statement regards Ritual Action Group
ann-marie stapp
My one and only statement in this forum.
On a personal level - I think the name Ritual Action Group was a stupid name
and never would have agreed to it had I any say in the matter. Have a think
about what rag's means.
RAG's (1991) purpose was to discuss/educate about all types of abuse -
professional,
medical, intra and extra familial, pedophile rings, physical, sexual and
emotional abuse and assist in developing a multi agency approach to dealing
with child abuse so
children in the year 2000 would not be killed.
I was briefly involved with it but left when I did not agree with the
professional and personal behaviour of two of its members.
My role was to listen to women's stories who had survived abuse by
pedophiles (whether that included a "ritualistic" component or not). I did
not buy into the 1990s stranger danger version of satanism in the way the
media represented this.
I heard 28
women's stories. I believed all of the women on the basis of knowing how
abuse works in secrecy, isolation and shame. These women were abused by
groups of people - commonly known as pedophile rings. This is not unknown.
We have read in newspapers in the last five years of people who are
pedophiles in the church and organised groups being caught and confessing to
such.
I was not involved in any police investigation relating to any pedophile
ring. I.e. read - the Ellis case. I read as much as possible and talked to
people who believed and who didn't believe. This is what a researcher does.
I operate from a personal philosophy which requires me to listen, support
and analyse the information I am given. I believe that abuse occurs in many
forms and hence my saying - abuse is abuse is abuse is abuse. My philosophy
is obviously a polar opposite to others posting on this newsgroup.
The 6 women who originally gave permission for their stories to be told
withdrew because of media produced hysteria and people like you Brian. The
research and further findings are therefore not published.
I believe I have stated and restated my role and understanding and also
believe myself to have addressed your questions. This has not had the
courtesy of being reciprocated. These are most likely not
the answers being sort. As it says on monster.com. get a meaningful
existence. You and I will never agree so go back to your wormhole of secrecy
and accept we believe and stand for different things. Thats life.
--
Yours,
Ann-Marie Stapp
ams...@clear.net.nz
John Cawston
>
> For Brian and others who actually think it matters.
>
> My one and only statement in this forum.
>
> On a personal level - I think the name Ritual Action Group was a stupid name
> and never would have agreed to it had I any say in the matter. Have a think
> about what rag's means.
>
> RAG's (1991) purpose was to discuss/educate about all types of abuse -
> professional,
> medical, intra and extra familial, pedophile rings, physical, sexual and
> emotional abuse and assist in developing a multi agency approach to dealing
> with child abuse so
> children in the year 2000 would not be killed.
>
> I was briefly involved with it but left when I did not agree with the
> professional and personal behaviour of two of its members.
Nevertheless, you and several others are well known for
starting, or at least promoting the satanic abuse scare
in NZ, with all the trappings of bestiality, blood
sacrifices, cages for kids, robes and religious
trappings, the whole kit and caboodle that came out in
the Crèche case.
You appear to have co-presented a paper on this and much
more in 1991.
>
> My role was to listen to women's stories who had survived abuse by
> pedophiles (whether that included a "ritualistic" component or not). I did
> not buy into the 1990s stranger danger version of satanism in the way the
> media represented this.
>
> I heard 28
> women's stories. I believed all of the women on the basis of knowing how
> abuse works in secrecy, isolation and shame. These women were abused by
> groups of people - commonly known as pedophile rings.
You heard 28 women's stories who were abused by
pedophile rings, and you believed all of them?
JC
ann-marie stapp
John Cawston wrote in message <3A61558B...@ihug.co.nz>...
obviously couldn't work out what Rags stands for.
gee didn't know I was so famous.
Good on ya focusing on one paragraph that I didn't write in about 29 pages
of material. Thats context for you. and you are wrong that whole kit and
caboodle hasn't come out. at least 28 stories I heard haven't come out.
How comfortable to you to dismiss stuff thats a discomfort to your thinking
>>
>> My role was to listen to women's stories who had survived abuse by
>> pedophiles (whether that included a "ritualistic" component or not). I
did
>> not buy into the 1990s stranger danger version of satanism in the way the
>> media represented this.
>>
>> I heard 28
>> women's stories. I believed all of the women on the basis of knowing how
>> abuse works in secrecy, isolation and shame. These women were abused by
>> groups of people - commonly known as pedophile rings.
>
>You heard 28 women's stories who were abused by
>pedophile rings, and you believed all of them?
>
>JC
No I made that bit up!! Duh.
Actually I heard a lot more and didn't get a chance to explore them. These
were the stories of women referred to me and already had gone through a
disclosure somewhere else. Part of having some ethics about making sure
abuse survivors have people around them after Ive flitted in and out of
their lives in my role as a researcher. Thought one of the stories might
have been a bit paranoid based but then the media invited that all the time
so didn't think that an unusual reaction or way to be really/
and besides.......
You didn't hear the stories and you dont believe them??
Thats the problem with this sort of dialogue. Its about belief systems. What
makes yours more right than mine and gives you the right to condemn mine?
The response of yourself and people like"Brian" is like an abusers response.
Dont take "no" for an answer and take take take when Ive already said
"enough".
which I am saying this time. Probably bit somewhat there - Im feeling tired
and bit stressed - late and all that with work tomorrow and already old life
to live.
Thanks for the chance to clarify my thinking. Hope most of you feel the
matter is clarified now and those of you who haven't got a hope in hades
<oops> of ever agreeing with me, squabble amongst yourselves.
Oh yeah -
Hear the one about the dyslexic Satanist?
sold his soul to Santa
<whhoeeeeeee - xfiles alert>
and remember Be Alert
the world needs more lerts.
AMS
John Cawston
Ritual Action Group
>
> gee didn't know I was so famous.
>
> Good on ya focusing on one paragraph that I didn't write in about 29 pages
> of material.
Which included, according to Michael Hill (unfortunate
name), Professor of Sociology, Victoria University:
"A child who has been ritually abused will have been
subjected to a
systematic process of dehumanisation — their
bodies invaded through
their eyes, ears, nose, mouth, vagina/penis
and rectum. They will likely
have been forced to have sex with animals,
had their bodies smeared
with excrement, drink blood and urine,
forced to watch and participate in
the sacrifice of animals, eaten the flesh
and organs of animals, often their
own pets, and seen photographs of themselves
doing all of this"
Thats context for you. and you are wrong that whole kit
and
> caboodle hasn't come out. at least 28 stories I heard haven't come out.
Double negative. I'm unsure if you are referring the 28
women you interviewed.
>
> How comfortable to you to dismiss stuff thats a discomfort to your thinking
> >>
> >> My role was to listen to women's stories who had survived abuse by
> >> pedophiles (whether that included a "ritualistic" component or not). I
> did
> >> not buy into the 1990s stranger danger version of satanism in the way the
> >> media represented this.
> >>
> >> I heard 28
> >> women's stories. I believed all of the women on the basis of knowing how
> >> abuse works in secrecy, isolation and shame. These women were abused by
> >> groups of people - commonly known as pedophile rings.
> >
> >You heard 28 women's stories who were abused by
> >pedophile rings, and you believed all of them?
> >
> >JC
> No I made that bit up!! Duh.
I didn't doubt you heard those stories.
>
> Actually I heard a lot more and didn't get a chance to explore them. These
> were the stories of women referred to me and already had gone through a
> disclosure somewhere else.
The part of my doubt. These women were referred to you
because of your belief in a connection between ritual or
satanic abuse?
Part of having some ethics about making sure
> abuse survivors have people around them after Ive flitted in and out of
> their lives in my role as a researcher. Thought one of the stories might
> have been a bit paranoid based but then the media invited that all the time
> so didn't think that an unusual reaction or way to be really/
>
> and besides.......
> You didn't hear the stories and you dont believe them??
I find it unbelievable that you believed 27 out of 28
(if I read you right) stories of women being involved in
pedophile rings. From context, I understand that these
were women assaulted as girls (recovered memory
syndrome) and not assaults occurring when they were
adults?
>
> Thats the problem with this sort of dialogue. Its about belief systems. What
> makes yours more right than mine and gives you the right to condemn mine?
I don't recall condemning it so much as raising the
subject of your involvement with RAG.
>
> The response of yourself and people like"Brian" is like an abusers response.
Classic defence. Any disagreement with your beliefs on
ritual abuse mean the disagree'ers are abusers.
>
> Dont take "no" for an answer and take take take when Ive already said
> "enough".
Not sure what you are talking about.
Post
>
> which I am saying this time. Probably bit somewhat there - Im feeling tired
> and bit stressed - late and all that with work tomorrow and already old life
> to live.
> Thanks for the chance to clarify my thinking. Hope most of you feel the
> matter is clarified now and those of you who haven't got a hope in hades
> <oops> of ever agreeing with me, squabble amongst yourselves.
>
> Oh yeah -
>
> Hear the one about the dyslexic Satanist?
>
> sold his soul to Santa
>
> <whhoeeeeeee - xfiles alert>
>
> and remember Be Alert
> the world needs more lerts.
>
> AMS
JC
ann-marie stapp
John Cawston wrote in message <3A62A3F9...@ihug.co.nz>...
thats the obvious one
>> gee didn't know I was so famous.
>>
>> Good on ya focusing on one paragraph that I didn't write in about 29
pages
>> of material.
>
>Which included, according to Michael Hill (unfortunate
>name), Professor of Sociology, Victoria University:
>
>"A child who has been ritually abused will have been
>subjected to a
>
<snip>
Written by Mike Hill and in black and white. Must be right then
>
> Thats context for you. and you are wrong that whole kit
>and
>> caboodle hasn't come out. at least 28 stories I heard haven't come out.
>
>Double negative. I'm unsure if you are referring the 28
>women you interviewed.
yep
>
>>
>> How comfortable to you to dismiss stuff thats a discomfort to your
thinking
>> >>
>> >> My role was to listen to women's stories who had survived abuse by
>> >> pedophiles (whether that included a "ritualistic" component or not).
I
>> did
>> >> not buy into the 1990s stranger danger version of satanism in the way
the
>> >> media represented this.
>> >>
>> >> I heard 28
>> >> women's stories. I believed all of the women on the basis of knowing
how
>> >> abuse works in secrecy, isolation and shame. These women were abused
by
>> >> groups of people - commonly known as pedophile rings.
>> >
>> >You heard 28 women's stories who were abused by
>> >pedophile rings, and you believed all of them?
>> >
>> >JC
>> No I made that bit up!! Duh.
>
>I didn't doubt you heard those stories.
I know that but you doubt why I would believe them. It is not just a
matter of belief but it is too long a job to explain 12 years of clinical
practice to tell you how one makes a dignoses, prognosis and a plan for
treatment based on what is presented.
>>
>> Actually I heard a lot more and didn't get a chance to explore them.
These
>> were the stories of women referred to me and already had gone through a
>> disclosure somewhere else.
>
>The part of my doubt. These women were referred to you
>because of your belief in a connection between ritual or
>satanic abuse?
No I do not refer to the abuse that these women have suffered as Satanic
ritual anything. It is unhelpful and distorts what Im trying to say.Listen.
I refer to it as abuse. It may have included one or more abusers- it may
have happppened in a group setting there may have been many victims, many
perpetrators. That is why it is refered to as sexual abuse by a peodphile
ring.
Why the f%%% is it that every time I say abuse - everyone - including Mike
Hill, the media and you have to say f%%% Satanic and ritual in the same
sentence. Stop spreading this unhelpful shit. These are not my words. This
is not what I am talking about. Pedophiles will use whatever methods
available to them to be able to abuse children. Seduction, trickery or
terrrifying through scary tricks. If you want to put labels of Satanism or
ritual on that then carry on but I have never found it useful when trying to
expalin how abuse happens.
>
>I find it unbelievable that you believed 27 out of 28
>(if I read you right) stories of women being involved in
>pedophile rings. From context, I understand that these
>were women assaulted as girls (recovered memory
>syndrome) and not assaults occurring when they were
>adults?
Why unbelieveable? It is well researched the one pedaphile alone can abuse
up to 240 children in their career. Talk to justice dept, talk to stopping
violence co-ordinatorrs, go to the sexual offenders programme Kia Marama in
CHCH prison. Read about those that confess their crimes. Take a look at
recent NZ cases of catholic priests whove been chraged. Look at the cases
from CYFS where offenders are abusing kids in the family they live in now
and the kids they still have access to from previous families theyve lived
with. Take a look at the blokes in England caught in the scouts movements.
The teachers here. This isnt recovered memory this is kids disclosing in the
here and now. These are women who are trying to get there lives together and
seeking valid forms of treatment in the here and now. These women dont tell
there stories because pople like you work from a belief system that wont
allow them to tell them. henceforth the people who are doing the abusing can
carry on because we dont have to beleive the ones that tell us what they
have had to put up wih.
Simple enough?
and a little syntax. The women werent involved in pedophile rings- they were
being sexually violated by abuser<s>. Theres a difference
>
>>
>> Thats the problem with this sort of dialogue. Its about belief systems.
What
>> makes yours more right than mine and gives you the right to condemn mine?
>
>I don't recall condemning it so much as raising the
>subject of your involvement with RAG.
So do you believe kids get abused - sexually, physically, emotionally and
verbally. Do you beleive that kids often cant tell as kids so they have to
grow up and become adults to tell us and thats why I had to listen to womens
stories becasue they couldnt tell us as kids.
Does child abuse happen in all its forms or is all of it shit?
Your tone and ignorance condemns my point of view.
Your purpose for wanting to know my involvement in rags then is to slap me
on the back and congratulate me. for making a stand about child abuse ( in
all its forms it takes). I dont think so.
So what have you and "Brian " done to stop children from being abused?
Is CYFS just a conspiracy, witch hunt and a plot for workers to get bonus
payments?
>
>>
>> The response of yourself and people like"Brian" is like an abusers
response.
>
>Classic defence. Any disagreement with your beliefs on
>ritual abuse mean the disagree'ers are abusers.
Classic answer in not having to state your own beleifs while sitting in
comfort, misinterpreting and not recognieing that there are continuums of
abusive behaviour. I say abuse - you assume I mean satanic and ritual. I
challenge an ignorance or an attitude as abusive ( emotionally) and I get
accused of being defensive. No win situation going here. Thats how abuse
continues to exist. But then that philosphy requires some critcal thought.
>
>>
>> Dont take "no" for an answer and take take take when Ive already said
>> "enough".
>
>Not sure what you are talking about.
Something about having said all this before and people continuing with
assumptioms and chosen ignorance and twisting my words and not listening
when I say enough. Dont worry about it.
For now...
AMS
>
Geoff McCaughan
> I know that but you doubt why I would believe them. It is not just a
> matter of belief but it is too long a job to explain 12 years of clinical
> practice to tell you how one makes a dignoses, prognosis and a plan for
> treatment based on what is presented.
Can you tell us what qualifications you hold that lead to your "12 years of
clinical practice" please?
> Why the f%%% is it that every time I say abuse - everyone - including Mike
> Hill, the media and you have to say f%%% Satanic and ritual in the same
> sentence. Stop spreading this unhelpful shit. These are not my words. This
> is not what I am talking about.
Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Eventually he wasn't believed either.
ann-marie stapp
information?
mm wonder where you get that list. Certainly wasn't the one when I left.
One of them aint even on it and even more sadly two of these people are now
dead. Ooh and the name had changed to network
Dudley Dunn wrote in message <3a62eb9d$1...@zfree.co.nz>...
>
>"ann-marie stapp" <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>John Cawston wrote in message <3A61558B...@ihug.co.nz>...
>>>ann-marie stapp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>For Brian and others who actually think it matters.
>>>>
>>>>My one and only statement in this forum.
>>>>
>>>>On a personal level - I think the name Ritual Action Group was
>>>>a stupid name and never would have agreed to it had I any say in >>>the
>matter.
>>>>Have a think about what rag's means.
>>>>
>It kind of rhymes, appropriately, with Hag and Hag's
nope
>
>>>> RAG's (1991) purpose was to discuss/educate about all types of
>>>>abuse - professional, medical, intra and extra familial,
>>>>pedophile rings, physical, sexual and emotional abuse and
>>>>assist in developing a multi agency approach to dealing
>>>>with child abuse so children in the year 2000 would not be killed.
>>>>
>>>>I was briefly involved with it but left when I did not agree
>>>>with the professional and personal behaviour of two of its members.
>>>
>Which of these were those two members?
>
>November 1991
>
>RITUAL ACTION NETWORK
>P.O. Box 11-626
>WELLINGTON
>
>Ally Anderson
>Women's Centre,
>186 Knights Road,
>Lower Hutt
>
>5692 711 (wk)
>
>Dianne Stogre Power
>National Radio
>P.O. Box 2092, Wellington
>
>471 734 (wk)
>
>Jocelyn Frances
>Ritual Action Network,
>P.O. Box 11-626
>Wgtn
>
>3859 577
>
>Robin Lane
>St Andrews on the Terrace,
>P.O. Box 5203
>Wgtn
>
>4729 211
>
>Vicki Motte Harrison
>Social Welfare,
>Private Bag,
>Te Aro
>
>3850 139 x 8958
>
>Laurie Gabites
>PoIice DHQ
>P.O. Box 40-013
>Upper Hutt
>
>5284 029 (wk)
>385 9265 home
>
>Vera Levett
>12 Winston. Street,
>Wellington 4
>
>4795 266
>
>Ann Marie Stapp
>RituaI Action Network,
>P.O. Box 11 626
>Wellington
>
>3893 182
>
>Vivienne Ulirich (lawyer)
>P.O. Box 5048,
>Wellington
>
>4729 209
>
>Nigel Marriott
>Probation Office,
>P.O. Box 30-491
>Lower Hutt 5693 012
>
>5693 012
>
>Janet Carlyle
>Hutt Family Violence Network
>P.O Box 31-022
>Lower Hutt
>
>5664 596 (wk)
>
>Chris Ravenswood
>C/- P.O. Box 673,
>Palmerston North
>
>06-3561 276
>06-3565 868. (w)
>
>Diana Fairfield
>Women's Refuge
>P.O. Box 16-079
>Wellington
>
>4797 095
>4796 171
>
>Sue McGregor
>Upper Hutt Family Care Centre,
>64 Marten St
>Upper Hutt
>
>5284 164
>
>Mike Simpson
>P.O. Box 11-069
>Wellington47
>
>4721 251
>
>Elizabeth Thompson
>P.O. Box 9172,
>Wellington
>
>4726 185
>
>Regards
>
>Dudley
>
>
>http://www.zfree.co.nz
>
ann-marie stapp
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <93vl1i$a8k$2...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>ann-marie stapp <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> I know that but you doubt why I would believe them. It is not just a
>> matter of belief but it is too long a job to explain 12 years of clinical
>> practice to tell you how one makes a dignoses, prognosis and a plan for
>> treatment based on what is presented.
>
>Can you tell us what qualifications you hold that lead to your "12 years of
>clinical practice" please?
I can?
Can you give yours that qualifys you to not make an assessment etc?
>
>> Why the f%%% is it that every time I say abuse - everyone - including
Mike
>> Hill, the media and you have to say f%%% Satanic and ritual in the same
>> sentence. Stop spreading this unhelpful shit. These are not my words.
This
>> is not what I am talking about.
>
>Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?
and?
>
>Eventually he wasn't believed either.
and what have wolves got to do with this?
Ann-Marie Stapp
MA appd Social Work
PG CERT Health Sciences ( Alcohol and Drugs Endorsed)
M.A.N.Z.A.S.W
ThErEaLjAmEs
Probably just as much as your lerts huh.
ann-marie stapp
ThErEaLjAmEs wrote in message ...
touche' <g>
John Cawston
And which you snipped.
I accept that. Just as easily that these women were
abused. But to believe that 27 of 28 women were abused in
pedophile rings in the normal practice of your social work
is unbelievable. Unless these were women specifically
referred to you on the basis of your knowledge/interest in
pedophile rings and Satanic worship etc.?
>
> >>
> >> Actually I heard a lot more and didn't get a chance to explore them.
> These
> >> were the stories of women referred to me and already had gone through a
> >> disclosure somewhere else.
> >
> >The part of my doubt. These women were referred to you
> >because of your belief in a connection between ritual or
> >satanic abuse?
>
> No I do not refer to the abuse that these women have suffered as Satanic
> ritual anything. It is unhelpful and distorts what Im trying to say.Listen.
> I refer to it as abuse. It may have included one or more abusers- it may
> have happppened in a group setting there may have been many victims, many
> perpetrators. That is why it is refered to as sexual abuse by a peodphile
> ring.
"May have included one or more abusers" is not pedophile
rings.
> Why the f%%% is it that every time I say abuse - everyone - including Mike
> Hill, the media and you have to say f%%% Satanic and ritual in the same
> sentence. Stop spreading this unhelpful shit. These are not my words.
They are your words. They were expressed in your 1991
presentation with Jocelyn Francis.
> This
> is not what I am talking about. Pedophiles will use whatever methods
> available to them to be able to abuse children. Seduction, trickery or
> terrrifying through scary tricks. If you want to put labels of Satanism or
> ritual on that then carry on but I have never found it useful when trying to
> expalin how abuse happens.
But we are talking about 27 of 28 women being abused by
"pedophile rings".
>
> >
> >I find it unbelievable that you believed 27 out of 28
> >(if I read you right) stories of women being involved in
> >pedophile rings. From context, I understand that these
> >were women assaulted as girls (recovered memory
> >syndrome) and not assaults occurring when they were
> >adults?
>
> Why unbelieveable? It is well researched the one pedaphile alone can abuse
> up to 240 children in their career. Talk to justice dept, talk to stopping
> violence co-ordinatorrs, go to the sexual offenders programme Kia Marama in
> CHCH prison. Read about those that confess their crimes. Take a look at
> recent NZ cases of catholic priests whove been chraged. Look at the cases
> from CYFS where offenders are abusing kids in the family they live in now
> and the kids they still have access to from previous families theyve lived
> with. Take a look at the blokes in England caught in the scouts movements.
> The teachers here. This isnt recovered memory this is kids disclosing in the
> here and now. These are women who are trying to get there lives together and
> seeking valid forms of treatment in the here and now. These women dont tell
> there stories because pople like you work from a belief system that wont
> allow them to tell them. henceforth the people who are doing the abusing can
> carry on because we dont have to beleive the ones that tell us what they
> have had to put up wih.
> Simple enough?
You keep moving away from your original statement that
these women were the victims of pedophile rings and are
now talking mostly about individual abuse. Were these 27
women being abused by pedophile rings or not?
>
> and a little syntax. The women werent involved in pedophile rings- they were
> being sexually violated by abuser<s>. Theres a difference
Mmm. This is what you said:
"I heard 28
women's stories. I believed all of the women on the basis
of knowing how
abuse works in secrecy, isolation and shame. These women
were abused by
groups of people - commonly known as pedophile rings. This
is not unknown.
We have read in newspapers in the last five years of
people who are
pedophiles in the church and organized groups being caught
and confessing to
such."
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thats the problem with this sort of dialogue. Its about belief systems.
> What
> >> makes yours more right than mine and gives you the right to condemn mine?
> >
> >I don't recall condemning it so much as raising the
> >subject of your involvement with RAG.
>
> So do you believe kids get abused - sexually, physically, emotionally and
> verbally. Do you beleive that kids often cant tell as kids so they have to
> grow up and become adults to tell us and thats why I had to listen to womens
> stories becasue they couldnt tell us as kids.
> Does child abuse happen in all its forms or is all of it shit?
Shit happens. But whether 96% of the women you interviewed
were the victims of pedo rings is debatable. The logical
extension of this type of abuse into Satanism and ritual
abuse is also debatable. I may be doing you a disservice,
but its hard to accept that your involvement in RAG and
your joint presentation of a paper on ritual abuse is not
related to a view that child abuse is strongly related to
pedophile rings and Satanic or ritual abuse.
>
> Your tone and ignorance condemns my point of view.
> Your purpose for wanting to know my involvement in rags then is to slap me
> on the back and congratulate me. for making a stand about child abuse ( in
> all its forms it takes). I dont think so.
>
> So what have you and "Brian " done to stop children from being abused?
Raised healthy kids and paid you to be a social worker on
our behalf. The question is, what else have we
inadvertedly paid you for?
>
> Is CYFS just a conspiracy, witch hunt and a plot for workers to get bonus
> payments?
>
> >
> >>
> >> The response of yourself and people like"Brian" is like an abusers
> response.
> >
> >Classic defence. Any disagreement with your beliefs on
> >ritual abuse mean the disagree'ers are abusers.
>
> Classic answer in not having to state your own beleifs while sitting in
> comfort, misinterpreting and not recognieing that there are continuums of
> abusive behaviour.
My beliefs are implicit in my questions to you.
Some of those beliefs include my absolute rejection that
there are large numbers of pedophile rings in Western
society abusing 90% of the kids. That Satanic or ritual
abuse is anything more than a tiny percentage of the
whole, that you and others have grossly erred in accepting
ritual abuse is a significant factor in our societies,
that adults are to be automatically believed for their
stories of ritual abuse via the Recovered Memory Syndrome,
that the ChCh Crèche kids are to be believed that Ellis
and the Crèche women were involved in the things they were
accused of, and on and on.
I also believe you are the only person I know of who has
fronted on this subject. I might not like your approach to
these subjects and disagree with some of your answers, but
I applaud your courage or sheer cussedness in doing so.
JC
...Tom
>
>Some of those beliefs include my absolute rejection that
>there are large numbers of pedophile rings in Western
>society abusing 90% of the kids. That Satanic or ritual
>abuse is anything more than a tiny percentage of the
>whole, that you and others have grossly erred in accepting
>ritual abuse is a significant factor in our societies,
>that adults are to be automatically believed for their
>stories of ritual abuse via the Recovered Memory Syndrome,
>and the Cr?che women were involved in the things they were
>accused of, and on and on.
>
>I also believe you are the only person I know of who has
>fronted on this subject. I might not like your approach to
>these subjects and disagree with some of your answers, but
>I applaud your courage or sheer cussedness in doing so.
Thank you John. You've summed up my position and beliefs on this
subject nicely. I'm very interested in seeing anne-maries reply.
...Tom
ann-marie stapp
John Cawston wrote in message <3A6415E9...@ihug.co.nz>...
Correction - I dont do this work anymore - havent done for 7 years. I am now
practising as a social worker not a researcher and those sort of disclosures
are not "NOrmal" but I do hear lots of kids telling me about not being
brought up in healthy ways.
and it was on the basis of being abused in peodophile rings. Satanic worship
wasnt a criteria. Some of the abuse happend in communes and other self
indenitifed "cults: "Jim JOnes types stuff" and the key factor was more than
one abuser and more than on victim. It was still peadophiles doing the
abusing. Only about threee of the women I spoke to talked about the use of
satanic tiual for the puorpse of terrifying in order to abuse.
SO the focus on satansim skews any rational discussion about peophiles and
there various methods.
>> These
>> >> were the stories of women referred to me and already had gone through
a
>> >> disclosure somewhere else.
>> >
>> >The part of my doubt. These women were referred to you
>> >because of your belief in a connection between ritual or
>> >satanic abuse?
>>
>> No I do not refer to the abuse that these women have suffered as Satanic
>> ritual anything. It is unhelpful and distorts what Im trying to
say.Listen.
>> I refer to it as abuse. It may have included one or more abusers- it may
>> have happppened in a group setting there may have been many victims, many
>> perpetrators. That is why it is refered to as sexual abuse by a peodphile
>> ring.
>
>"May have included one or more abusers" is not pedophile
>rings.
>
>> Why the f%%% is it that every time I say abuse - everyone - including
Mike
>> Hill, the media and you have to say f%%% Satanic and ritual in the same
>> sentence. Stop spreading this unhelpful shit. These are not my words.
>
>They are your words. They were expressed in your 1991
>
yeah
not from th victims point of view
>he logical
>extension of this type of abuse into Satanism and ritual
>abuse is also debatable.
yes thats right.
I may be doing you a disservice,
>but its hard to accept that your involvement in RAG and
>your joint presentation of a paper on ritual abuse is not
>related to a view that child abuse is strongly related to
>pedophile rings and Satanic or ritual abuse.
if you accept thats the only part of what was being presented and it wasnt.
>>
>> Your tone and ignorance condemns my point of view.
>> Your purpose for wanting to know my involvement in rags then is to slap
me
>> on the back and congratulate me. for making a stand about child abuse
in
>> all its forms it takes). I dont think so.
>>
>> So what have you and "Brian " done to stop children from being abused?
>
>Raised healthy kids and paid you to be a social worker on
>our behalf. The question is, what else have we
>inadvertedly paid you for?
making a differnce in kids lives with and d problems. Glad your kids are
healthy <seriously>
>>
>> Is CYFS just a conspiracy, witch hunt and a plot for workers to get
bonus
>> payments?
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The response of yourself and people like"Brian" is like an abusers
>> response.
>> >
>> >Classic defence. Any disagreement with your beliefs on
>> >ritual abuse mean the disagree'ers are abusers.
>>
>> Classic answer in not having to state your own beleifs while sitting in
>> comfort, misinterpreting and not recognieing that there are continuums of
>> abusive behaviour.
>
>My beliefs are implicit in my questions to you.
>
>Some of those beliefs include my absolute rejection that
>there are large numbers of pedophile rings in Western
>society abusing 90% of the kids.
I never said that there are a large numbers of pedophile rings abusing 90%
of societies kids.
I have always said that I dont know the extent of it and can only rely on
other agency statistics about abuse in general. I guess the inherent
difficulty in the type of research I undertook is its qualitative nature
rathr than quantitative. Qualititaive is always open to more attack becasue
ti doesnt prove anything and doesnt have statistical significance
That Satanic or ritual
>abuse is anything more than a tiny percentage of the
>whole, that you and others have grossly erred in accepting
>ritual abuse is a significant factor in our societies,
>that adults are to be automatically believed for their
>stories of ritual abuse via the Recovered Memory Syndrome,
>that the ChCh Crèche kids are to be believed that Ellis
>and the Crèche women were involved in the things they were
>accused of, and on and on.
