Quote
Dave's Consort
You yourself know that it has always been community policy NOT to send out a single male and a single female alone on outreaches. However, this was at a time of "autonomy" when she was not accountable for such decisions.

Quote
Kevin
Have you forgotten about Monty?

Quote
Xenophone
Yes Monty (now called Alf) was on the outreach.

Cherry, "autonomy" (please note the quotation marks) happened much later. Possibly more than a year later. I know this because when "autonomy" started I was made leader of the UK team. However, when the events described by "over sensitive mother" happened, I was in the US team. I moved to the UK team in January of 2004 and "autonomy" was initiated shortly before the Christmas blitz of that year so we are easily looking at at least a nine months gap between when you thought autonomy happened. So in fact these events took place while you and Dave were in the US and before any notion of "autonomy".

Quote
Dave's Consort
Dave and I have both referred to that mother as being overly-protective, and it had nothing to do with pedophilia. [reference to food allergies edited]...I genuinely believe that she was an overly protective mother, with a fear of all men. I felt that she needed to let her son live as normal a life as he was able to, but that was not happening...

Quote
Xenophone
So she was over protective and had a fear of all men? Do you recall that she left both her children in the LA team under my care while she went to be a care giver for another member donating a kidney? There was also another male JC with me in the base at the time. How does this fit in with what you said about her?

Quote
Dave's Consort
Now on to the man referred to as "X", whose age was much younger than what "Over-protective mother" seems to recall.

Quote
Xenophone
I don't want to discuss this in further detail on a public forum, but "Over-protective mother" says that X was at least 21. That is a bit off by my estimation, judging by his age when I joined the community. But it is still within 2 years of my conservative estimation. Can we at least agree that X was at least an adult at the time when he molested those little girls?

Quote
Dave's Consort
You'll notice the mother says that her young son was put in "one" of the men's rooms...

Quote
Xenophone
Yes, she does say "one" of the men's rooms. However you are wrong when you say that X didn't sleep or frequent that room where Dave wanted the boy to sleep. That room was a communal room that all the single guys shared at different times. They would take turns using it. Typically the guys who used it were the ones who distributed in the local area that week as opposed to going on outreach. X DID use and frequent that room, but more on that later.

Also it was not just a room for sleeping. It was often a place where guys gathered to fraternise with each other usually before going off to bed. The room was in a small house in the back yard. In this house there was another room and a bathroom. This other room also had single guys sleeping in it at times. The bathroom was frequented by all the single guys as it was there designated bathroom regardless of where they were sleeping. This meant the room was more frequented by those who weren't sleeping in it since it was right next to the bathroom.

Quote
Dave's Consort
...She makes no mention of X being in that room, and that is because he deliberately was NOT. X did not sleep or frequent that room

Quote
Xenophone
Cherry says that X deliberately was not to sleep or frequent the room where Dave wanted the boy to sleep. But remember the boy never slept in that room. Not even once. Think about it, why would there be a policy for X to not frequent or sleep in that room if that was never the boy's room? Why would X be deliberately forbidden to stay away from a room which only ever had single adult men? There was no policy to keep X away from that room. The only reason the boy didn't sleep in the single guy's room was because the boy's mother stood up to Dave and refused.

Quote
Dave's Consort
...There was another bedroom which I recall being separate to the main house. That is where X was. Once again, you have made a damning assumption, that is not even supported by "over-protective mother". I hope you will remove your statement that a young boy was put in a room with someone whom we considered could be a threat to him.

Quote
Xenophone
There was indeed another bedroom separate from the main house, and that bedroom was in the same little house that Dave wanted the boy to sleep in. That means that even if Cherry was correct, X's designated room would have been right next to his room and they would have shared the same bathroom. There was only the main house and the little house in the backyard. No other houses or buildings or bedrooms.

Quote
Dave's Consort
I think the bottom line is that "nothing of a sexual nature happened to them (over-protective mother's children) in the group." This statement from the woman who is most extreme in her accusations against us flies in the face of things that you and others are saying, Kevin. While we have been successful in keeping anything from happening in situations where even the best leader could not guarantee perfect safety, Dave is still being condemned as an irresponsible leader, with no idea about the dangers of pedophilia. That is not fair.

