and they will be
allowed to continue by those whose political motives and actions are
not motivated with integrity, accountability or honesty.

I do not Champion Ellis as you falsely claim, my fight is against the
corruption and lies that he also faced.
Please understand this very thoroughly if you get nothing else from
this -
I DO NOT CHAMPION PETER ELLIS.
I DO FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE
I DO FIGHT AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY JUSTICE TO THOSE INJUSTICED
I DO STAND AGAINST LYING POLICE AND THEIR LYING PROFESSIONALS.
I DO STAND AGAINST THE CORRUPT ROB POPE COVERUPS
I DO STAND AGAINST THE PHIL GOFFS WITH THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS and
ARROGANCE THAT WONT ALLOW THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE TO BE EXPOSED.

I reinsert your snip and snipe

I re insert  and assert what I and maybe others regard as facts, that
need to be considered and discussed.
I could be wrong on some of the facts but childish acts by people who
can't accept, and wont accept, the possibility they may be wrong and
have nothing more to learn, is not desirable in anyone

Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
etc

I wrote
Has anyone seen the complete list of all the accusations that were
generated against Peter and the other co-accused women?
Interesting to see the development, the enlarging, the source and the
groups that they evolved from and then the cross contamination.
Where did the children get these100’s of other wacky and outrageous
claims?
The origin was from a book imported from America ‘Ritual Child Abuse -
discovery, diagnosis and treatment.’
This book didn’t expose Ritual Abuse, it started it!
The sally to attack was then started and the wacky and outrageous
claims were released along with a large dose of generated hysteria to
ensure they had the desired result.
Symptoms of 'Ritual Child Abuse' were claims of:
locked in a cage,
claiming that their parents, pets or  younger siblings would be killed
if they told anyone of the abuse.
buried in the ground in coffins
held underwater,
threatened with guns or knives
injected with needles, bled and drugged
photographed during abuse
tied upside down etc
Perpetrators wearing black robes, masks
participated in mock marriage
defecated and urinated upon
observed animals killed
observed torture and molestation of other children
saw children and babies killed
had blood poured on their heads
taken to churches, other day care settings, peoples’ homes, and
graveyards for the ritual abuse

Why did none of these claims occur before this book was read in
Christchurch before the sally sullied forth?
Why wasn’t a proper reality check on the insisters of abuse made very
early in the investigations?
Why wasn’t a sane and common sense investigation into the group called
START made?
Why had Peter and the women been with these children for 3 years at
least before the eruption of these claims, and not one claim had been
made before this book was put into practice?
Why had not one parent among the thousands over this time seen any of
the urination and defecation that is supposed to have occurred?
Why were the cages never seen by the adults?
Why were the claims from certain parents children the same, and yet
not from the children whose parents wern’t in the little house group?
Why was the cross contamination caused by Detective Colin Eade?
Why were the children interviewed so often,
        Karen Zelas who had been involved with the corrupt Ward 24
abuse, knew that this was one of the errors they made in that family
destroying saga?
Why did the allegations grow more bizarre each time the same children
were interviewed?
Why was the jury deprived of all the claims of the children being
given to them?
Did censorship of evidence compromise the truth?
etc.

The first allegation came from a boy who told his mother he didn’t
like Peter’s black penis, reality check needed?
The first child interview allegation was by a child WHO had not ever
attended the creche? in the few moments she had waited while her
mother picked up her little brother the indecent touching was supposed
to happen; why wasn’t a reality check then about contamination and
suggestion of claims made?
That children recanted, the lack of corroboration, the error of
multiple interviews by others, including Karen Zelas who had already
been told this was wrong and therefore could hide the truth, raises
huge doubts on reliability of children and especially the reliability
and the political agenda of these particular ‘professional’ child
interviewers.
Believe the child??????????????????????????????????????
Where was the corroboration to support the claims, even the City
Council ladder was missing, or did it never exist like all the other
claims the children made?
The missing City Council ladder that Peter Ellis placed at the top of
two tall buildings so far up in the clouds that people could never see
it, but so as the children could go from one building to another off
to the tunnels and then back to the cages hanging from the ceilings
that nobody else ever saw?.
Sex sex sex and more sex, but not by Peter or the children, no that
was between the professionals and hysterical generating accusers.
Judge Eric Anderson have a good long think, reflect, stand up and be a
man and start putting it right.
How many Zelous Eades, Greigs, Crawfords etc, have to appear before
you, before you are moved to do something about it. Your court or the
peoples court, a court where the professional liars and deceivers are
protected and allowed back again for another stream of deceit or a
court which will put an end to their perverting the course of justice
and actually the accused to have a say in his own defense - it would
be good if you chose the latter next time.
Better to use common sense to examine the claims and the facts, rather ...