>
>I also believe you are the only person I know of who has
>fronted on this subject. I might not like your approach to
>these subjects and disagree with some of your answers, but
>I applaud your courage or sheer cussedness in doing so.
Im cussed? <g>
thanks JC
At last there is some dialogue.
AMS
ann-marie stapp
...Tom wrote in message ...
>in reply to John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>>My beliefs are implicit in my questions to you.
>>
>>Some of those beliefs include my absolute rejection that
>>there are large numbers of pedophile rings in Western
>>society abusing 90% of the kids. That Satanic or ritual
>>abuse is anything more than a tiny percentage of the
>>whole, that you and others have grossly erred in accepting
>>ritual abuse is a significant factor in our societies,
never accpeted that
>>that adults are to be automatically believed for their
>>stories of ritual abuse via the Recovered Memory Syndrome,
>>that the ChCh Cr?che kids are to be believed that Ellis
>>and the Cr?che women were involved in the things they were
>>accused of, and on and on.
>>
>>I also believe you are the only person I know of who has
>>fronted on this subject. I might not like your approach to
>>these subjects and disagree with some of your answers, but
>>I applaud your courage or sheer cussedness in doing so.
>
>Thank you John. You've summed up my position and beliefs on this
>subject nicely. I'm very interested in seeing anne-maries reply.
>
>...Tom
and please afford me the respect of spelling my name right.
Ann-Marie
ann-marie stapp
Dudley Dunn wrote in message <3a64fda7$1...@zfree.co.nz>...
>
>"ann-marie stapp" <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>Who are you?
>
>Dudley Dunn
>
>>Why do you want to know?
>
oh
>
>>and what are you going to do with the information?
>>
>Don't know yet.
let me know when you do know. I like to chose who where and how I share
information about myself and what will happen to stuff I say or write.
Henceforth there are simply things that prviacy laws and confidentialty
clasues prevent me from expanding on
>
>>mm wonder where you get that list.
>
>From a government department under the Official Information Act 1982.
ooh - figures-w e were a bit slack in updating lists and forwarding to
places
>
>>Certainly wasn't the one when I left.
>
>Well it was the one in departmental records.
>
>>One of them aint even on it and even more sadly two of these people >are
>now dead.
>
>You might like to add the missing one.
>Which are the two dead ones?
No I dont like to. She may have asked not to be on the list and therefore I
dont want to break confidentiality.
Mike Simpson died of cancer about 2 or 3 years ago
and Diane Stogre Power died of a stroke in Oct of 1995. A huge loss to
Naional radio
>
>>Ooh and the name had changed to network
>
>Come now, you wee pedant. Changed from RAN to RAG didn't it? Or was it the
>other way around?
LOL - yeah - something like that. I honestly cant remember. RAN was only
slightly better as it used the word network which implies a collection of
agencies networking to discuss issues and how much importance should be
given to what. Either way using the word ritual ran <sic> against the
philosohoy Ive been outlining in the last few emails to you i.e to call the
abuse ritual abuse detracts from the heart of the issues - which is kids
getting hurt (physically, sexually and or emotionally).
...Tom
>
>and please afford me the respect of spelling my name right.
>Ann-Marie
You didn't actually respond to the points raised in the post
particularly, but you are quite right. I did spell your name
incorrectly and I unequivocally apologise. I changed my window view
twice while writing my reply to make sure I got the capitalisation and
hyphenation correct but obviously failed to note I'd added an e. I am
sincerely sorry at such a slight.
Now we have that out of the way, I am interested on your thoughts on
the content of the post you replied to. Your terse "never accpeted
that" is a little hard to make much of.
...Tom
Dave Joll
news:3a62...@clear.net.nz...
> John Cawston wrote in message <3A62A3F9...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >ann-marie stapp wrote:
> >> John Cawston wrote in message <3A61558B...@ihug.co.nz>...
> >> >ann-marie stapp wrote:
> >> >> My one and only statement in this forum.
So much for "one and only" statement, eh?
Methinks someone not a million miles from the subject
under discussion couldn't lie straight in bed...
ann-marie stapp
Hi
Yeah - Im tired. Sorry. You have made it clear you agree with John so I
guess I get a bit put off at trying to explain because I always feel I have
to end up justifying my position and noone else here on this newsgroup
asking questions of me or my work has answered my questions about them or
have justified why they dont believe that abuse in the extreme forms
discussed here could actually might possibly happen. or that abuse even
exists in any form on any contiuum.
So terse is what happens when I feel a bit picked on.
Its also getting hard to follow the thread
...Tom wrote in message ...
ann-marie stapp
Yeah - pretty harsh when one feels they have to justify it and explain it
over and over because people dont get it. I havent added anything new, just
clarified and expanded and repeated myself and repeated myself and repeated
myself etc. If people want the discussion to finish - fine then lets
finish. And before I say thanks for the discussion, do you have anything
youd like to add instead of something about lying while being straight in
bed?
>
>
>
Patrick Dunford
>in reply to John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>>My beliefs are implicit in my questions to you.
>>
>>Some of those beliefs include my absolute rejection that
>>there are large numbers of pedophile rings in Western
>>society abusing 90% of the kids.
Funny, I don't recall anyone ever claiming anything like that number, even
at the height of "hysteria" in 1992 when it was alleged a third of girls and
a fifth of boys were abused.
>>That Satanic or ritual
>>abuse is anything more than a tiny percentage of the
>>whole,
When has this ever been claimed? The number of alleged cases in NZ IS a
small percentage.
snip
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence
overwhelms the mouth of the wicked.
-- Proverbs 10:11
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20010116
=======================================================================
Created by Mail2Sig - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/software/mail2sig/
Patrick Dunford
Methinks you are a pedant
John Cawston
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:15:58 +1300 AD in nz.general, ...Tom said:
>
> >in reply to John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> >>My beliefs are implicit in my questions to you.
> >>
> >>Some of those beliefs include my absolute rejection that
> >>there are large numbers of pedophile rings in Western
> >>society abusing 90% of the kids.
>
> Funny, I don't recall anyone ever claiming anything like that number, even
> at the height of "hysteria" in 1992 when it was alleged a third of girls and
> a fifth of boys were abused.
I was commenting on the "27 of 28 women" who claimed to
have been abused by pedo rings. 96% if you must.
>
> >>That Satanic or ritual
> >>abuse is anything more than a tiny percentage of the
> >>whole,
>
> When has this ever been claimed? The number of alleged cases in NZ IS a
> small percentage.
Read the thread.
JC
Karen
wrote:
>
>Patrick Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:25:33 +1300 AD in nz.general, Dave Joll said:
>>
>>ann-marie stapp <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:3a62...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>> John Cawston wrote in message <3A62A3F9...@ihug.co.nz>...
>>
>>> >ann-marie stapp wrote:
>>
>>> >> John Cawston wrote in message <3A61558B...@ihug.co.nz>...
>>
>>> >> >ann-marie stapp wrote:
>>
>>> >> >> My one and only statement in this forum.
>>
>>So much for "one and only" statement, eh?
>>
>>Methinks someone not a million miles from the subject
>>under discussion couldn't lie straight in bed...
>
>>Methinks you are a pedant
>
I agree.
>Dave is no pedant. He’s hit the nail on the head. Perhaps, Patrick, if
>you did a bit of digging into the antics of Ms Stapp, her mate Jocelyn Frances
>O’Kane and their cronies within the Family Violence Prevention Coordinating
>Committee you might come to the same conclusion as Dave.
>
Piss off Dudley, you're talking crap. The FVPCC was well intentioned
and was directly responsible to the Prime Minister's department if I
remember rightly, and it had judicial and government
inter-departmental respect, so it could not have been all that bad as
you imply.
Karen
Karen
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>Diane Stogre Power died of a stroke in Oct of 1995. A huge loss to
>Naional radio
>>
on systematic organised abuse. We were fortunate to have a producer
who was able to get her interests and passions over to the public
through her lucky position at Radio New Zealand. It really annoys me
that some of the remaining sympathisers of our cause cannot carry on
where Diane left off.
I miss her greatly.
Karen
...Tom
>guess I get a bit put off at trying to explain because I always feel I have
>to end up justifying my position and noone else here on this newsgroup
>asking questions of me or my work has answered my questions about them or
>have justified why they dont believe that abuse in the extreme forms
>discussed here could actually might possibly happen. or that abuse even
>exists in any form on any contiuum.
We always seem to end up at the extremes in discussions like these. I
sincerely doubt that John, or anyone does not believe that abuse does
not exist whether extreme or otherwise. It is clear that there are
those who carry out systematic abuse over a number of years. It is
also clear that there are occasional incidents of group and/or
organised abuse.
Our concerns arise because, for some reason, the degrees of proof and
common sense required for any other crime do not appear to apply to
those accused of child abuse. Their were elements of testimony against
Peter Ellis that were quite clearly fantastical, and it was also clear
from publically available evidence that there was significant and
dangerous contamination of crucial witnesses.
Peter Ellises trial resembled nothing so much as a Monty Python Sketch
"She's a witch. Burn her burn her"
"how do you know?"
"Well...she turned me into a Newt......."
"A Newt?"
"I got better"
(BTW I am well ware of the irony of using witch trials as an example)
Then you add in the ridiculous hysterical trial in the US and the
documented cases of men whose families have been destroyed because of
shonky quacks using recovered memory to dredge up preconceived
accusations.
The result?
For several year I was scared to bathe my daughter in case she might
make a misconstured innocent comment to someone and I found myself
accused of abusing her.
Irrational fear? probably, but it was real nonetheless.
I'll be honest Ann-Marie. I hated those who perpetrated this bullshit
for the contamination they introduced to my relationship with my young
children.
It is my opinion that those in the late 80's and 90's who by pushing
their ideology and seeing abuse in everything caused far more danage
than the abusers they were supposedly hunting. Yet they continue to
practice and we see no sign that we are yet safe from their hatred.
None of this is directed at you personally Ann Marie. I don't know
you, nor do I know your specific thoughts or actions, but you often
seem bewildered at the degree of animosity expressed. I hope the above
helps you understand why the inquisitions of the last few decades made
some of us so angry.
...Tom
Geoff McCaughan
> So terse is what happens when I feel a bit picked on.
You poooor baby!
I wonder if Peter Ellis feels a teensy bit terse too?
Fred Knuckle
I thought media people were supposed to be rather neutral and not let
personal beliefs influence or overtake their work. Are you suggesting
that that producer was riding her hobby-horse?
Fred Knuckle
Was it Bolger who set that up and does this committee still exist?
...Tom
>>Yeah - Im tired. Sorry. You have made it clear you agree with John so I
>>guess I get a bit put off at trying to explain because I always feel I have
>>to end up justifying my position and noone else here on this newsgroup
>>asking questions of me or my work has answered my questions about them or
>>have justified why they dont believe that abuse in the extreme forms
>>discussed here could actually might possibly happen. or that abuse even
>>exists in any form on any contiuum.
>
>We always seem to end up at the extremes in discussions like these. I
>sincerely doubt that John, or anyone does not believe that abuse does
>not exist whether extreme or otherwise. It is clear that there are
>those who carry out systematic abuse over a number of years. It is
>also clear that there are occasional incidents of group and/or
>organised abuse.
Replying to my own posts. I hate that :)
I'd just like to add that I whipped this post off before work today
and upon rereading note that I have made some typo's and haven't
expressed my opinion clearly in some areas. The language is also just
a touch more emotive than I'd like for this subject. In short, the
intent of the post stands, but I concede in advance to anyone who
wants to take me to task on detail.
...Tom
Fred Knuckle
<geoff.m...@trimble.co.nz> wrote:
Anyone know what the latest is on his case? Wasn't there an inquiry
result due? When? He must've been out of jail about a year by now.
ann-marie stapp
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <944urr$pog$2...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
wonder whats worse - someone being terse or someone being passive/aggressive
by being patronising?
and how about you put <snip> where you delete a lot of context.
ann-marie stapp
David McLoughlin
>
> yeah me too.
> AMS
Surely Kim Hill is a worthy and hard-working successor to Diane? Kim
also has one of the highest-rating radio programmes in the country.
Kerry
<davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Surely Kim Hill is a worthy and hard-working successor to Diane? Kim
>also has one of the highest-rating radio programmes in the country.
Well I like her.
I was very impressed with her none-to-easy questioning of Lizz Gunn
this week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you have an apple and I have an apple and if we
exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we
exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred Knuckle
<davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
Kim Hill strikes me as one who would like to believe that all that
whacky ritualistic type abuse happens. I remember late last year
listening to her interviewing a skepitical type on recovered memory.
She slammed the skeptic but next day almost kissed the believer's
arse.
Megan Pledger
> David McLoughlin wrote:
> >Surely Kim Hill is a worthy and hard-working successor to Diane? Kim
> >also has one of the highest-rating radio programmes in the country.
>
> Well I like her.
>
> I was very impressed with her none-to-easy questioning of Lizz Gunn
> this week.
She ripped apart the women comunications officer from Vodafone - Thai
themed 'Christmas' party.
You could hear her baiting the trap, leading her on, then *bam*.
Sometimes you get asked what 4 people would you like from history would
you like to invite to a dinner party. One of my choices would have to be
Kim Hill. She'd make sure you got to the guts of the issue no matter who
else you chose to invite.
M.
Megan Pledger
> Kim Hill strikes me as one who would like to believe that all that
> whacky ritualistic type abuse happens. I remember late last year
> listening to her interviewing a skepitical type on recovered memory.
> She slammed the skeptic but next day almost kissed the believer's
> arse.
Sometimes the more incredible people she doesn't bother skewering but
just lets them talk. Its like her mind is boggling with increduality and
it's enough for her that they say their piece for all the world to
hear. Why skewer something thats so obviously full of holes.
The one thing that impresses me is that she handles the science stuff
well and gets to grips with it even though she is obviously an "arts"
person.
M.
ann-marie stapp
David McLoughlin wrote in message <3a66...@news.iprolink.co.nz>...
Yes and ?
I miss Diane. She died. She was a friend and Im allowed to like Kim Hill and
miss Diane at the same time.
ann-marie stapp
Fred Knuckle wrote in message ...
maybe shes just being a journalist. She slammed me 7 years ago.
So make what you will.
AMS
Fred Knuckle
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
What was the issue she slammed you on?
Fred Knuckle
>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>Diane Stogre Power died of a stroke in Oct of 1995. A huge loss to
>>>Naional radio
>>>>
>
>>Diane's passing meant a great loss to many. She did some great series
>>on systematic organised abuse. We were fortunate to have a producer
>>who was able to get her interests and passions over to the public
>>through her lucky position at Radio New Zealand. It really annoys me
>>that some of the remaining sympathisers of our cause cannot carry on
>>where Diane left off.
>>
>>I miss her greatly.
>>
>>Karen
>
<fukn...@home.net> wrote:
>I thought media people were supposed to be rather neutral and not let
>personal beliefs influence or overtake their work. Are you suggesting
>that that producer was riding her hobby-horse?
