'I don't see how wanting to ensure the safety and protection of children, or getting ' x' the correct support makes me hate- filled.'

I don't either, nor would any other rational person.

Davejc has his own agenda to promote (the world according to McKay where everyone has to be bad and hate-filled if they disagree in any way with his 'superior' Apostolic view) and this is a pathetic attempt at damage limitation and a laughably poor and paranoid stab at taking the moral high ground.

What Malcolm said, really.

Quote
hello
Once again Dave is not taking responsibility. Dave publicly thanked me - it's on the Revelations thread and wished me a good rest. I have done nothing since then- yet he's reversed his stance and now I'm hate- filled.
The recommendations that were laid out - on advice from StopItNow were NOT followed.

This isn't in Dave's mind anything to do with the well being of 'x' - it's merely about Dave wanting to defend his ' brand '.

Hello, can you please remind us what the recommendations were?

I agree this is only about Dave trying to defend his brand. His brand which has apparently ''disbanded'' despite the fact one of his members was recently spotted promoting the brand on the streets of London.

It's quite ridiculous to suggest your actions were hate-filled. You only did what any sensible and caring person would do in that position. Dave's problem is he can't stand the thought of losing control. He has to control everything and when he feels he's losing control the toys come out the pram, as we've seen with his recent comments regarding the property in Kenya and of course ''X''. Dave can do no wrong in his own mind. He is an Apostle!

It's his protection of ' the brand .'
Perhaps we all need to be clear on the use of terminology. There is paedophilia and there are sexually abused children. The two are not mutually bound.
I have no idea whether ' x' is a peadophile. He would need a full assessment- though my gut instinct tells me that this is someone who made a mistake as a young adult. For ' x' to reach closure , it would be best for him to adhere to the regulations that stopitnow. recommended to me.
Instead of the welfare of ' x' and the children being the central focus- this has become another damage limitation exercise for David McKay.
I don't think that ' x' 's identity should ever be publicly disclosed. We are all aware of who he is. That is why I even said he would be welcome in my home. I don't think he is a bad person.
Dave is using ' x' as a pawn. If it wasn't for Dave , this wouldn't even be an issue. It would have been dealt with privately, PROPERLY and speedily.
Whether Dave wants to take responsibility for this or not - there have been 21 children abused by one time JC's. This number is highly disproportionate . After the Bruce fiasco, stringent rules should have been put in place.
Alf should not have had to fast for three days, figuring out what to do. Any organisation- religious or secular should have a clear policy on child abuse.
Dave is embarrassed . This is not a witch hunt or hate filled mob after ' x' . This is about cleaning up yet more shit that Dave has left. There is no vigilante mob- there are just people that want to make sure no more children have been hurt. With Dave's track record , can you blame us?

Hello, please remember that he made TWO mistakes (that we know of) as a young adult.

I agree ''X'' must adhere to the regulations that stopitnow recommended otherwise further action may have to be taken.

I have only recently found out the identity of ''X'' and I am appalled that this man was allowed to work alongside vulnerable children in Africa. This would not have been allowed had ''X'' applied to work for a charity organisation who work alongside vulnerable children.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2011 11:57PM by Apollo.

What we need to remember is that ''X'' sexually abused two very young children.

It was not a one off incident as Dave tries to spin.

It was not just some ''weird part of late adolescence'' as Blackhat tries to spin.

He knew exactly what he was doing. This was child abuse, plain and simple.

Here's what Xenophone had to say about ''X''. Please bare in mind that Xenophone was a member of the cult when this all came out.

[jcs.xjcs.org]

Quote
Xenophone
What do you mean by "touched her crotch"? Yes technically that is what he did, but lets not be so clinical. He was molesting them for sexual pleasure. He even said that he was trying to "make them feel good". Can you at least agree that this is molesting and not just "touching"? I'm not saying we have to make things worse than they really were, but it would be equally bad to minimize what really happened.

''He even said that he was trying to "make them feel good''

This is shocking!

That is a classic paedophile line.

Do you think ''X'' told the police or Stopitnow that he did it because he was trying to make them feel good? Of course not, he would have used the same minimizing spin which McKay now resorts to.

''X'' should not have been allowed anywhere near vulnerable children in Africa. How many other children has he tried to ''make feel good''?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2011 08:29AM by Apollo.

Davejc's latest riposte:


'This criminally slanderous (and totally unsubstantiated) statement from one of Brian's anonymous supporters is typical of the total rubbish that is not only allowed, but actively supported by Rick Ross on his hate site:


The long history of the JC's tolerating paedophiles in their midst is documented in this thread.

Show us the documents, Brian!

One (count them... one) known paedophile was tolerated in our midst, with all parents being warned to be careful of him. He managed to slip away and sexually abuse some children in a railway station in India, and later confessed of that to us, and then turned himself in to the police in Australia, where he was charged, convicted, and served several years in prison. End of story. End of documentation. End of the witch hunt.'