read more »

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:09:31 GMT, "jonnie"

Correct;
Arthur Alan Thomas - read Beyond Reasonable Doubt, by David A Yallop,
The Thomas Case  ABC of Injustice by Jim Sprott and Pat Booth, and the
Royal Commission
Similarities, A policeman who planted evidence to get a conviction.
Arthur Alan Thomas eventually cleared by Rob Muldoon who had the balls
to correct an injustice. Unfortunately the corrupt cop was never
charged with anything let alone perverting the course of Justice.
THEY LOOK AFTER THEIR OWN

Christchurch Civic Creche - read Lynley Hoods Book, A City Possessed
Similarities:
A policeman who inseminated his seed as well as cross contaminating
the evidence and failed to actually get the truth.
Once again the Police have no problem with one of their own
dysfunctioning members, even though his member was apparently
functioning very well according to two of the accusing mothers and
apparently a paid professional also decided to test the testimony of
the two mothers, but for the falsely accused, it would have been
better for the paid professional to have tested their court evidence
rather than their bed testimony.
The Major dissimilarity is that Phil Goff hasn't got the balls to
correct an injustice, let alone admit that their was one.
The Judges and our justice system is in the same unique eunuch
experience.

Like anybody with common sense, joe bloggs <somewhere.dot.net>  in
message <news:v02n4v08k18bc5pvugh9om6k0ftlp43jdo@4ax.com> is
astonished by the absurd, obnoxious, untruthful hounding of Peter
Ellis, by one David Bisman, who had written....

Mr Bloggs writes in reply:

And who could disagree with that?  But then Mr Bloggs goes on...

I can see no evidence in his posts that this fellow Bisman has either
a wide knowledge or a University education.  Certainly he has not
learned to construct a cogent or credible argument, and he failed to
turn up to his ethics classes.  (That is, assuming any Ellis lynch-mob
fanatic has even heard of the concept.)

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:09:31 GMT, "jonnie"

Correct;
Arthur Alan Thomas - read Beyond Reasonable Doubt, by David A Yallop,
The Thomas Case  ABC of Injustice by Jim Sprott and Pat Booth, and the
Royal Commission
Similarities, A policeman who planted evidence to get a conviction.
Arthur Alan Thomas eventually cleared by Rob Muldoon who had the balls
to correct an injustice. Unfortunately the corrupt cop was never
charged with anything let alone perverting the course of Justice.
THEY LOOK AFTER THEIR OWN

Christchurch Civic Creche - read Lynley Hoods Book, A City Possessed
Similarities:
A policeman who inseminated his seed as well as cross contaminating
the evidence and failed to actually get the truth.
Once again the Police have no problem with one of their own
dysfunctioning members, even though his member was apparently
functioning very well according to two of the accusing mothers and
apparently a paid professional also decided to test the testimony of
the two mothers, but for the falsely accused, it would have been
better for the paid professional to have tested their court evidence
rather than their bed testimony.
The Major dissimilarity is that Phil Goff hasn't got the balls to
correct an injustice, let alone admit that their was one.
The Judges and our justice system is in the same unique eunuch
experience.

David's little trantrum reminds me of a little child who won't eat his
veges which are good for him, but turns his head from side to side,
trying to evade the food, and if the mother that has the childs good
at heart does actually get some into the mouth the protesting child
spits it out.
Sanity and common sense is not exhibited while the child is throwing a
tantrum and spitting out what is good for it.
Eventually the child will grow up and face reality and truth, but will
David?