You've not answered me Karen, so I'll ask you again:
Mark Harris
> Either way using the word ritual ran <sic> against the
>philosohoy Ive been outlining in the last few emails to you i.e to call the
>abuse ritual abuse detracts from the heart of the issues - which is kids
>getting hurt (physically, sexually and or emotionally).
With respect, Ann-Marie, whatever the last words of the name were,
"Ritual" stayed the same. The members of *this* newsgroup didn't start
using it - the "Ritual Action [insert appropriate agglomeration word
here]" used it. They can't have been ignorant of the effect that word
would have. Gabites, in particular, focussed on the ritual allegations
of the Ellis case, IIRC.
No one denies that abuse occurs. It's horrible and damages for life.
Let's not go down that argument lane as emotion takes charge and rules
out rational discussion.
What gets under the jumper of many in this group is that RAG/RAN got
into the media with reports of ritual abuse (and I didn't see much
correction coming forth when the media swapped "ritual" for "satanic
ritual") being rife in the community and that the media climate
created ensured that Peter Ellis went to jail on the flimsiest of
circumstantial evidence.
I doubt that anyone attibutes Ellis's conviction to you personally -
you're right, you're not that famous <g>. Probably more people blame
the Police and the prosecution who withheld evidence that might have
cast the accepted evidence in a more realistic light.
However, you were a vocal and visible part of a group that contributed
to the climate of fear and suspicion. Tom has posted elsewhere of the
fear that his actions with his children would be misinterpreted. I
know several (over 10) men - some straight, some bent - who left the
teaching profession to avoid being hunted like Ellis.
Your name was on that report, along with the other authors. Therefore,
you aquiesced (at least) to the statements expressed. Joint authorship
means joint responsibility as well as joint credit. So saying that
someone focussed on the "one paragraph I didn't write" doesn't cut it,
really.
If you seriously want discussion, try to answer the points raised
rather than engaging in debating tricks.
Regards
Mark Harris
--
When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle. It makes the neighbor's dog
run to the end of his chain and gag himself.
Mark Harris
>personal beliefs influence or overtake their work. Are you suggesting
>that that producer was riding her hobby-horse?
*Reporters* should report objectively (most don't, but that's the
ideal). Editors are entitled to express opinion, as are columnists and
producers.
Diane made some damn good radio (she made some crap too, but we all
manage that ;-) and one of the reasons was the passion she brought to
her work. I didn't know her well and didn't like or dislike her
especially but I respected her work.
Cheers
ann-marie stapp
thought I should be reporting this all to statutory agencies. Argued it
wasn't my role as a quantitative researcher. It was generally her tone. So
in context if this thread, Im none the wiser if she believes that extremes
forms of abuse happen or not.
AMS
ann-marie stapp
Mark Harris wrote in message <3a690616...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:54:40 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
><snip>
>> Either way using the word ritual ran <sic> against the
>>philosohoy Ive been outlining in the last few emails to you i.e to call
the
>>abuse ritual abuse detracts from the heart of the issues - which is kids
>>getting hurt (physically, sexually and or emotionally).
>
>With respect, Ann-Marie, whatever the last words of the name were,
>"Ritual" stayed the same. The members of *this* newsgroup didn't start
>using it - the "Ritual Action [insert appropriate agglomeration word
>here]" used it. They can't have been ignorant of the effect that word
>would have. Gabites, in particular, focussed on the ritual allegations
>of the Ellis case, IIRC.
>
>No one denies that abuse occurs. It's horrible and damages for life.
>Let's not go down that argument lane as emotion takes charge and rules
>out rational discussion.
ah - but to the contrary - read the thread again. There are people on this
newsgroup that think exactly like that. But thankyou for being the first to
actually say you do believe abuse occurs.
>
>What gets under the jumper of many in this group is that RAG/RAN got
>into the media with reports of ritual abuse (and I didn't see much
>correction coming forth when the media swapped "ritual" for "satanic
>ritual") being rife in the community and that the media climate
>created ensured that Peter Ellis went to jail on the flimsiest of
>circumstantial evidence.
The ritual action group came into existance about 3 weeks before Peter
Eillis arrest. The first I knew about it was the newspaper report about 10
days after the FVPCC conference. That case had alife off its own. The wole
bloody thing was a circus.
I guess I want to say - if I may go beyond my statement that I would only
make one statement, comes from refelcting on that whole period of time. What
would I do differently? I would have conducted my research in a quieter
forum and I would have had nothing to do with the media at all. The more I
asked the media to not go on about satanism and ritual abuse they more they
did. Its like "dont think of the colour red". It was messy and confusing for
everyone and most of the women I talked to didnt find it helfpul either. RAN
or myslef never claimed "it" was rife in tthe community.
>
>I doubt that anyone attibutes Ellis's conviction to you personally -
>you're right, you're not that famous <g>. Probably more people blame
>the Police and the prosecution who withheld evidence that might have
>cast the accepted evidence in a more realistic light.
actually - you should have read what was posted to me on the
queer.newsgroup. A number of Ellis supportes hood me personally responsible
for the police, the courts, the priosn sentnce and what happened while he
was in thre. So go figure that. But yours is the first reasonable post about
the role of police and prosecutions Thankyou. A note for interest.- my
research material and information was never made public so therefore was
never avaialable for police and prosections so they must have done there own
listening, reading and researching and conclusions
>
>However, you were a vocal and visible part of a group that contributed
>to the climate of fear and suspicion. Tom has posted elsewhere of the
>fear that his actions with his children would be misinterpreted. I
>know several (over 10) men - some straight, some bent - who left the
>teaching profession to avoid being hunted like Ellis.]
Strange - I was asking people to remain calm and to do some critical
thinking. I think this issue taps peoples fears. Im sorry - but I wont take
responsibility for that. and I haven't got the time or energy to even
elaborate on what I think about statements about " I cant bath my children
in case I get accused of abuse". My summary is this - this statement is
based in ignorance of how abuse occurs, how disclosures happen and minimises
the reality of abuse when it does happen. I dont think you and I are ever
gonna agreee on this one.
>
>Your name was on that report, along with the other authors. Therefore,
>you aquiesced (at least) to the statements expressed. Joint authorship
>means joint responsibility as well as joint credit. So saying that
>someone focussed on the "one paragraph I didn't write" doesn't cut it,
>really.
>
>If you seriously want discussion, try to answer the points raised
>rather than engaging in debating tricks.
>
and if you seriously want me to remain in dialogue stop dehumanising me . I
am a human being. I have reactions, as well as responses. This is a
difficult issue and it is only now (after a month) that people (you
especially) are actually asking (mostly) questions that aren't loaded with
attacks and blame of me. If I answer a question with a question its because
I believe that other people need be as upfront as Im trying to be about
thoughts and changing ideas and beliefs. The bottom line is people posting
on this thread are polarised on their thinking about it and its a risky job
so give me a break - Im fronting up and bloody trying. Im also aware of the
public nature of this group and have got a strong suspicion that half of
what I write will probably turn up in some halfcut, misquoted,
misinterpreted newspaper article somewhere. It wouldn't be the first time.
ann-marie stapp
Dudley Dunn wrote in message <3a69069d$1...@zfree.co.nz>...
>while ago with a National Radio address. I'd say she was pushing her own
>trolly which means that you've got to wonder about the
neutrality/bias/credibility
>issues of National Radio productions.
>
>November 1991
>
>RITUAL ACTION NETWORK
>P.O. Box 11-626
>WELLINGTON
>
>Dianne Stogre Power
>National Radio
>P.O. Box 2092, Wellington
>
>471 734 (wk)
>
>Cheers
>
why do you assume everyone on the list was pushing there own barrow? We
were all representatives of different agencies - i.e. making us a network
rather than a group. We certainly had differences of opinions. And before
you ask - Im not prepared to detail confidential information that we never
got round to minuting anyway.
AMS
David McLoughlin
> The ritual action group came into existance about 3 weeks before Peter
> Eillis arrest. The first I knew about it was the newspaper report about 10
> days after the FVPCC conference. That case had alife off its own. The wole
> bloody thing was a circus.
>
Ann-Marie, no implied criticism of you. The fact remains that this
highly-publicised conference, three weeks before F's mother
fantastically and without any evidence claimed Ellis was an abuser, was
the circuit-breaker which led to the entire Civic charade.
Regardless of how you now downplay your role, you were on the front page
of the Sunday News with the Hutt cop Gabetes being quoted as saying NZ
was awash with satanic abuse.
But thank you for engaging in debate about this all these years later. I
am very impressed by how you have debated this so publicly under your
own name. Good on you.
ann-marie stapp
David McLoughlin wrote in message <3a69...@news.iprolink.co.nz>...
>ann-marie stapp wrote:
>
>> The ritual action group came into existance about 3 weeks before Peter
>> Eillis arrest. The first I knew about it was the newspaper report about
10
>> days after the FVPCC conference. That case had alife off its own. The
wole
>> bloody thing was a circus.
>>
>
>Ann-Marie, no implied criticism of you. The fact remains that this
>highly-publicised conference, three weeks before F's mother
>fantastically and without any evidence claimed Ellis was an abuser, was
>the circuit-breaker which led to the entire Civic charade.
Hi David
mmm - not how it went according to Joy Banders book - that there was a long
process of disclosures. Mind you I guess well never know unless some
prosecutors, defenders and police decide to write their equivalent.
In an ironical way, the only thing that myself and those that support Peter
Ellis, may agreee on - is that there neds to be an enquiry. For me, this
would include (1) how to gather information when there are allegations of
multivictim- multiperpetrator abuse and (2) where there is evidence of
same, how to try it. Along with other things that my brain wont regurgitate
at the moment.
I find it interesting that there was one one hour workshop on RA ( as it was
called then) in a four day conference on CSA and that is what is focused on.
I dont beleive that was was discussed amongst professionals that day was a
circuit breaker for that case.
>
>Regardless of how you now downplay your role, you were on the front page
>of the Sunday News with the Hutt cop Gabetes being quoted as saying NZ
>was awash with satanic abuse.
Im not trying to downplay my role. I can see that my name and face was
plasted up and down the country. I guess Im hearing now what effect it had
in general. Ive known since that time that it didnt help me, the issue of
Family Violence Prevention or the women who spoke to me at all.
But was it Gabites, Frances or me or the reporter that said or made that
quote up? Awash is not and never has been in my vocabularly. and I have
personally never referred to the issue as Satanic. I was stunned and
appalled by that coverage. Still am. Like I said in another e, what I would
do differently is to not talk to the media and not be involved in PR. It
aint my forte. RAN had a strategy, as does other organisations, and not so
unusual in the 1990s. of talking to the media to ascertain support and
coverage for issues. I for one was naive and learnt the hardway. I only
beleive about 30% of what I read in print nowadays.
>
>But thank you for engaging in debate about this all these years later. I
>am very impressed by how you have debated this so publicly under your
>own name. Good on you.
Thanks David. I hope one day I will meet up with you. I guess I had to weigh
up whether I was going to say anything as its been a bit of a weight at
times. I face many personal and professional dilemmas as you have probably
guessed. Not even half of these could be debated publicly but I re-made the
decision a few weeks ago to be public in this group to (a). stick up for
myself
(b) stick up for the issues of protecting children from any from of abuse
whatever form that comes in and (c). try and unravel what the hell happened
then.
In case some of you are wondering why I have been silent for 7 years its
partly to do with the craziness of the polarised opinions and a lot to do
with the phone call death threats and while I barely coped with those death
threats being left on notes under my car windscreen wipers, I definitely did
not cope with them being left on my partners car.
between the paranoia of those women brave enough to speak to me, and some
believed RAN was a "cult" and the disbelief of the polar philosophers and
colleagues demanding we reveal all to protection agencies, coupled with
afore mentioned death threats, I hope you can understand my occasional
terseness, reluctance and frustration at some of the questions and the tone
of them.
and David, it wouldn't occur to me to not use my own name because Ive always
believed I have nothing to hide. (as opposed to client confidentiality which
is different). Mind you Ive moments of wishing Id never posted to either
newsgroup <g>
AMS
David McLoughlin
> and David, it wouldn't occur to me to not use my own name because Ive always
> believed I have nothing to hide.
Yes, same here. I certainly tend more to respect posts from people who
use their real names.
> Mind you Ive moments of wishing Id never posted to either
> newsgroup
Oh, same here. While mostly I enjoy these newsgroups, and get lots of
interesting information from them, they have a down side if you post
under your real name and say what you really believe. There are some
fairly nasty people round here, but such is life. 99pc of Usenet is
friendly and fun IME.
David McLoughlin
> >Ann-Marie, no implied criticism of you. The fact remains that this
> >highly-publicised conference, three weeks before F's mother
> >fantastically and without any evidence claimed Ellis was an abuser, was
> >the circuit-breaker which led to the entire Civic charade.
> mmm - not how it went according to Joy Banders book - that there was a long
> process of disclosures.
Just to put it into context, "Joy Bander" did not become involved in the
fracas until she attended the Knox Hall meeting on March 31 1992, which
was four months after F's mother began the hysteria in November 1991
just after the Christchurch conference you attended, AM.
"Joy Bander" wrote an interesting book, I must say. A great work of
fiction. But no doubt she believes it all. I feel very, very sorry for
her poor son N in whose head she planted all those ghastly fantasies.
What a screwed-up kid he would now be. He was pretty sad when I met him
and his mother.
Sue Sidey, who interviewed N five times, suspected that "Joy" was
implanting the fantastic tales he was telling her in his mind. She
refused to interview him again at one stage, but "Joy" went to the cops
with even more bizarre tales and they made Sue interview N a couple more
times, when he then came up with the "circle incident" and the "cages."
I don't think that Sue Sidey, a decent woman, believed much of this, but
she was caught up in the hysteria of the times.
And the fact it was all bullshit didn't stop the zealous cops involved
from prosecuting Ellis for those fantasies.
Ask Sue about it, AM, I suspect you would know her.
ann-marie stapp
David McLoughlin wrote in message <3a69...@news.iprolink.co.nz>...
>ann-marie stapp wrote:
>>
>> David McLoughlin wrote in message <3a69...@news.iprolink.co.nz>...
>
>> >Ann-Marie, no implied criticism of you. The fact remains that this
>> >highly-publicised conference, three weeks before F's mother
>> >fantastically and without any evidence claimed Ellis was an abuser, was
>> >the circuit-breaker which led to the entire Civic charade.
>
>> mmm - not how it went according to Joy Banders book - that there was a
long
>> process of disclosures.
>
>Just to put it into context, "Joy Bander" did not become involved in the
>fracas until she attended the Knox Hall meeting on March 31 1992, which
>was four months after F's mother began the hysteria in November 1991
>just after the Christchurch conference you attended, AM.
ahh - so I am missing huge chunks of info then.
>
>"Joy Bander" wrote an interesting book, I must say. A great work of
>fiction. But no doubt she believes it all. I feel very, very sorry for
>her poor son N in whose head she planted all those ghastly fantasies.
>What a screwed-up kid he would now be. He was pretty sad when I met him
>and his mother.
ah - you interviewed them then. and thankyou for the intial N as I have been
racking my brains for a month now trying to remember even Joy Bs name. Only
read the book when suggested to me by someone on queer.soc
<snip>
>Ask Sue about it, AM, I suspect you would know her.