Quote
Xenophone
Cherry, the bottom line is NOT that nothing of a sexual nature happened. The bottom line is that Dave didn't safeguard against the risk of something of a sexual nature happening. He tried to force a young boy to sleep in a room which would have significantly raised the risk of him being in contact with a man whom he knew had a history of molesting young girls on more than one occasion while he was an adult. Worst still Dave tried to do this even against the mother's wishes, taking a grievance against her. Would it be okay for me to continue driving through red-lights simply because I never caused an accident? Wouldn't it mean that I was more likely to get into an accident eventually? This is the nature of our concern.

Quote
Dave
In September, 2006, Xenophone (James) appeared on the Rick Ross forum. He wrote in relation to the total fabrication that started the record-breaking JC thread on that forum:

I was a member for five years and can say confidently that I've never seen any sexual misconduct. Reports about that guy having his pants taken off him in the night just sound so off the mark. If the JCs are one thing, then they're definetly not a sex-cult.

He had left the community by that time, and he had his own disagreements with us (ostensibly theological); but he knew that sexual promiscuity of any sort was not a reason for his disagreements, and he said so at that time. (Malcolm, BTW, said the same thing after he left, even though he is now talking about legal action against me for dozens of imaginary offenses, some of them supposedly relating to sexual misconduct.)

Now, after some four years, James has had a change of mind and has come back to provide information which purports to prove that I failed in my obligations as a leader by not adequately protecting a child from sexual abuse.

Let us be very clear that what Brian, in his many aliases, has been doing, almost from the day he arrived on the anti-Dave McKay thread, is to cast me in the mold of David Berg, whose experiments with various so-called "Christian" forms of sexual misconduct I have always quite clearly opposed. Brian/Oerlikon/Apollo/Stoic's "evidence" for his many theories along those lines has come almost exclusively from statements made on the X site, including distortions of things that both Cherry and I have said. James' latest statement is just one more brick in the wall.

Quote
Xenophone
Dave, I broke off ties in the community in 2006. I brought up the issue of X within months. I didn't "only" come out about it now. Remember the thread you had on your old forum which is now deleted? I am more or less just reiterating what I wrote about back then. How then can you say that after some four years I have changed my mind when I have said the same thing 5 years ago?

X's molestation of two girls happened before he or I joined the community, so of course these incidences don't qualify as sexual misconduct within the Jesus Christians. You seem to be using this admission of mine as if to say that it contradicts me saying that you dropped the ball when it came to X within the community.

Now for your greatest assumption...

Quote
Dave
James takes Cherry to task for a fairly simple explanation she gave of what happened around that time (2003, and 2004). Cherry and I have James to thank for forcing us to do some serious calendar checking and googling to come up with a more precise picture of what happened during the time period that is being discussed.

In particular, what Cherry and I have worked out (and we are still working on this, so expect that there could be further slight changes) is a bit of a timeline to place things into proper sequence. This timeline has shown us that incidents which we had each assumed took place at roughly the same time, were actually spread out over more than a year and a half. James may have made similar mistakes.

But I would like to go back to four or five years BEFORE the time in question, to test James' memory. James, I would like some clarification from you about a conversation between you and X at that time. I understand that this is when X had personally confessed to you exactly the same things that he confessed to Alf, 'A', Cherry and me in 2003. Is that right? And what did you do about it? For you certainly never passed it on to me.

I also understand that you lived in the same commune with A, her children, and X for SEVERAL YEARS, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You were the only person besides X himself who knew of his past action. Did you, at any time, even THINK to mention this to A, or maybe even to urge X to mention this to A? Did you ever recommend that the incident be reported to the police? Did you ever recommend that X get professional counselling regarding what happened?

You tell us now that 'A' trusted you more than any other male member of our community. Do you think that she was wise to have trusted you, given that you were the only member of our community to have known this secret for several years, and yet you said and did nothing about it, even hiding it from 'A'?

Please note that I am not personally condemning you for your inaction. I think it is quite understandable, given the fleeting nature of what occurred. It seems that even the police agreed with that when X went further in trying to resolve the matter! It is just these hate-mongers who are trying to make it into something bigger than it is now. My real question is whether that may be what you are doing as well. Is it?