On 14 Feb 2003 07:13:15 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT
DONT BE ARROGANT
READ the CLAIMS I MAKE,
and STATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE LIES
Discuss without chicanery, the points I have made, don't obfuscate

I wrote
When someone throws a childish tantrum and destroys a list of facts it
doesn't like to read by snipping, and then snipes that because of
anonymity a discussion has not been entered into, I see no reason to
alter my comments either before or after the cake has been taken.
A desire to have a full factual discussion means that facts have to be
fully presented, examined and considered.
Brian Field often used to say "a text without a context is a pretext."
The childrens and their parents claims, need to be examined in its
context.
 Where did they come from, what was their origin, what other evidence
needs to be considered etc.

I don't champion Ellis. I have never met, written, or spoken to him.
What my concern is that the injustice of our justice system continues,
from one false accusation to another.
Until we have the corrupt Rob Pope procrastination and coverups
admitted and addressed, the same abuse of the innocent goes on.
We have Judge Eric Andersons wimping away, but no ordering the lying
Sergeant Tony Greigs' and the lying paid professional Cathy Crawfords'
from his court. A wimper will not stop the rot of false accusations
being taken to court without the evidence being PROPERLY examined
before the arrests.
The abuse by the police and their 'specialist witnesses' on innocent
people will continue. The professional abuses of Ward 24, Glenelg
Health Camp, Banks Avenue, Civic Creche Case continue again and again.
When prosecutors such as Sergeant Parkes haven't even read a third of
the evidence they are using to gain a conviction, when the police
refuse to get the evidence they are told, when Judges don't allow the
accused to speak in their own defense and tell the truth of what has
been going on - WE HAVE CORRUPT PROSECUTIONS - and they will be
allowed to continue by those whose political motives and actions are
not motivated with integrity, accountability or honesty.

I do not Champion Ellis as you falsely claim, my fight is against the
corruption and lies that he also faced.
Please understand this very thoroughly if you get nothing else from
this -
I DO NOT CHAMPION PETER ELLIS.
I DO FIGHT AGAINST INJUSTICE
I DO FIGHT AGAINST THOSE WHO DENY JUSTICE TO THOSE INJUSTICED
I DO STAND AGAINST LYING POLICE AND THEIR LYING PROFESSIONALS.
I DO STAND AGAINST THE CORRUPT ROB POPE COVERUPS
I DO STAND AGAINST THE PHIL GOFFS WITH THEIR POLITICAL AGENDAS and
ARROGANCE THAT WONT ALLOW THE CORRUPTION AND INJUSTICE TO BE EXPOSED.

I reinsert your snip and snipe

I re insert  and assert what I and maybe others regard as facts, that
need to be considered and discussed.
I could be wrong on some of the facts but childish acts by people who
can't accept, and wont accept, the possibility they may be wrong and
have nothing more to learn, is not desirable in anyone

Where were the children suspended in a basket high above the ground?
Where are the extensive networks of tunnels under Christchurch?
Is Peter Ellis' penis really black?
etc

I wrote
Has anyone seen the complete list of all the accusations that were
generated against Peter and the other co-accused women?
Interesting to see the development, the enlarging, the source and the
groups that they evolved from and then the cross contamination.
Where did the children get these100’s of other wacky and outrageous
claims?
The origin was from a book imported from America ‘Ritual Child Abuse -
discovery, diagnosis and treatment.’
This book didn’t expose Ritual Abuse, it started it!
The sally to attack was then started and the wacky and outrageous
claims were released along with a large dose of generated hysteria to
ensure they had the desired result.
Symptoms of 'Ritual Child Abuse' were claims of:
locked in a cage,
claiming that their parents, pets or  younger siblings would be killed
if they told anyone of the abuse.
buried in the ground in coffins
held underwater,
threatened with guns or knives
injected with needles, bled and drugged
photographed during abuse
tied upside down etc
Perpetrators wearing black robes, masks
participated in mock marriage
defecated and urinated upon
observed animals killed
observed torture and molestation of other children
saw children and babies killed
had blood poured on their heads
taken to churches, other day care settings, peoples’ homes, and
graveyards for the ritual abuse