Unfortunately - never got to meet her in my liaisons. But one day I will.
I have a funny feeling that none of this is going away in a hurry. I will be
interested to hear the stories of the children once they are adults. Maybe
that will tell us what happened - one way or tuther! Whats going to happen
if they corroborate the accusations?
Can you imagine the threads on this newsgroup!
for now. I am off to sleep land. and Ive been bursting to tell someone all
day and its probably another thread but who cares.
I saw three tuataras in the wild's of Somes/Matiu Island today and Im still
blown away 10 hours later!!!!! They were truly amazing!
AMS
...Tom
>newsgroup that think exactly like that. But thankyou for being the first to
>actually say you do believe abuse occurs.
This is completely incorrect. The few on this newsgroup who have not
specifically stated that abuse occurs, have fairly obviously not done
so because they took it as given. There are numerous cases of child
abuse and you wouldn't have to search long on the net to find fairly
graphic evidence of it happening all over the world.
To characterise the quite legitimate concerns raised here as
minimising or denying child abuse is disingenuous to be polite.
You debate very dishonestly, which is disappointing. It is rare that
we get a chance to engage in debate with one of the proponents of an
area which has caused widespread concern for some time. I had some
vague hopes that you would be prepared to discuss the reasons for the
position you have publically held over some years, and was hoping you
would at least present some sort of rebuttal to the quite genuine
concerns raised in these forums. Instead you practice several not very
subtle forms of debating evasion, and are now making blatantly
inaccurate statements.
To be honest, I'm quite disappointed. Just for a moment I thought a
dialogue was being established.
...Tom
...Tom
>public nature of this group and have got a strong suspicion that half of
>what I write will probably turn up in some halfcut, misquoted,
>misinterpreted newspaper article somewhere. It wouldn't be the first time.
I have yet to see a usenet post quoted in the print media. Not sure
why. Journalists here may care to comment. If I expected what was
written here to be published I would certainly post differently.
...Tom
...Tom
>I have a funny feeling that none of this is going away in a hurry. I will be
>interested to hear the stories of the children once they are adults. Maybe
>that will tell us what happened - one way or tuther! Whats going to happen
>if they corroborate the accusations?
>
>Can you imagine the threads on this newsgroup!
Given the ages of the children at the time, I very much doubt they
have a clue what really happened any more. Pleasing the parent is a
powerful incentive and at that age a story oft enough told becomes
reality very quickly.
...Tom
John Cawston
A number of comments here have been published in the media. Dave McL has done
one or two, IIRC and Owen McShane as well (tho with permission).
In addition, there have been the odd media stories about the group. Including
the Fact(?) that there are 50,000 readers and a number of politicians.
JC
Brian
<davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>ann-marie stapp wrote:
>
>> The ritual action group came into existance about 3 weeks before Peter
>> Eillis arrest. The first I knew about it was the newspaper report about 10
>> days after the FVPCC conference. That case had alife off its own. The wole
>> bloody thing was a circus.
>>
>
>Ann-Marie, no implied criticism of you. The fact remains that this
>highly-publicised conference, three weeks before F's mother
>fantastically and without any evidence claimed Ellis was an abuser, was
>the circuit-breaker which led to the entire Civic charade.
I've only recently found this thread after some time away in Oz.
I'm less inclined to be as charitable as you Dave, with regard to
criticism of participants. If the conference was the circuit breaker
as you put it, then why is their no implied criticism of the role of
the participants?
It is true that almost all, and probably totally all of those involved
in the Creche case can make the claim that they were not responsible
for the events of the Civic .... and the resulting hysteria
throughout the country. And there were many players. I've posted
often before that the police, interviewers, and even the judge showed
incredible incompetence. And our justice system as a whole still
stands indicted for the injustice that Peter Ellis *still* wears.
A group such as the Ritual Action Group was only one (that played
their role indirectly) ... but were still a significant group of
people.
But what happened with regard to the Sexual Abuse hysteria of the
1990s in New Zealand (including the Creche) has remarkable
similarities with what happened in Germany in the 1930s and war years
... and in America in the early 1950s ..... another "moral panic"
... with simply another type or group of victims.
And the participants? In all cases they are generally "decent
people". In fact the very horror of these sorts of panics is that we
all as individuals can be duped, given the appropriate circumstances.
But how do we, or what do we do to help make sure that these sorts of
tragedies do not go away? Did International justice leave the
ex-Nazis alone during the 1950s and 1960s, because some of the worst
criminals had transformed themselves into sweet and caring "people
next door", leading a blameless life? The answer is that they did
not, regardless of how they downplayed their involvement or passed on
their responsibilities.
That is not the only model however. At the end of apartheid, South
Africa introduced a "truth and reconciliation" programme. The
victims of what had happened in that case decided that it was more
important that truth be exposed than to seek retributive justice
against some of the guilty.
In New Zealand neither model is available to us, with regard to the
participants in the hysteria that led to the child sexual abuse witch
hunt (And by referring to it as a witch hunt, I'm hoping to
distinguish the excessive zealotry which prevailed from the need to
try and prevent real child sexual and physical abuse). For with
regard to the hysteria, it is more akin to the American communist
hysteria: Those responsible did not break any *law*.
I would be quite happy to forget the involvement of all the
participants, if an inquiry were to be held in New Zealand ... an
inquiry with real teeth (to distinguish it from the forthcoming
findings associated with the Ellis case, whichever decade that will
eventuate) ... which was held openly, and in a way that would
encourage truth instead of retribution.
But if that avenue is not open, then the only way open to achieve
justice for victims of the witch hunt ... such as Peter Ellis, is for
the private investigations of concerned individuals to continue, and
for the role of all the participants to be exposed to the public.
If people such as Peter Ellis are not to be granted their freedom with
a declaration of innocence and apology by the law of this land, then
the only way that they can be compensated in some small way is for
them to win that innocence in the hearts and minds of the public who
have been interested enough to study the issues.
The fact remains that none of the main participants have ever issued
statements showing that they understand the role that they did play
.. and try and make amends for the harm they did do.
It is simply not good enough for Ms Stapp and others in the Ritual
Action Group to claim that they were badly reported by the media; that
the word "ritual" was not in their name, and therefore not in their
vocabulary; or that they disagreed with others in the group (on
unspecified issues).
The Group was not the only group feeding the hysteria. But they had a
significant role.
The questions are "Do they acknowledge that they carried any
responsibility at all?" and if so "What are they going to do about
that *now* to make amends as best they can?"
>
>Regardless of how you now downplay your role, you were on the front page
>of the Sunday News with the Hutt cop Gabetes being quoted as saying NZ
>was awash with satanic abuse.
They may now claim that they were wrongly, or badly reported ... but
what did they do *then* at the height of the hysteria? Were there any
letters to the Editor, complaining about being wrongly interpreted?
Did the Ritual Action Group dissociate itself from statements
involving "satanic" ...... and have they yet provided evidence for the
actual name of their group referring to "rituals"?
I'm reminded somewhat of the telethon in the late 80's where it was
reported that "one in four fathers was guilty of incest". The harm
that reporting did was extreme. Those responsible for those
statistics now claim that the statistics used by telethon at the time
were misreports of their actual data .... but at the time they never
issued any statements of correction, or complained to the media that
those figures were wrong.
>But thank you for engaging in debate about this all these years later. I
>am very impressed by how you have debated this so publicly under your
>own name. Good on you.
I have no time for the past actions of Ms Stapp, or her seeming lack
of appreciation of the effects of her own group, and the harm done.
But I also endorse your comments about her fronting up to discuss her
involvement, even if it appears more as a justification than an
apology. Most of the participants (minor or major players) have
remained silent, or even worse continued to persecute the victims.
I also applaud her calling for a *real* enquiry into the Ellis case.
It is the beginning perhaps of a common ground for those concerned
about abuse, and those concerned about false allegations of abuse. For
in actual fact both groups of concerned citizens need to be just as
concerned about the other problem.
If people are only concerned about abuse, then they are unwittingly
helping to perpetrate injustice for people wrongfully accused. If
people are only concerned about false allegations of abuse, then they
may not be ready to accept that an accusation may in fact be true.
Somehow the pendulum must not be allowed to continue swinging wildly.
Brian
Brian
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>Mark Harris wrote in message <3a690616...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
>>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:54:40 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>No one denies that abuse occurs. It's horrible and damages for life.
>>Let's not go down that argument lane as emotion takes charge and rules
>>out rational discussion.
>
>ah - but to the contrary - read the thread again. There are people on this
>newsgroup that think exactly like that.
This is a vile accusation, Ms Stapp, that you have made against
unnamed people on this group.
Who are these "people"?
Please provide the quotations to justify your smear.
Brian
Brian
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>Come now, you wee pedant. Changed from RAN to RAG didn't it? Or was it the
>>other way around?
>
>LOL - yeah - something like that. I honestly cant remember. RAN was only
>slightly better as it used the word network which implies a collection of
>agencies networking to discuss issues and how much importance should be
>given to what.
In both cases, of course it is "RITUAL" abuse issues.
>Either way using the word ritual ran <sic> against the
>philosohoy Ive been outlining in the last few emails to you i.e to call the
>abuse ritual abuse detracts from the heart of the issues - which is kids
>getting hurt (physically, sexually and or emotionally).
This seems absolutely bizarre to now (in the year 2001) disown the
word "ritual" when it was the most prominent word in the title of your
group!
A little bit of rewriting history going on here?
Given that at the time there were plenty of opportunities to involve
yourself in the field of abuse, you became prominent in a group about
"RITUAL" abuse. And it was not the media that misreported group
members who referred to "SATANIC RITUAL" abuse, either, was it?
Did you ever at the time you were involved with the Ritual Action
Group (or Ritual Action Network), ever publicly dissociate yourself
from the word "ritual"?
Brian
>>>>November 1991
>>>>
>>>>RITUAL ACTION NETWORK
>>>>P.O. Box 11-626
>>>>WELLINGTON
>>>>
>>>>Ally Anderson
>>>>Women's Centre,
>>>>186 Knights Road,
>>>>Lower Hutt
>>>>5692 711 (wk)
>>>>
>>>>Dianne Stogre Power
>>>>National Radio
>>>>P.O. Box 2092, Wellington
>>>>471 734 (wk)
>>>>
>>>>Jocelyn Frances
>>>>Ritual Action Network,
>>>>P.O. Box 11-626
>>>>Wgtn
>>>>3859 577
>>>>
>>>>Robin Lane
>>>>St Andrews on the Terrace,
>>>>P.O. Box 5203
>>>>Wgtn
>>>>4729 211
>>>>
>>>>Vicki Motte Harrison
>>>>Social Welfare,
>>>>Private Bag,
>>>>Te Aro
>>>>3850 139 x 8958
>>>>
>>>>Laurie Gabites
>>>>PoIice DHQ
>>>>P.O. Box 40-013
>>>>Upper Hutt
>>>>5284 029 (wk)
>>>>385 9265 home
>>>>
>>>>Vera Levett
>>>>12 Winston. Street,
>>>>Wellington 4
>>>>4795 266
>>>>
>>>>Ann Marie Stapp
>>>>Ritual Action Network,
>>>>P.O. Box 11 626
>>>>Wellington
>>>>3893 182
>>>>
>>>>Vivienne Ulirich (lawyer)
>>>>P.O. Box 5048,
>>>>Wellington
>>>>4729 209
>>>>
>>>>Nigel Marriott
>>>>Probation Office,
>>>>P.O. Box 30-491
>>>>Lower Hutt 5693 012
>>>>5693 012
>>>>
>>>>Janet Carlyle
>>>>Hutt Family Violence Network
>>>>P.O Box 31-022
>>>>Lower Hutt
>>>>5664 596 (wk)
>>>>
>>>>Chris Ravenswood
>>>>C/- P.O. Box 673,
>>>>Palmerston North
>>>>06-3561 276
>>>>06-3565 868. (w)
>>>>
>>>>Diana Fairfield
>>>>Women's Refuge
>>>>P.O. Box 16-079
>>>>Wellington
>>>>4797 095
>>>>4796 171
>>>>
>>>>Sue McGregor
>>>>Upper Hutt Family Care Centre,
>>>>64 Marten St
>>>>Upper Hutt
>>>>5284 164
>>>>
>>>>Mike Simpson
>>>>P.O. Box 11-069
>>>>Wellington47
>>>>4721 251
>>>>
>>>>Elizabeth Thompson
>>>>P.O. Box 9172,
>>>>Wellington
>>>>4726 185
...Tom
>A number of comments here have been published in the media. Dave McL has done
>one or two, IIRC and Owen McShane as well (tho with permission).
Have any comments in usenet published without permission?
>
>In addition, there have been the odd media stories about the group. Including
>the Fact(?) that there are 50,000 readers and a number of politicians.
I'm aware of general stories about usenet. I was interested in
Journalists attitudes to comments made in usenet during a debate being
reused in other media without permission. Usenet makes a fairly
extensive public record of comment, but is it a safe resource for
journos?
...Tom
David McLoughlin
> I'm aware of general stories about usenet. I was interested in
> Journalists attitudes to comments made in usenet during a debate being
> reused in other media without permission.
Usenet is a public forum, Tom. Anybody is free to republish anywhere,
anything posted here. No permission is needed.
> Usenet makes a fairly
> extensive public record of comment, but is it a safe resource for
> journos?
It can be a good one. It's especially a good place to find news tips
which can make good stories when followed up.
David McLoughlin
> >"Joy Bander" wrote an interesting book, I must say. A great work of
> >fiction. But no doubt she believes it all. I feel very, very sorry for
> >her poor son N in whose head she planted all those ghastly fantasies.
> >What a screwed-up kid he would now be. He was pretty sad when I met him
> >and his mother.
>
> ah - you interviewed them then. and thankyou for the intial N as I have been
> racking my brains for a month now trying to remember even Joy Bs name.
I'm sure if you wrack your brain a bit more, AM, you will remember
meeting Joy, even being at her house. Her first name begins with S and
her surname with D. N was the youngest son, she had teenagers at the
time too. Her partner, N's father, is P.
> I have a funny feeling that none of this is going away in a hurry. I will be
> interested to hear the stories of the children once they are adults. Maybe
> that will tell us what happened - one way or tuther! Whats going to happen
> if they corroborate the accusations?
Well, I suspect some of them would, as this supposedly happened when
they were just three or four, and ever since they have been subjected to
parental comments and counselling claiming they were abused. They are
now teenagers and have been brought up to believe they were abused at
the civic creche. Their real memories of what happened there will have
been impossibly clouded by the therapy they have been subjected to.
A number have since said it didn't happen, though, including the one who
the oldest (10) at the time of the trial.
> I saw three tuataras in the wild's of Somes/Matiu Island today and Im still
> blown away 10 hours later!!!!! They were truly amazing!
Extraordinary. You are so lucky.
Bruce Hamilton
>...Tom wrote:
>> I'm aware of general stories about usenet. I was interested in
>> Journalists attitudes to comments made in usenet during a debate being
>> reused in other media without permission.
>Usenet is a public forum, Tom. Anybody is free to republish anywhere,
>anything posted here. No permission is needed.