Quote
Xenophone
Dave, when did I or anyone else ever claim that I knew about X's past BEFORE Over_sensitive_mother did? In fact I believe if you check past records you will find that I only found out X's past some weeks after you did. So to make it crystal clear I would like to state in italics that I first found about about X's past AFTER Over_sensitive_mother and you (Dave) and Cherry did. This whole idea that I knew about his past long before any of you is based on NOTHING.

This makes much of your accusations of me here useless and void since they were based on the (new) assumption that X confided in me about his past months if not years before he did to anyone else including Alf (then Monty).

Quote
Dave
It seems that your biggest claim is that "official" autonomy (i.e. the time at which funds were divided up between members of the community, and they were sent off as two or three member teams, including you and your wife) happened sometime after A left the community. Fair enough. That is something that I made special effort to check out after reading your post on the X site, because I remembered A complaining when I questioned things that were happening in Los Angeles, that this demand for accountability from her was inconsistent with autonomy.

As a community, we discussed autonomy for quite some time (in 2004) before it was totally put into place. One month after A left, I wrote an article on "Starting Your Own Community" along those lines. It may still be available in the teachings section of this web site.

Those who were in the base in L.A. have shared with me that A was consciously restructuring things in little ways in preparation for autonomy, though this may not have started in earnest until after you returned to the U.K. Of course geographical isolation has always meant that each base is pretty much free to do what they like in areas where no reports are sent to other bases anyway. This goes right up to the level of expelling members from the base without needing permission from the rest of the community to do so. So that much power was in your hands and in "A's" hands both. What did you do with it?

Official autonomy just divided up the funds so that little teams (e.g. you and your wife) could start your own communities and it freed you from any need to send in budgets or any other reports.

In particular, what A, as head of the local team, had been free to do for over a year after the confession was revealed to her, was to require that X report the incident to the police, require him to get counselling, or even have him kicked out of the community. One would think from your recent statements, that you would have fully supported her in this. Instead, the relationship grew so close between the two of them (after A's first understandable reaction) that one member in the L.A. base at the time reported that he felt A was coming on to X at times, with such things as telling him (somewhat romantically) that she felt particularly at ease in his presence.

That certainly does conflict with what she wrote a few years after she left the community, doesn't it? And why did it take her, too, a few years to come up with that damning public statement? Why did she not immediately rush to the police station if that was the reason she left the community? Why has she, even now, never reported what she knows to the authorities. If I am to be regarded as an irresponsible leader from the other side of the world, for not having reported "X", what kind of a mother does that make of "A"?

Quote
Xenophone
So in other words, Cherry was wrong, this happened before "autonomy" and you as the leader of the community were at the US base when the confessions of X happened? Why must you bring up all this fluff about how "autonomy" was in the horizon? Red herring. And why can't you or Cherry simply offer a brief apology for getting it wrong? Doth thou protest too much?

I'm sure if you think about it for a few seconds you will see why it would have been logistically impossible for those outside of the community to do much to help X. However you were close to him.

The fact of the matter is that when I was in the community I saw things differently. I trusted you to handle things. Overall while in the community one is cynical about government offices, especially the police. The fact that you yourself didn't go to the police is evidence of this. You chose to deal with it in your own way.


All this slander of over_sensitive_mother is confusing the issue. Are you forgetting that I found out about X's past independently of all of you?

Further, you say that we came out with a "damning public statement". Notice how you and Cherry pretty much agree with us about what X did and that it was wrong? So are you giving a "damning public statement" against him as well? I suspect what really concerns you is that the "damning public statement" is more about you than it is about X.

BTW, I am fairly certain that you wrote "Starting Your Own Community" because Jeremy didn't join straight away after his successful trial week and wanted to start his own community instead. This article was in direct response to that, not "autonomy" and was written well before. .

Quote
Dave
I sense a pattern, James, in quite a few ex-members, who, years after they have left the community, decide to re-create the past to suit themselves and to make monsters of the rest of us. And be warned. You become willing co-conspirators with Brian and Rick Ross when you do that. You all share culpability for your part in generating the whole lynch mob scene.