Why did none of these claims occur before this book was read in
Christchurch before the sally sullied forth?
Why wasn’t a proper reality check on the insisters of abuse made very
early in the investigations?
Why wasn’t a sane and common sense investigation into the group called
START made?
Why had Peter and the women been with these children for 3 years at
least before the eruption of these claims, and not one claim had been
made before this book was put into practice?
Why had not one parent among the thousands over this time seen any of
the urination and defecation that is supposed to have occurred?
Why were the cages never seen by the adults?
Why were the claims from certain parents children the same, and yet
not from the children whose parents wern’t in the little house group?
Why was the cross contamination caused by Detective Colin Eade?
Why were the children interviewed so often,
        Karen Zelas who had been involved with the corrupt Ward 24
abuse, knew that this was one of the errors they made in that family
destroying saga?
Why did the allegations grow more bizarre each time the same children
were interviewed?
Why was the jury deprived of all the claims of the children being
given to them?
Did censorship of evidence compromise the truth?
etc.

The first allegation came from a boy who told his mother he didn’t
like Peter’s black penis, reality check needed?
The first child interview allegation was by a child WHO had not ever
attended the creche? in the few moments she had waited while her
mother picked up her little brother the indecent touching was supposed
to happen; why wasn’t a reality check then about contamination and
suggestion of claims made?
That children recanted, the lack of corroboration, the error of
multiple interviews by others, including Karen Zelas who had already
been told this was wrong and therefore could hide the truth, raises
huge doubts on reliability of children and especially the reliability
and the political agenda of these particular ‘professional’ child
interviewers.
Believe the child??????????????????????????????????????
Where was the corroboration to support the claims, even the City
Council ladder was missing, or did it never exist like all the other
claims the children made?
The missing City Council ladder that Peter Ellis placed at the top of
two tall buildings so far up in the clouds that people could never see
it, but so as the children could go from one building to another off
to the tunnels and then back to the cages hanging from the ceilings
that nobody else ever saw?.
Sex sex sex and more sex, but not by Peter or the children, no that
was between the professionals and hysterical generating accusers.
Judge Eric Anderson have a good long think, reflect, stand up and be a
man and start putting it right.
How many Zelous Eades, Greigs, Crawfords etc, have to appear before
you, before you are moved to do something about it. Your court or the
peoples court, a court where the professional liars and deceivers are
protected and allowed back again for another stream of deceit or a
court which will put an end to their perverting the course of justice
and actually the accused to have a say in his own defense - it would
be good if you chose the latter next time.
Better to use common sense to examine the claims and the facts, rather ...

read more »

This is called projection. In reality I am only interested in facts
and not lunatic speculation and the perennial red herring of SRA that
the more unhinged of the Ellis supporters always return to (without
fail and without purpose).

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

Don't bother shouting and don't try ordering me around. You have
neither the moral nor the actual authority so to do. As a matter of
fact I have read the claims you make and have dismissed them as the
typical red herrings of those who seek to discredit Ellis' victims and
exonerate the paederast. If it will shut up you insane maunderings I
shall detail some of the reasons why they are red herrings.

Should that ever happen I would agree with you 100%. However, that is
NOT what happened when I snipped your deluded ramblings - I snipped
them because they were irrelevant and attempting to sidetrack the
discussion from the facts of the case. I still think that you hiding
behind anonymity while championing those whoo abuse children in scary
and I very much hope that the Police regularly monitor these
discussions.

Then why introduce all the irrelevant material? This is one of the
lies of which I spoke.

Cute but essentially wrong.

The context is that the children were abused by Peter Ellis and his
cronies. That is the established and legal FACT. Nothing else is a
fact that is relevant to the case.

They came from the abuse. Their origin was the abuse. The further
counts of abuse.

Nevertheless you champion him in this very post! Another (and
particularly blatant) lie.