Really?. That would be news to a *very* large number of people.
The newbie guides make it very clear that the posts/FAQs etc.
are the copyrighted property of the author/owner. I've put a lot
of effort into my FAQs, and I'd be very annoyed if somebody
incorporated them into a profit making document.
The content of posts can obviously be reported, but the
expression is the property of the author/owner, and publication
in a journal for money would invoke ire ( and IIRC, fair use
guideline say about 10% max of original is generally considered
accepatble )
Bruce Hamilton
ann-marie stapp
David McLoughlin wrote in message <3a6a...@news.iprolink.co.nz>...<snip>.
>I'm sure if you wrack your brain a bit more, AM, you will remember
>meeting Joy, even being at her house. Her first name begins with S and
>her surname with D. N was the youngest son, she had teenagers at the
>time too. Her partner, N's father, is P.
Sorry David. didnt make myself clear. I finally remembered Joys name
once I got the book but for the life of me couldnt work out Tommys name and
it wasnt until you said N that I remembered. And yes I know and remember the
interview at the house. Public record ay. Still ahve the video along with
many others from that era and I have never watched them since
>
>Well, I suspect some of them would, as this supposedly happened when
>they were just three or four, and ever since they have been subjected to
>parental comments and counselling claiming they were abused. They are
>now teenagers and have been brought up to believe they were abused at
>the civic creche. Their real memories of what happened there will have
>been impossibly clouded by the therapy they have been subjected to.
I cant usefully comment here. I know the theories of contamination through
the evidential process and the theories of false memory syndrome through
assessment and treatment, but am not able to know the extent of either, if
any, in this case. Henceforth an enquiry and standardisation of procedures
would be useful and a decent piece of research into these theories and their
validity is needed too.
<aside thread>
>> I saw three tuataras in the wild's of Somes/Matiu Island today and Im
still
>> blown away 10 hours later!!!!! They were truly amazing!
>
>
>Extraordinary. You are so lucky.
Yeah - I hope the photo of the one I managed to stand above and get a
looking down shot of, comes out. Im still amazed.
AMS
ann-marie stapp
Dudley Dunn wrote in message <3a69706d$1...@zfree.co.nz>...
>
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:02:21 +1300, Ashleigh George
<ashl...@xxxxxx.co.nz>
>in nz.soc.queer asked Ann-Marie this:
>>
>>Were you or you co-promoters ever ejected from police stations whilst
>>promoting the notion of widespread Satanic Ritual Abuse?
>>
>Ann-Marie, I can't find your response to Ashleigh's question in
nz.soc.queer.
>
>
>Would you mind answering the above question, please?
>
>Thanks
>
>Dudley
No
AMS
ann-marie stapp
...Tom wrote in message ...<snip>
> You debate very dishonestly, which is disappointing
<snip>
. >To be honest, I'm quite disappointed. Just for a moment I thought a
>dialogue was being established.
>
I think the same about you
and yeah -
so did I
Its very clear from the threads that you dont believe in Satanic ritual
abuse. Im not sure what you think about the existence of other forms of
abuse.
Its very clear from my previous public role and research that I used the
terms ritual and satanic in the context of my research. It is not so clear
that I later changed that to Organised systematic abuse as I never published
my findings and so that hasn't been made public till now. Actually - it was
in some newspaper articles in some CHCH paper that I dont think got national
coverage. Anyway, it is also clear that I believe that there are continuums
of abuse. I believe extreme forms of abuse happen. I believe that our
agencies have not yet figured how to identify and try multi-perpetraors for
multi-victim abuse. i.e. pedophile rings. Ironically, I think that the
agreeing point from both polarised points of view- is an enquiry is needed.
So - hope thats a clarification of my honesty and I tell you its Fing
confusing on this group. A few people post and thank me for trying to be
public and accept there are things that cant and wont be discussed publicly
and then you make a statement to the affect Im not being helpful and even
being dishonest. I think the dishonesty lies with you. I haven't got a clue
who you are, you will never support anything I say, you reply only to
disagree with me. So p off and read someone's else's thread and leave this
dialogue to those that are interested.
AMS
ann-marie stapp
Brian wrote in message <3a69783a...@news.wave.co.nz>...
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:54:40 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>>Come now, you wee pedant. Changed from RAN to RAG didn't it? Or was it
the
>>>other way around?
>>
>>LOL - yeah - something like that. I honestly cant remember. RAN was only
>>slightly better as it used the word network which implies a collection of
>>agencies networking to discuss issues and how much importance should be
>>given to what.
>
>
>In both cases, of course it is "RITUAL" abuse issues.
never!!!!
>
>
>
>>Either way using the word ritual ran <sic> against the
>>philosohoy Ive been outlining in the last few emails to you i.e to call
the
>>abuse ritual abuse detracts from the heart of the issues - which is kids
>>getting hurt (physically, sexually and or emotionally).
>
>
>This seems absolutely bizarre to now (in the year 2001) disown the
>word "ritual" when it was the most prominent word in the title of your
>group!
>
>A little bit of rewriting history going on here?
no rewriting of history. Just speaking out about what I thought at the time
and think now. Interesting word you use "bizarre?". I think that abusing
children is bizarre.
>
>Given that at the time there were plenty of opportunities to involve
>yourself in the field of abuse, you became prominent in a group about
>"RITUAL" abuse. And it was not the media that misreported group
>members who referred to "SATANIC RITUAL" abuse, either, was it?
I dont know youre telling the story. Im trying to tell mine and you are
clearly not interested. But I spose I better not say that either. Ill get
accused of being dishonest and others may get disappointed.
I think Im wasting my breath
Ive made my statements. Im clearly going to be hammered to death by your
beleif system that Im worng, your'e right and pedophiles who abuse using
extreme methods, dont exist.
>
>Did you ever at the time you were involved with the Ritual Action
>Group (or Ritual Action Network), ever publicly dissociate yourself
>from the word "ritual"?
yes -
see statement in another email.
Bye Bye
AMS
ann-marie stapp
anyway.
I cant find a satisfactory answer as to why you would want to know this
information.
Please indulge me.
and if you have a story about ejection's from police stations, please do
tell because that is one fiasco I was not involved in. So when and where and
who and the source of your information.
AMS
ann-marie stapp
ann-marie stapp wrote in message <3a6a...@clear.net.nz>...
The no is not an answer to do I mind but my answer to the original question
I was not involved in any eviction.
AMS
Geoff McCaughan
>>No one denies that abuse occurs. It's horrible and damages for life.
>>Let's not go down that argument lane as emotion takes charge and rules
>>out rational discussion.
> ah - but to the contrary - read the thread again. There are people on this
> newsgroup that think exactly like that. But thankyou for being the first to
> actually say you do believe abuse occurs.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that abuse does not occur. Can you quote
anyone who thinks "exactly like that"?
A lot of people [myself included] object to the witchhunt hysteria that the
whole "ritual abuse" business stirred up. This both endangers innocent
people, and distracts attention from real abuse.
> I think this issue taps peoples fears. Im sorry - but I wont take
> responsibility for that. and I haven't got the time or energy to even
> elaborate on what I think about statements about " I cant bath my children
> in case I get accused of abuse". My summary is this - this statement is
> based in ignorance of how abuse occurs, how disclosures happen and minimises
> the reality of abuse when it does happen.
In a climate of 'abuse hysteria' absurd things happen, like pictures of kids
in the bath getting people arrested. To a person who is thinking abuse is
going on, a lot of innocent things that go on between parents and children
can sound dubious.
You may find the fears of parents unrealistic, but it's a bit precious to go
around denying their reality.
--
"He will give them death, and they will love him for it."
Geoff McCaughan
> ann-marie stapp wrote:
>> and David, it wouldn't occur to me to not use my own name because Ive always
>> believed I have nothing to hide.
> Yes, same here. I certainly tend more to respect posts from people who
> use their real names.
What "it wouldn't occur" to you to not use your own name?
People here know you better than that.
ann-marie stapp
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94ffpq$o7j$4...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>David McLoughlin <davemcl@no***damned***spamiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>> ann-marie stapp wrote:
>
>>> and David, it wouldn't occur to me to not use my own name because Ive
always
>>> believed I have nothing to hide.
>
>> Yes, same here. I certainly tend more to respect posts from people who
>> use their real names.
>
>What "it wouldn't occur" to you to not use your own name?
>
>People here know you better than that.
>
Im unclear - is that directed to David or me?
ann-marie stapp
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94ffj8$o7j$3...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>ann-marie stapp <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>>No one denies that abuse occurs. It's horrible and damages for life.
>>>Let's not go down that argument lane as emotion takes charge and rules
>>>out rational discussion.
>
>> ah - but to the contrary - read the thread again. There are people on
this
>> newsgroup that think exactly like that. But thankyou for being the first
to
>> actually say you do believe abuse occurs.
>
>I don't recall anyone suggesting that abuse does not occur. Can you quote
>anyone who thinks "exactly like that"?
Hi Geoff
tones of questions and statements suggested to me that some dont believe.
got enough people here telling me how I "exactly think" so I dont want to do
that in return.
>
>A lot of people [myself included] object to the witchhunt hysteria that the
>whole "ritual abuse" business stirred up. This both endangers innocent
>people, and distracts attention from real abuse.
yeah - me too. Ive been thinking that Ive been debatin something here where
we havent define wat the hell we are tlaking about - whats is the meaning
of Satanic - what is the meaning of abuse - what is the meaning of ritual
and what happens when you put it all together? Misunderstanding and
hysteria. I tried to seperate definitions ou t (I object to you saying
"real" abuse becuase that implis tha there is "unreal" abuse and people on
the receiving end to what you think is "unreal" abuse get upset about that.
ie the women I interviewed.)
Anyway, I didnt like the way the USA lot had gone about putting Satanism and
ritual together automatically. So I looked a bit about Satanic belief
systems and the different types of such,in the same way one would consider
different christian sects or denominations. I in no position to argue
whether the Satanist church abuses kids - Chritians say they do and atamists
say they do, but I do think there are opporunist that use satanist type
components in order to scare children in order to abuse. The primry goal
being abuse not satanism. Now this is different to how the USA have
published there definitions ,It was in the proces of rethinking the
defintion problem that I begna to use the defintion of Organised,
sytstematic abuse abuse.
To use the word ritual implies a faulty theory early on in the group that
suggested "where ritual exsits there exsited the potential for ritual abu8se
to occur". I found that personally objectional and by the tim e I got to
that analysis, the theory was in the paper and that had a life of its own
too. The probelm with trying to make statements later - is that the
original text is off and away in other prin t forms balh bal.
But any way - the OSA defintiion was meant to try and stop the extreme
reactions and the minimsiing of other abuses on the contiuum.
It implied some groups of people were organised in their apporach to abusing
kids -(like pedophile rings), the sytemised the abuse (used particular
methods)and the key point it was abuse.
I have already apologised to the survivors of some of this abuse for the
hysteria that occured and set them back in their recovery. I acknowledge
that could all have better handled with a PR and media strategy.
I make the point again - that I dont have control over misquoting, where my
name gets attached to after the media event and what the wider world does in
continuuing to refer to SRA.
More later
Im going for a walk in Karori Sanctuary and to enjoy this beut day.
>
>> I think this issue taps peoples fears. Im sorry - but I wont take
>> responsibility for that. and I haven't got the time or energy to even
>> elaborate on what I think about statements about " I cant bath my
children
>> in case I get accused of abuse". My summary is this - this statement is
>> based in ignorance of how abuse occurs, how disclosures happen and
minimises
>> the reality of abuse when it does happen.
>
>In a climate of 'abuse hysteria' absurd things happen, like pictures of
kids
>in the bath getting people arrested. To a person who is thinking abuse is
>going on, a lot of innocent things that go on between parents and children
>can sound dubious.
>You may find the fears of parents unrealistic, but it's a bit precious to
go
>around denying their reality.
so if thats the case - why havent all the men and women who abuse in NZ been
investigated? That hasnt happened because the "hysteria" doesnt exist to
the extent that you say it does. People actually shy away from reporting
abuse.
AMS
Geoff McCaughan
> Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94ffpq$o7j$4...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>>David McLoughlin <davemcl@no***damned***spamiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>> ann-marie stapp wrote:
>>>> and David, it wouldn't occur to me to not use my own name because Ive
> always
>>>> believed I have nothing to hide.
>>> Yes, same here. I certainly tend more to respect posts from people who
>>> use their real names.
>>What "it wouldn't occur" to you to not use your own name?
>>People here know you better than that.
> Im unclear - is that directed to David or me?
David. He has posted to these groups in the past using various pseudonyms,
some more transparent than others.
Geoff McCaughan
> Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94ffj8$o7j$3...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
> I tried to seperate definitions ou t (I object to you saying
> "real" abuse becuase that implis tha there is "unreal" abuse and people on
> the receiving end to what you think is "unreal" abuse get upset about that.
> ie the women I interviewed.)
If innocent people are accused of abuse. then the abuse is "unreal" - i.e.
does not exist. Obviously where there is someone "on the receiving end" it's
not unreal. The difficult thing is to know when what is claimed to have
happened actually did happen - as we have seen numerous times simply because
someone makes a claim, doesn't mean something really happened.
It's tough for victims to have anyone question the truth of what they say,
but it's equally unjust to perpetrate false claims. I don't see any way out
but actively seeking the truth without an agenda for or against.
> I in no position to argue
> whether the Satanist church abuses kids - Chritians say they do
Are you aware of the existence of a 'Satanist church'. Satanism is a
christian invention.
> It implied some groups of people were organised in their apporach to abusing
> kids -(like pedophile rings), the sytemised the abuse (used particular
> methods)and the key point it was abuse.
How many "pedophile rings" were found in NZ?
>>You may find the fears of parents unrealistic, but it's a bit precious to
> go
>>around denying their reality.
> so if thats the case - why havent all the men and women who abuse in NZ been
> investigated? That hasnt happened because the "hysteria" doesnt exist to
> the extent that you say it does. People actually shy away from reporting
> abuse.
That may be - but it doesn't make the fears of the parents [however
unrealistic], or the damage it's done to their relationship with their
children non-existent.
Brian
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>Brian wrote in message <3a69783a...@news.wave.co.nz>...
>>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:54:40 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Come now, you wee pedant. Changed from RAN to RAG didn't it? Or was it
>the
>>>>other way around?
>>>
>>>LOL - yeah - something like that. I honestly cant remember. RAN was only
>>>slightly better as it used the word network which implies a collection of
>>>agencies networking to discuss issues and how much importance should be
>>>given to what.
>>
>>
>>In both cases, of course it is "RITUAL" abuse issues.
>
>never!!!!
So while you rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, debating the
merits of "network" and "group" which presumably the Ritual Action
Group did itself in it's heyday, the real villians ... the substance
of the group itself ... the "Ritual Abuse" part was left untouched.
>>>Either way using the word ritual ran <sic> against the
>>>philosohoy Ive been outlining in the last few emails to you
>>>i.e to call the abuse ritual abuse detracts from the heart of
>>>the issues - which is kids getting hurt (physically, sexually
>>> and or emotionally).