Get out them law books, Davejc.
Slander is the oral defamation of a person, the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
Libel, a written false statement, is the correct word you want.

The absolute defence to a 'criminally slanderous statement'---or even a libellous statement, to use the correct terminology --is that the statement is true. And you seem to have confirmed the truth of my statement in the next paragraph: 'One (count them... one) known paedophile was tolerated in our midst,'

Even so, two more paedophiles than that 'one (count them...one)' have been acknowledged as finding sanctuary in the midst of the Jesus Christians.

So, my 'criminally slanderous' statement is a truth acknowledged even by you, so no slander-- or even libel-- has occurred.

And I seriously doubt that you have a reputation of any standing that can be damaged any further than you have already damaged it in your own furious pursuit of cheap publicity by any means possible. You, Davejc, introduced the subject of paedophilia on your own, publicly accessible blog, in order to recruit more followers, and so 'opened the door' to the revelations and discussions that followed.

For all your much vaunted journalistic credentials, Davejc, that you make so much of at the beginning of the same post today on the JC blog, you fail to see your own part in this or your own, glaring contradictions.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2011 09:18AM by Stoic.

Just to add, unlike paedophilia neither slander nor libel are criminal offences, so no policeman will be interested in 'criminally slanderous' statements. 'Criminally slanderous' is itself a contradiction in terms.

Both slander and libel are civil suits, to be pursued if they are to be pursued at all, at the considerable expense of the claimant. Suing for libel is a rich man's game.

Dave has said today:

Quote

The truth, without going into a lot of details, is that the statement was made at a time when there were plans to buy the land. However, it worked out that there was no need to buy the land, and so it never passed into our hands. I will say it again: No Jesus Christian, past or present, has ever owned the land on which Takatifu Gardens now sits. It is in the hands of a totally unrelated charity at the moment, and the name has been changed.

Now the funny thing is that back in 2006, the IC Directory had this statement from the Jesus Christians:

Quote

Area: 7.4 acres (3.0 hectares)

(We only own land in Kenya, which is being used as a permaculture experiment as well as accommodation for a team of volunteers who will undertake projects in the larger community, including an anti-litter campaign, and volunteer English teaching in 35 Quaker schools in the immediate vicinity.)... The land in Kenya is presently in the name of two of our longest term members there, but it may be signed over to a committee in 2009, when we hope to move on to start another such community.)

So, the question is, which one is the truth and which one is a lie?

Dave says:

Quote

I will say it again: No Jesus Christian, past or present, has ever owned the land on which Takatifu Gardens now sits. It is in the hands of a totally unrelated charity at the moment, and the name has been changed. Efforts to tarnish the name of that charity with lies about paedophilia will very likely undermine the good work being done by that charity, as well as cause considerable hardship for all of the names that Franky and Brian are both reporting to authorities around the world, in their attempt to purge the world of anyone who might even be a friend of X.

A funny thing there about the ownership of Takatifu Gardens, which I posted about a little earler.
Dave says he is really concerned about a Charity which is still in Kenya, with no links to the Jesus Christians.

I don't understand this. If the name has been changed, why so much concern for those who supposedly occupy a site which you never owned, and which is now occupied by a totally different charity? Unless maybe those folks are XJC'S?

That begs me to ask why Dave is so het up about the ownership of the land, at the time when X might have been there....???

So what happened to that 7 acre Takatifu Gardens in the name of Boyd and Sherri? Did you ever get to the financial position of being able to pay back that Quaker woman??? Maybe before going on that cruise???

I think it may be all about who is responsible for what happened there at that time, and Dave is trying to say that because the Jesus Christians didn't own the land (lie) that he isn't accountable (faint hope).

If nothing happened in Kenya, and I were Dave, I would say "Bring it on!" The way Dave is trying to get out of it suggests to me that he is not so confident.....

Thank you Apollo and Hello,

Yes I had a count of "three" for serving pedophiles with the JC's...(1) Bruce, (2) the mentally challenged individual that Sue spoke of to Hello, and of course (3) dear old "X"....McKay living by the psychological strategy of "escalation" (the more he feels he is being "pushed", the louder and louder he wails about his "innocence", daring the world to invoke any more of his shrill displeasure at having unpalatable truths "unfairly" brought to his attention, in the public eye).....tactics that would appeal to the puny mind of a self important brat!

What laughable nonsense to suggest that he "pre-warned" parents in the JC's....a transparent endeavour on McKay's part to circumvent liability he faces under the law. (McKay would still seem to me, to be definitely liable due to his "failure to report"....vastly compounded by his further defence of Bruce in the press, where he masqueraded himself as a "disinterested observer")

I agree with Hello that the number are highly disproportionate.....granting the JC's (a maximum of) "100" members over the past 30 years, would give them a "pedophile" strike rate of 3%...probably far higher than the proportion of Catholic priests who have been found guilty of such behaviour, down the years.....

When you're desperate to attract who ever you can muster into your ranks....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2011 11:09PM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.