The only injustice is that the other offenders have thus far escaped
prosecution and that paederast supporters like you keep trying to
exonerate your heroo thus forcing his victims to live in continual
fear that you will succeed. This, by the way, is why I favour capital
punishment for paederasts AND their supporters.

Now you are making allegations that are your opinions only. They are
also extremely effective as you try to paint the abuser as the victim.
Another reason for not really wanting to do this detailed stuff on
your posts is that it makes me want to vomit.

Your opinions and massive ignorance of jurisprudence again.

You are ranting, making defamatory statements and showing your total
ignorance of jurisprudence.

You champion him above, applying words such as "innocent" and "victim"
to this convicted abuser of children and attaching significant and
defamatory pejoratives to all those involved with prosecuting the
monster. You continue in the lie.

Shouting does not alter the fact that you do champion him.

Except when its victims are children and you can champion the
paederast instead.

Except when you can chamion their abusers as you do with Ellis. (And
you make up absurd words where perfectly adequate ones already exist
in the English language).

Hmmmmn. As does the entire legal system - BTW what "professionals" do
the Police own that are not Police?

Offensive, defamatory, ad hominem, and a massive red herring.

Shock horror! Alert the media! Stop the Presses! Who would have
thought it possible? (sorry, I'll turn the sarcasm off). Where to
start? There is only one Phil Goff; he is an elected politician so OF
COURSE he has a political agenda. He holds a post that was previously
held by others in other parties. In keeping with the PC crusade of
this left-wing government he called for and received a complete report
into the Ellis case. And decided against further political
intervention. So, the Police, several courts, successive Ministers of
Justice, and the actual victims all got it wrong and only you and your
Hero, Peter Ellis the paederast are right? No. I don't think so.

I stand by this and will not discuss SRA in this thread because it is
irrelevant and tries to deflect attention from the real abuse that
Ellis and his cronies carried out. I will not be a party to that.

I disagree with you for the stated reasons.

Forget could be. You are. On the entire basis of the argument - which,
BTW, I shall snip again.

<snip>

It is only the start that you assert. The courts found otherwise and I
believe the New Zealand court system over an anonymous champion oof
child abusers any day.

And, typically, it is both nearly meaningless and quite wrong.

...

read more »

Quite probably, just not that one.

I have read it - the facts are selectively quoted and the bias is more
than is usual even in that rag.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

Which probably explains your bias on the subject.

The clear bias in that sentence demonstrates what I am talking about.

He is what passes for a journalist in these ultra-PC times under the
increasingly autocratic and anti-justice rule of Helengrad.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

Much like his style of "journalism"

"Amazing" is also a word I would use to describe it but "journalism"
is stretching the truth of the case - try "propaganda" it is closer to
the actual truth (although a fan of McLoughlin's might not actually
know what that is.

Oh yes, very brave to re-abuse the children and get paid for it - God
deliver me from such bravery!

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

<snip>

Clearly you are interested in something that is divorced from reality
- I wonder why?

Physician heal thyself.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

On 15 Feb 2003 14:10:12 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

Peter Ellis hates child abuse.  Do not share his view?

I meant read the body of the article and not just the title, David.  

Which facts are you referring to, David?   Or will answering this
question take you far too long?

When you think you can find quotes that are "selective" please share
them with us, together with your reasons

When you think that you can find anything unjustified, please share
them with us, together with your reasons.

David McLoughlin's article will stand in history as one of the most
important pieces of journalism ever written.    David McLoughlin was
brave to have written it, as the child sexual abuse hysteria was then
in full cry.   Views such as Bismans were then even in the majority,
in much the same way as the majority once thought the world was flat.

 In some ways, David McLoughlin's article signalled the beginning of
the end of the hysteria.   It became acceptable to voice the private
concerns that many people were already thinking.

Brian

Very typically of those who champion paederasts and paederasty they
always attempt to paint the abuser as victim and the victim as
aggressor. You sicken me.

And so you continue to champion the abuser at the expense of his
victims.

Of course, if the law was different there would have been a different
outcome. D'uh! However, the law was what it was and Ellis was tried
under the same laws as everyone else thus charged and not under some
special law designed to exonerate paederasts. So he was found guilty
and sentenced accordingly.