>>This seems absolutely bizarre to now (in the year 2001) disown the
>>word "ritual" when it was the most prominent word in the title of your
>>group!
>>A little bit of rewriting history going on here?
>no rewriting of history. Just speaking out about what I thought at the time
>and think now.
There were, and still are plenty of groups and concerned citizens
about abuse. But you chose to be involved with a group that referred
to the supposed particular problem of "rituals" .... To speak out
now that you didn't really mean "ritual" is simply rewriting history,
now that you're getting a little bit of well deserved and very belated
bad press.
>Interesting word you use "bizarre?". I think that abusing
>children is bizarre.
So do I, but that's a completely different issue.
>>Given that at the time there were plenty of opportunities to involve
>>yourself in the field of abuse, you became prominent in a group about
>>"RITUAL" abuse. And it was not the media that misreported group
>>members who referred to "SATANIC RITUAL" abuse, either, was it?
>
>I dont know youre telling the story. Im trying to tell mine and you are
>clearly not interested. But I spose I better not say that either. Ill get
>accused of being dishonest and others may get disappointed.
On the contrary, I'm _very_ interested in your story. In a similar
sort of very interested way that a detective listens to the story of a
criminal who is confessing. (I'm not trying to claim that you're
guilty of any _legal_ crime at all)
>I think Im wasting my breath
>Ive made my statements. Im clearly going to be hammered to death by your
>beleif system that Im worng, your'e right and pedophiles who abuse using
>extreme methods, dont exist.
I have never claimed that there are not some pedophiles who abuse. I
have never claimed that some abuse is extreme. And I never will.
But I suppose such another vile accusation suits your agenda.
>>Did you ever at the time you were involved with the Ritual Action
>>Group (or Ritual Action Network), ever publicly dissociate yourself
>>from the word "ritual"?
>yes -
>
>see statement in another email.
I've looked for such evidence in other posts on this group, and have
not found it. I have not received any email from you. Could you
please repeat your statement with the evidence you have, or provide a
message reference for me to look up?
Brian
Brian
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94ffj8$o7j$3...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>>ann-marie stapp <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>>No one denies that abuse occurs. It's horrible and damages for life.
>>>>Let's not go down that argument lane as emotion takes charge and rules
>>>>out rational discussion.
>>
>>> ah - but to the contrary - read the thread again. There are people on
>this
>>> newsgroup that think exactly like that. But thankyou for being the first
>to
>>> actually say you do believe abuse occurs.
>>
>>I don't recall anyone suggesting that abuse does not occur. Can you quote
>>anyone who thinks "exactly like that"?
>
>Hi Geoff
>
>tones of questions and statements suggested to me that some dont believe.
So you're called up on your claim that "there are people on this
newsgroup that think exactly like that" (that some people deny abuse
occurs) and now we find it's some nebulous "tone" of questioning that
"suggests".
Before you make vile accusations in the future, please find a little
more evidence than simply interviewing your mind. Its a sewer,
obviously.
>got enough people here telling me how I "exactly think" so I dont want to do
>that in return.
And where has anybody told you how you "exactly think"? References
to messages please.
>>A lot of people [myself included] object to the witchhunt hysteria that the
>>whole "ritual abuse" business stirred up. This both endangers innocent
>>people, and distracts attention from real abuse.
>yeah - me too. Ive been thinking that Ive been debatin something here where
>we havent define wat the hell we are tlaking about - whats is the meaning
>of Satanic - what is the meaning of abuse - what is the meaning of ritual
>and what happens when you put it all together? Misunderstanding and
>hysteria.
And yet *you* were quite prepared to front an organisation using
exactly those terms, that you now admit are responsible for
misunderstanding and hysteria.
> I tried to seperate definitions out (I object to you saying
>"real" abuse becuase that implis tha there is "unreal" abuse and people on
>the receiving end to what you think is "unreal" abuse get upset about that.
>ie the women I interviewed.)
That's the problem with people like you responsible for the witch
hunt. You do not show one iota of understanding of the harm that
you're capable of perpetrating by ignoring the possibility of "unreal"
abuse ie false accusations of abuse .... the sort of abuse that
Peter Ellis was accused of.
You interview X number of women, and you think it's your goddam
responsibility to women, children or the muppets perhaps, that the
stories you've heard are "real", true, or to be believed.
Have you given some consideration to the fact that some women lie, for
a wide variety of motives? That some women may have been taken in by
the very hysteria that you helped to create that enveloped the
counselling industry, and actually believe the stories their
counsellors brainwashed them with? That some women such as SD ...
the Joy Banders of this world are mentally deranged (I cannot think of
a better description quickly).
Does not seem that way at all.
In just one local high school, I'm aware of FIVE cases of teenagers
who made accusations against their fathers between the years of 1994
and 1996. (Perhaps at the height of the years of the hysteria that you
helped to create). Each one of these girls has either made a full
retraction (and in one case has offered to write a legal affidavit) or
has made personal apologies to the father concerned.
But listening to their stories in 1996, I guess you would have both
said that their stories were of "real" abuse. And the fact that there
were five girls involved would probably have given your nasty little
ritual group confirmation that there was a pedophile ring, wouldn't
it?
Do us all a favour ... do the "real" victims of sexual abuse a favour
by understanding that there is both real abuse, and there is "unreal"
abuse, exactly as Geoff described.
For you to treat all stories of abuse as the same, or to be believed
without investigation, is to put real victims of abuse in the
situation where their stories will not be believed, and at the same
time, you're making victims of innocent people who have been unjustly
accused in cases of "unreal" abuse. Sort of a lose:lose scenario.
A story of abuse is just that: A serious allegation, in which there is
definately one victim of a terrible crime. People who interview,
making up their mind at the beginning who the victim is ... as you
seemingly have done .... is a sort of practice that has created all
sorts of trouble. The interviewers of the Christchurch Creche were
just as guilty.
>
>Anyway, I didnt like the way the USA lot had gone about putting Satanism and
>ritual together automatically. So I looked a bit about Satanic belief
>systems and the different types of such,in the same way one would consider
>different christian sects or denominations. I in no position to argue
>whether the Satanist church abuses kids - Chritians say they do
Which Christians do exactly?
Bigotry and ignorance about the religious beliefs of others is alive
and well it seems. But I suppose it's gone on for centuries and will
go on for many more centuries.
Calling a person of another religious faith a "child abuser", or more
slimily as you have done, spread the same vile rumour by innuendo, may
make you feel good that you're not one of *them* .... but is vile not
matter how it is done.
If you've got evidence that anybody is an abuser, or any group of
people are abusers, put the evidence on the table, or better still
report that information to the police.
> and atamists say they do,
Atamist??????
>but I do think there are opporunist that use satanist type
>components in order to scare children in order to abuse.
There are terrible cases of abuse: the stories of the last year are
grim evidence of that. An unusual number of mothers have been
responsible in the last year.
But what is meant by "satanist type components"? The only case where
satanism has formed the major headlines in the papers in New Zealand
to my knowledge is the case of the Palmerston North Detective who
faked a "satanist" crime and inflicted serious wounds on himself.
*He* certainly knew the media pulling power of invoking the word
"satanism".
If by satanism you mean that what has been done is evil, and in
religious terms the work of the "devil" or "satan", then I suppose
that could be said for all serious crimes, or perhaps all crimes.
But that's different from talking about "satanist type components" or
other hysteria provoking language, knowing that the listener is more
likely to be thinking about the latest American horror video that he
or she has watched.
> The primry goal being abuse not satanism.
Have you any particular cases that you would like to share where abuse
has been a "goal"? Perhaps you are right, but my understanding is
that abuse is generally a result rather than a goal .... a mother for
example who has a goal of making a screaming toddler quiet etc
>Now this is different to how the USA have
>published there definitions ,It was in the proces of rethinking the
>defintion problem that I begna to use the defintion of Organised,
>sytstematic abuse abuse.
And what do you mean when you refer to "organised systematic" abuse.
The change in language is a smokescreen.
What evidence do you have for there being any "organised" abuse in New
Zealand. And if you are considering the Ellis case, please explain
why the police did not even charge the supposed leaders of the cult
according to the "stories" of the children
>
>To use the word ritual implies a faulty theory early on in the group that
>suggested "where ritual exsits there exsited the potential for ritual abu8se
>to occur". I found that personally objectional and by the tim e I got to
>that analysis, the theory was in the paper and that had a life of its own
>too. The probelm with trying to make statements later - is that the
>original text is off and away in other prin t forms balh bal.
Problem is that your later statements seem to be just as bad as those
you're now trying to deny.
>
>But any way - the OSA defintiion was meant to try and stop the extreme
>reactions and the minimsiing of other abuses on the contiuum.
Absolute crap again. Another strawman argument. Pretend that those
that disagree with you "minimise" abuse. Where has anybody here
ever minimised any abuse on any continuum? References please.
>It implied some groups of people were organised in their apporach to abusing
>kids -(like pedophile rings), the sytemised the abuse (used particular
>methods)and the key point it was abuse.
>I have already apologised to the survivors of some of this abuse for the
>hysteria that occured and set them back in their recovery. I acknowledge
>that could all have better handled with a PR and media strategy.
You still show no understanding at all of who were the main victims of
the hysteria that you helped to create.
It was not mainly the victims of abuse as you seem to imply ... for
during the years that the hysteria ran unchecked perhaps up until
about 1998, every story of abuse was treated as gospel by the
counselling industry, social workers, and the police. Even the police
had training manuals which told them they "had to believe" stories of
abuse.
The real victims were the men (primarily) who were falsely accused.
And actually the women who told the false stories, for they have had
to live with the far more devastating consequences of what they were
responsible for ... where in a more enlightened age, the problems they
were *really* suffering from could have been dealt with by
confidential counselling and therapy.
>I make the point again - that I dont have control over misquoting, where my
>name gets attached to after the media event and what the wider world does in
>continuuing to refer to SRA.
You have actually never shown us any evidence that you were misquoted.
Which statement by who, ever misquoted you?
And it seems from the above post, that you haven't advanced much
anyway. "Ritual Satanic" now is receiving the derision it has always
deserved, but just by calling a fart another name, does not reduce the
smell.
>More later
>
>Im going for a walk in Karori Sanctuary and to enjoy this beut day.
A good place to reflect.
>> You may find the fears of parents unrealistic, but it's a bit precious to
>> go around denying their reality.
>
>so if thats the case - why havent all the men and women who abuse in NZ been
>investigated?
If you have any evidence that anybody is an abuser, and has not been
investigated, then it is your responsibility to front up to the police
with the information you have.
>That hasnt happened because the "hysteria" doesnt exist to
>the extent that you say it does. People actually shy away from reporting
>abuse.
Some do, and others take pleasure in doing so. The lessons of the
witch hunt are telling us that now, as a steady number of retractors
give evidence of how they came to do the harm that they did.
There are some people who have given a story of abuse in the context
of a counselling session, or a "survivors" group. In some of these
settings, there is actually a sort of perverse status in being abused.
It is not surprising that some of these tales are not reported to the
police if the stories are not true, for they may fear the more
rigorous investigation they may receive from the police, in comparison
with the absolute "belief" given to them by their "supporters".
And my last paragraph also demonstrates why people with concerns about
real abuse should take false accusations seriously. For if they do
not, the credibility of real victims of abuse is compromised. It's
called "crying wolf" ... not by an individual, but collectively by
those who cry "abuse".
Brian
ann-marie stapp
Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94frlp$c2a$2...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>ann-marie stapp <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Geoff McCaughan wrote in message <94ffj8$o7j$3...@thoth.trimble.co.nz>...
>
>> I tried to seperate definitions ou t (I object to you saying
>> "real" abuse becuase that implis tha there is "unreal" abuse and people
on
>> the receiving end to what you think is "unreal" abuse get upset about
that.
>> ie the women I interviewed.)
>
>If innocent people are accused of abuse. then the abuse is "unreal" - i.e.
>does not exist. Obviously where there is someone "on the receiving end"
it's
>not unreal. The difficult thing is to know when what is claimed to have
>happened actually did happen - as we have seen numerous times simply
because
>someone makes a claim, doesn't mean something really happened.
>
>It's tough for victims to have anyone question the truth of what they say,
>but it's equally unjust to perpetrate false claims. I don't see any way out
>but actively seeking the truth without an agenda for or against.
>
>> I in no position to argue
>> whether the Satanist church abuses kids - Chritians say they do
>
>Are you aware of the existence of a 'Satanist church'. Satanism is a
>christian invention.
practice Satanism. Thats the extent of what I know - you will have to do
your own reaserch on the Satanic churches that exist. The NZ contact was a
postal box for a guy in Petone who provided the paraphenalia need to worship
satan.
>
>> It implied some groups of people were organised in their apporach to
abusing
>> kids -(like pedophile rings), the sytemised the abuse (used particular
>> methods)and the key point it was abuse.
>
>How many "pedophile rings" were found in NZ?
I wasnt out to do quantitative research. You might want to direct that
question to police to see if they keep seperate statisitics on recidivist
pedophile offending and there knowledge of rings. Of course, police will say
that while they have knowledge of such things, they cant always charge. Take
the recent case in Napier thats ben in the paper. Maybe the question is -
how many pedophils are ther in NZ that the police know about and do those
pedophiles act alone or in conjunction with other.
>
>>>You may find the fears of parents unrealistic, but it's a bit precious to
>> go
>>>around denying their reality.
>
>> so if thats the case - why havent all the men and women who abuse in NZ
been
>> investigated? That hasnt happened because the "hysteria" doesnt exist to
>> the extent that you say it does. People actually shy away from reporting
>> abuse.
>
>That may be - but it doesn't make the fears of the parents [however
>unrealistic], or the damage it's done to their relationship with their
>children non-existent.
Fair enough. Guess I dont have any answers for that one and hope that
parents who have experieinced this fear you talk about can change it and
have a good relationship in spite of. Im not trying to sound twee, just
trying to "get it".
ann-marie stapp
that you make emotive attacking comments such as"make vile accusations in
the future, please find a little more evidence than simply interviewing your
mind. Its a sewer, obviously."
(and I quote your email- 22/01/2001 15.47 I.e this one),
I will not be reading or responding to any more dialogue with you. You can
read what I write and take it or leave but you dont have the right to call
my mind a sewer. Thats reserved for child abusers.
Brian wrote in message <3a6b9e1c....@news.wave.co.nz>...
ThErEaLjAmEs
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>This is to let you know Brian that because I find our idea so polarised, and
>that you make emotive attacking comments such as"make vile accusations in
>the future, please find a little more evidence than simply interviewing your
>mind. Its a sewer, obviously."
>
>(and I quote your email- 22/01/2001 15.47 I.e this one),
>
>I will not be reading or responding to any more dialogue with you. You can
>read what I write and take it or leave but you dont have the right to call
>my mind a sewer. Thats reserved for child abusers.
>
>
Ms Stapp, have you actually met a/some child abuser/s then ?
James K
ann-marie stapp
ThErEaLjAmEs wrote in message ...
Yes. I have and do work with convicted offenders who admit to their sexual
abuse of children. There are agencies set up for this very purpose too. Men
for nonviolence groups and Kia Marama - stop sexual offending programme.