Cheap and quite irrelevant. The women who were originally charged also
abused the children and have got off scot free because of the ultra PC
nation in which we live whereby different rules apply to men and
women.

Petty name calling exposes your arguments for their self-evident
intellectual bankruptcy.

So you say - the law and the facts say differently - I know which side
I am on.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

On 15 Feb 2003 14:07:58 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

David, you are quite free to to answer questions if you wish.  Your
mock indignation at capital letters being used appears only as a
deliberate smokescreen.

More obfuscation, David.   Nobody writing here claims to have
authority to demand anything of anybody.

That is waffle, David.

Which claims have you dismissed, David?

This appears to be one of your favorite smakescreens, David. If you
cannot answer a question, or do not understand, you appear to respond
with the "red herring" defence.

It is hard to discredit those who do not exist, David.

Your requesting, David, that somebody  "shut up" before you can
present your views is the mark of a weak argument.   David, you appear
to be saying that you will only present the case for the prosecution
if the defence agrees to withdraw it's case.   Remarkable.

It was also a legal FACT that Arthur Allan Thomas was a murderer.
_Twice_ convicted.    Until his innocence was established and police
corruption identified.

The fact that Ellis was wrongly convicted, has nothing to do with the
urgent need for the childrens and the parents claims to be examined in
the context of all the facts of the case that have _never_ been seen
in their entirety - at the original trial, or in any of the subsequent
appeals.

Inconvenient for you, David, to look at any evidence that sits outside
your beliefs, eh?

If you read Lynley Hood's book, David,  you'll quickly discover  why
your view is as likely as the Loch Ness Monster being responsible.

Who are you refrring to, David?

<snip>

Satanic Ritual abuse was central to the police investigations, the
beliefs of the police and the social welfare interrogators, and some
of the loony Sallys.

I can understand that you, David, do not wish to discuss SRA, because
to do so would expose the weakness of the claims that Peter Ellis'
conviction was safe.

If you David would like to understand a little more about SRA, and
it's role in the child sex abuse hysteria, it's role in other day care
cases similar to the Creche (eg McMartin), and how this related to the
Christchurch Creche I could give you a few references to get you
started.   Let me know if you would like some help.  

But in the meantime, read "A City Possessed" by Lynley Hood.   It's
the very best reference for understanding how Peter Ellis was wrongly
convicted, and _all_ of the relevant background, condensed necessarily
to fit into a book.

Brian

On 15 Feb 2003 14:31:08 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

To call somebody a pedaphile in it's varying forms has been the mark
of the child sexual abuse hysteria from the beginning.   Very similar
to Salem in the USA, where to be accused as a witch was a terrifying
accusation for those so marked.

The tactic worked in the early 1990s, but ever since David
McLoughlin's brave North and South article was printed in 1996, those
so accused have not been as intimidated

Nice try, David, but no cigar.

You need to reread what I actually wrote, David.  You have completely
misunderstood what I wrote.  I was saying that those who collected
their $10,000 lucky ACC handouts were NOT technically legally guilty.
They won their money fairly according to the generous policies of the
times, when anybody who was willing to say they were a victim of
sexual abuse could get the bonus.   It was a remarkable gravy train,
eh?

I expect you will change your mind when you realise I'm not saying
that those who collected the ACC money were guilty of any crime.
(Just morally corrupt)

That's not what I said, David.  All I said was that iInsufficient of
the truth came out to prevent Peter Ellis from being convicted.

Nobody is disputing that Ellis was convicted, David.  Simply that in
the year 2003, it is obvious to everybody except the $10,000
recipients and their "friends" that conviction was in error.

No, it's very relevant, David.   Ellis was innocent and brought to
trial.  It is just as likely that millions of other innocent people
could be charged with their role in the alleged crime or crimes.
People such as yourself who have an acknowledged interest in the case
have a greater statistical likelihood of being considered by the
police.  

No evidence for that has ever been presented, David.   No evidence for
that has ever existed, as the police finally recognised.

All innocent people should get off "scot free", David.

In some ways I'm inclined to believe that we are an ultra PC nation,
too David.   But in this case it is not PC, in my opinion, to consider
a person innocent until proven guilty.    For that reason I still
consider you innocent of the Creche "crimes", David.   Even if you
were one of the hundreds of people mentioned in all of the children's
bizarre allegations.

Perhaps homophobia was acting, David.    I still find it bizarre, too
that the charges against  Peter Ellis were not dropped at the same
time as the charges against the women were dropped.

The role of  Bonker Eade has been well documented, David.

I agree David.  The law found Peter Ellis guilty.  The facts say
differently.     Perhaps we have reached consensus?

Brian

On 15 Feb 2003 14:14:04 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

Have you, or anybody else ever shown anything that David McLoughlin
has written on the subject to be wrong?    

Not that I am aware of, David.  

ANd therefore I'm quite comfortable in making the assertion that David
McLoughlin is an authority on the subject.

Could you please explain the "bias" that you refer to, David?

He does not simply "pass" as a journalist.  He is invariably a bloody
good journalist - although I've criticised him, even strongly, on at
least one occasion.

Brian

On 15 Feb 2003 14:18:35 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

No completely different from his style of journalism, David.   Can you
show me any extract of David McLoughlin's writings which involve as
much ad hominem attack, as you contributed in the paragraph above?

You have never presented your case for where the truth has been
"stretched", so your claims appear to be more rant than substance.

I welcome reasoned disagreements, but your repeated claims of bias,
stretched truth, etc etc without any justification for your beliefs
make you sound more nutter than debater, David.

David's aricle may not have been _the_ catalyst for a greater level of
understanding of the child sexual abuse hysteria in New Zealand - but
it was at least _a_ catalyst.    

To present such facts, at the height of the hysteria was extremely
brave.   I would expect that he has paid a heavy price for that
bravery in the intervening years, even if in the year 2003, his role
is better recognised.

Brian

David Bisman <dbis...@hotmail.com> wrote

So Helen Clark was Prime Minister in 1996? Riiiight...

- Dave
--
Lowering the tone of Usenet since 1997...

Please send replies to New Zealand instead of Zanzibar.
Sorry, but the spam is just getting a little too much...

On 15 Feb 2003 14:07:58 -0800, dbis...@hotmail.com (David Bisman)
wrote:

Oh dear its nappy changing time, terrible mess and lots of diarrhoea..
David you seem to have an upset tummy, evidently you should have been
fed Heinz rather than strong food
Your delicate condition has not been able to absorb the facts.
Never mind, just keep taking the dinnefords.When you are a lttle
stronger and have grown up, then we may talk about more mature things.
Just listen to a fairy tale or two before going to bed, and dont worry
about stories that have fact, leave that to the rest of us.

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:02:18 +1300, joe bloggs <somewhere.dot.net>
wrote:

For fux sake Blow.  We're getting lost in your long convoluted
rabbiting.  The discussion was about Peter Ellis.  Shorten things up
and get to the points pertinent to Ellis.

You go on about not championing Peter Ellis and his cronies.
You say you have never spoken to or met him.

David Bisman says that he knows many of the victims and families.
David said way back that he assisted the police in the early stages of
the Ellis inquiry.

Who do we believe knows more about the Ellis case, you or David?

Dianne Smith

"Dianne Smith" <d...@idonttakemail.net.nz> wrote >

Many of us have been waiting for David to provide some factual input to the
discussion.
We are still waiting.

Brian Tozer

In nz.general David Bisman <dbis...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You mean Sally Denly and the rest of her coven?

In nz.general David Bisman <dbis...@hotmail.com> wrote:

How do you "know" and "actual crimes" were committed against them? There was
absolutely no evidence presented at trial that any of the alleged crimes had
ever occured!

Before deciding who is the victim and who is the offender, you have to
determine if a crime has occured.

In nz.general David Bisman <dbis...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Do you have any evidence to dispute the facts as stated in the quotation, or
is ad-hominem the full strength of your "argument"?

In nz.general David Bisman <dbis...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Oh look at that - everyone is out of step except David.