Sexual abusers/pedophiles who face up to what they have done, corroborate
the stories of those who are victimised.
Mr James K, is this what you wanted to hear or was it something else, and
what do you intend to do with his information? and do you have any more
questions?
...Tom
>parents who have experieinced this fear you talk about can change it and
>have a good relationship in spite of. Im not trying to sound twee, just
>trying to "get it".
>>
I have now. The reality of parenting for the last 7 years has put paid
to the paranoia I experienced early on. I still will not be alone with
other peoples children if I can possibly avoid it.
I remember the incident that cured most of my paranoia. Kelsey, then
age 4 drew a picture at kindergarten of her family , genitals and all.
Instead of being proud at a fairly correct picture that I was later
told indicated she was doing very well for her age, my initial
reaction was one of fear that somehow it would be misconstrued. After
all, as far as I knew children are interviewed about sexual abuse
using anatomically correct dolls. Well my daughter could name all the
bits easily as we've always made a point of making no distinction
between a penis and an elbow when it comes to attitude ( I hope that
makes sense). I can remember very clearly the anger I felt that I
should live with this fear. My fear (whether rational or otherwise) of
other peoples ideological agendas had lessened my relationship with my
daughter
Now those in the profession may well scoff at my ignorance, but when
clearly fantastical allegations are believed and prosecuted and even
worse, convicted, what am I to think.
Society has demonstrated again and again its capacity for hysteria eg
Salem and "reds under every bed". I had, and still have no reason to
think that has changed.
...Tom
Brian
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>This is to let you know Brian that because I find our idea so polarised, and
>that you make emotive attacking comments such as"make vile accusations in
>the future, please find a little more evidence than simply interviewing your
>mind. Its a sewer, obviously."
>
>(and I quote your email- 22/01/2001 15.47 I.e this one),
Yes, but you conveniently did not quote what my statement was in
reference to : refer below.
>I will not be reading or responding to any more dialogue with you. You can
>read what I write and take it or leave but you dont have the right to call
>my mind a sewer. Thats reserved for child abusers.
Its also reserved for people who lie and make vile false accusations
that "there are people on this newsgroup that think exactly like that"
with reference to people denying that abuse occurs.
Yes, my comment was emotive, and deliberately so. I've no time at all
for people that think that because they've a noble cause (stamping out
child abuse) that they may be excused any sort of obnoxious behaviour
of their own.
Brian
Brian
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>ThErEaLjAmEs wrote in message ...
>>Ms Stapp, have you actually met a/some child abuser/s then ?
>Why do I have such a -"Oh god -wheres this going to lead to" feeling
>Yes. I have and do work with convicted offenders who admit to their sexual
>abuse of children. There are agencies set up for this very purpose too. Men
>for nonviolence groups and Kia Marama - stop sexual offending programme.
>Sexual abusers/pedophiles who face up to what they have done, corroborate
>the stories of those who are victimised.
You are correct if you are saying that their stories may corroborate
the stories of their particular victims.
The lunacy begins I suspect, by some counsellors when they start to
believe themselves that the stories of one offender corroborates the
stories of some other woman making an accusation of sexual abuse.
Brian
ann-marie stapp
Dudley Dunn wrote in message <3a6bd73b$1...@zfree.co.nz>...
>
>"ann-marie stapp" <ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>The ritual action group came into existance about 3 weeks before Peter
>>Eillis arrest. The first I knew about it was the newspaper report about
>10 days after the FVPCC conference. That case had alife off its >own. The
>wole bloody thing was a circus.
>>
>Ann-Marie, would you please explain more fully "The whole bloody thing was
>a circus."
>
>Thanks
>
>Dudley
>
Well - others have quoted the same thing - it got high profile media
attention - some of it was right, most of it wasn't. On a personal level I
received death threats, my parents were hassled by media at night.
People were quoted as saying things that were never said, the interviewees
became scared and it seems that nobody really listened to each other. RAN
members made an attempt at PR by trying to state what it saw the issues to
be and thoses issues were muddled and confused. Right in the middle of the
beginning of it, one of the biggest high profile cases broke and things got
even more confused. Paranoia was abound all around. The whole issue was/is
polarising as it relies on peoples understandings, interpreting, knowledge
and mostly beliefs. I for one, withdrew because the personal cost was too
high.
Now Dudley - thats the end of answering your questions too as it would be
nice to hear a little about you and where you stand.
I think Ive laid myself a little bit open here and I dont need that - even
though Brian thinks this is overdue and I deserve it (Quote from one of
Brians emails he posted yesterday).
AMS
bt
<davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>Usenet is a public forum, Tom. Anybody is free to republish anywhere,
>anything posted here. No permission is needed.
Not so. The messages remain property of their copyright holders - the
authors.
Furthermore, I'd direct you to cases involving the church of
scientology and usenet for an idea of the trouble a determined
copyright holder can cause a pirate.
Brendan.
--
Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com).
No Timewasters. No UCE. My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
ann-marie stapp
...Tom wrote in message <17in6t45i0i672781...@4ax.com>...
>in reply to "ann-marie stapp" <ams...@clear.net.nz>
>>Fair enough. Guess I dont have any answers for that one and hope that
>>parents who have experieinced this fear you talk about can change it and
>>have a good relationship in spite of. Im not trying to sound twee, just
>>trying to "get it".
>>>
>
>I have now. The reality of parenting for the last 7 years has put paid
>to the paranoia I experienced early on. I still will not be alone with
>other peoples children if I can possibly avoid it.
>
>I remember the incident that cured most of my paranoia.
I guess its an inherent difficulty in discussing a highly emotive issue -
that of paranioa.
Glad that that has settled
<snip> Well my daughter could name all the
>bits easily as we've always made a point of making no distinction
>between a penis and an elbow when it comes to attitude ( I hope that
>makes sense).
absolutley makes sense
> I can remember very clearly the anger I felt that I
>should live with this fear.
here we are disagreeing on fundamental issues and I understand getting angry
that I should have to live with the fear of death threats and my family
being hurt. Different content but the intensity of the emotions is real
enough.
I am glad that Kelsey is doing well. I also believe that one of the answers
to child abuse is raising kids that arent abused but are aware that other
kids get hurt in families so they know they arent abused. Im not sure Im
making sense but a round about way of saying thank god for unabused children
and parents who get it right. Good on ya Tom
>My fear (whether rational or otherwise) of
>other peoples ideological agendas had lessened my relationship with my
>daughter
yeah _-it got hard sometimes to seperate the irrational from the rational.
My fear is that we still get kids being hurt and killed in the 2000's
becasue we didnt learn the lessons of the previous 30 years of research and
investigation and collective/social responsibility and and people are
fearful.
>Now those in the profession may well scoff at my ignorance, but when
>clearly fantastical allegations are believed and prosecuted and even
>worse, convicted, what am I to think.
or to feel. Not that you need my opinion but your reaction is valid. glad
that the paranoia has lessened. I think some of my terseness on this
newsgroup is I am truly worried that anything I say will turn up in the
public arena (the media) and it will just start all over again. I know I
dont need it, the victims of abuse dont and I guess from what is being said
here, the general public dont either - and neither do you Tom
>
>Society has demonstrated again and again its capacity for hysteria eg
>Salem and "reds under every bed". I had, and still have no reason to
>think that has changed.
yes - every society needs it reds under the beds. trying to rack my brains
as to who the current "reds" are. ??
AMS
Mark Harris
>Yes, my comment was emotive, and deliberately so. I've no time at all
>for people that think that because they've a noble cause (stamping out
>child abuse) that they may be excused any sort of obnoxious behaviour
>of their own.
>
With due respect, Brian, what is going to excuse your obnoxious
behaviour? Your attitude is getting in the way of your argument.
For the record, I think you have some valid points to make but your
determination to conduct a reverse witch hunt, to find someone to
blame (and "oh, look, here's Ann-Marie Stapp, let's lynch her!" is
what's coming across) is really obstructing what I think is a genuine
opportunity to really understand what happened in Peter Ellis' case,
as it did when AMS first surfaced in nsq. (And I was not unguilty in
the baying of those hounds, I admit)
I have not now turned around to believe AMS is a saint (sorry,
Ann-Marie;-) but I want to listen to what she has to say. I may have
to read between the lines but, hell, I have to do that with anything I
pick up. Face it, my friend, she's not going to say what you want to
hear.
While I want justice for Peter (NB using personal licence here as I
have never met Peter Ellis but feel great sympathy for him), it's not
going to happen by eviscerating someone else, however much personal
satisfaction one may wish to get out of it.
Isn't it a better idea to understand, so we can prevent it happening
again?
You don't fight the gay battle all by yourself. It's not your personal
campaign to wage single handed - we're all in it. So, curb the
vitriol, please - it's not going to get the answers we need.
Remember, if we use the tactics of the abuser, what does that make us?
Regards
Mark
--
When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle. It makes the neighbor's dog
run to the end of his chain and gag himself.
ti...@wibble.clad.co.nz
> or to feel. Not that you need my opinion but your reaction is
> valid. glad that the paranoia has lessened. I think some of my
> terseness on this newsgroup is I am truly worried that anything
> I say will turn up in the public arena (the media) and it will
> just start all over again. I know I dont need it, the victims
> of abuse dont and I guess from what is being said here, the
> general public dont either - and neither do you Tom
I feel pretty much as paranoid now as Tom did. I had a similar
incident involving a picture which was drawn by a pre-school boy.
He made a mistake when drawing a hand and scribbled it out. The
result was a recognisable picture of me with what looked like a
large erection. Both his mother and I laughed about it and then
I asked for the picture to be destroyed.
I don't have children of my own but have lived with other
people's children for much of the past decade (my friends', my
sister's, my partner's) and I am very, very careful around them.
The hysteria sourrounding child abuse has made it too damned easy
for innocent situations to be totally misconstrued and I don't
believe that it is easy for a falsely accused person to show
their innocence when surrounded by such hysteria.
--
Richard Thomas
xx...@clad.co.nz
http://www.clad.co.nz
http://www.clad.co.nz/tich
FinalJustyce
"bt" <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:divn6t4uj4om5cdov...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:56 +1300, David McLoughlin
> <davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Usenet is a public forum, Tom. Anybody is free to republish anywhere,
> >anything posted here. No permission is needed.
>
> Not so. The messages remain property of their copyright holders - the
> authors.
>
> Furthermore, I'd direct you to cases involving the church of
> scientology and usenet for an idea of the trouble a determined
> copyright holder can cause a pirate.
>
>
> Brendan.
>
Do you have more details, Brendan? You've sparked my curiosity on this,
particularly in light of the case I heard about the other day about a
sporger facing 5 years of prison time for 'stealing' someone's Usenet
identity.
Diane
--
Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are
-----Brillat-Savarin
ThErEaLjAmEs
<ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>ThErEaLjAmEs wrote in message ...
>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:56:44 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>This is to let you know Brian that because I find our idea so polarised,
>and
>>>that you make emotive attacking comments such as"make vile accusations in
>>>the future, please find a little more evidence than simply interviewing
>your
>>>mind. Its a sewer, obviously."
>>>
>>>(and I quote your email- 22/01/2001 15.47 I.e this one),
>>>
>>>I will not be reading or responding to any more dialogue with you. You can
>>>read what I write and take it or leave but you dont have the right to call
>>>my mind a sewer. Thats reserved for child abusers.
>>>
>>>
>>Ms Stapp, have you actually met a/some child abuser/s then ?
>>
>>
>>James K
>Why do I have such a -"Oh god -wheres this going to lead to" feeling
I have no idea why, seems like a reasonable question to me. Just relax
and answer it. Thankyou.
>Yes. I have and do work with convicted offenders who admit to their sexual
>abuse of children. There are agencies set up for this very purpose too. Men
>for nonviolence groups and Kia Marama - stop sexual offending programme.
>Sexual abusers/pedophiles who face up to what they have done, corroborate
>the stories of those who are victimised.
What about the convicted pedophiles who do not admit to any offending,
and those who protest their innocence ? Have you "worked" with them
also ?
>
>Mr James K, is this what you wanted to hear
Yes, it seems to be an honest answer. Thankyou
or was it something else, and
What else could there be Ms Stapp?
>what do you intend to do with his information? and do you have any more
>questions?
>
I will use the information you have so willingly given, to learn more
about the subject. I may have more questions later. Thankyou for
answering these for me.
James K
ThErEaLjAmEs
wrote:
So, curb the
>vitriol, please - it's not going to get the answers we need.
>
Perhaps you should learn to curb your own caustic attitude Mark young
fellow. What experience do you have in these matters ?
James K
>
k
Geoff McCaughan
> though Brian thinks this is overdue and I deserve it (Quote from one of
> Brians emails he posted yesterday).
Just a point of clarification here. If you're talking about newsgroup
postings, could you say so please?
Email is a different beast altogether.
ann-marie stapp
hear hear
loud applause.
Thankyou
(and I really am a saint!!!!!) <g>
Mark Harris wrote in message <3a6c0d44...@news.paradise.net.nz>...
ann-marie stapp
ThErEaLjAmEs wrote in message
<9c3p6tkkdapu27lk3...@4ax.com>...
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:18:41 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>
>>ThErEaLjAmEs wrote in message ...
>>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:56:44 +1300, "ann-marie stapp"
>>><ams...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>This is to let you know Brian that because I find our idea so polarised,
>>and
>>>>that you make emotive attacking comments such as"make vile accusations
in
>>>>the future, please find a little more evidence than simply interviewing
>>your
>>>>mind. Its a sewer, obviously."
>>>>
>>>>(and I quote your email- 22/01/2001 15.47 I.e this one),
>>>>
>>>>I will not be reading or responding to any more dialogue with you. You
can
>>>>read what I write and take it or leave but you dont have the right to
call
>>>>my mind a sewer. Thats reserved for child abusers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ms Stapp, have you actually met a/some child abuser/s then ?
>>>
>>>
>>>James K
>>Why do I have such a -"Oh god -wheres this going to lead to" feeling
>
>I have no idea why, seems like a reasonable question to me. Just relax
>and answer it. Thankyou.
IM RELAXED ALRIGHT <vbg>
>
>>Yes. I have and do work with convicted offenders who admit to their sexual
>>abuse of children. There are agencies set up for this very purpose too.
Men
>>for nonviolence groups and Kia Marama - stop sexual offending programme.
>>Sexual abusers/pedophiles who face up to what they have done, corroborate
>>the stories of those who are victimised.
>
>What about the convicted pedophiles who do not admit to any offending,
>and those who protest their innocence ? Have you "worked" with them
>also ?
Ive met them - but tis hard to work with them because the work is theirs to
do, not mine - if you get what I mean
>>Mr James K, is this what you wanted to hear
>
>Yes, it seems to be an honest answer. Thankyou
youre welcome
>
> or was it something else, and
>
>What else could there be Ms Stapp?
about this thread??? God knows ( and probably satan too) (oops - was that
naughty)
>
>>what do you intend to do with his information? and do you have any more
>>questions?
>>
>I will use the information you have so willingly given, to learn more
>about the subject. I may have more questions later. Thankyou for
>answering these for me.
>
>
>James K
AMS