Quote
Xenophone
Dave, I have had no cooperation with them whatsoever. And what re-creating history are you even referring to? Last I checked it was you and Cherry who struggle to get the timing right.

Quote
Dave
At some point prior to the actual meeting, X had confided to Alf that, when he was 19 or 20, he had been playing with his girlfriend's ten year old daughter, when he touched her crotch through her clothes. He said that he had also inappropriately touched her five year old sister while she was sleeping. 'X' confided that he had been plagued with guilt about it and that he had written to the girls' mother to confess what had happened. She was understandably quite angry and said so, but took no further action.

Quote
Xenophone
So Dave says that X was 19 or 20? I thought Cherry said that he was much younger than 21? Could it be that Cherry was being misleading when she said this?

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.

Quote
Dave
Because of X's close proximity to A's children, Alf felt that the information needed to be shared with A, even though he expected that she might over-react, based on what had been seen as an over-protective attitude toward 'T'. Alf, "X", and "A" returned to the house, where Cherry and I were included in the meeting. I THINK that they actually shared much of this with A BEFORE returning to the house. If so, then technically, she knew BEFORE us. Cherry and I would have been the LAST to know.

Quote
Xenophone
No, I was the last to know.

Quote
Dave
What transpired in that meeting has already been covered elsewhere. We decided on strict rules about X not having any physical contact with the children, and that, if he felt like wrestling or cuddling then it should be with the pet dog which the community owned at that time. X accepted, and things moved steadily toward more and more normality after that.

Quote
Xenophone
Cherry previously said that X was also forbidden from sleeping and visiting the single guy's room. You didn't mention this, Dave. Again, I would like to know why Cherry said this when there was never a need to have such a policy in place since the boy never moved into the room. Could it be that she only said this to make it seem like there was a policy in place when there wasn't any?

Quote
Dave
August, 2003?
A was due to fly to Minnesota as a carer for Vicki while Vicki donated a kidney. This was so soon after the disclosure about X's past, that she was understandably nervous, especially given that 'T' had hardly ever been away from her loving arms.

Before Cherry and I left for London, we made arrangements for X to go on an extended outreach on his own for all the while that A would be away. There was NEVER any thought or mention of encouraging 'T' to sleep in the same room or even the same building with 'X'. X mostly slept outside in a van, although he may have slept in the garage at times when 'T' was not there. (I'm not sure that 'T' EVER slept in the garage or that it was ever even suggested, as there was a room right next to A's where we were suggesting he sleep.)

Quote
Xenophone
Dave, the boy's room was in one of the two bedrooms in the main house. The single guy's room was in the "granny flat" (as Kevin(?) put it) in the separate building in the back yard. Now you are changing it to suggest that you meant for the boy to sleep in the room across from his mother and not in the boys room in the separate building. Even if this was the case X frequented that room like everyone else.

Quote
Dave
Sisi has made much (on the X site) of the fact that 'T' was being asked to sleep in a room with 'strange men'. Again, she speaks as one who has never living in a Christian community. These were not 'strange men'; these were spiritual older brothers with whom he had lived and worked for more than a year, brothers who loved him and protected him, who helped him with his schoolwork, and played with him after school. Sisi's sick imagination about whether or not one of these "strange men" might wake up with an erection or be "heard" masturbating in the toilet just illustrates HER sexual obsessions. For your information, Sisi, FATHERS (of all shapes and sizes) all get erections and all masturbate at times. They even have sex with their wives. Sisi, are you suggesting that mothers never become aroused sexually or that mothers would never masturbate? And the chances of a male sleeping in the nude in a room full of other males is far more unlikely than that of a mother sleeping in the nude in her own private bedroom. Get your mind out of the gutter, Sisi. The fact that people have natural sex drives, or that they might get up to go to the toilet in their pyjamas in the middle of the night does not mean that children must be locked away from them.

December, 2003.
What happened after A returned from Minnesota is of the greatest significance to this whole discussion. What Cherry and I are doing is suggesting that a totally voluntary confession from X, and genuine guilt expressed in relation to a very brief period of time (two incidents involving two sisters) that had occurred years earlier, and subsequent attempts to make restitution to the girls' mother for what happened does not constitute proof of paedophilia in our minds. (I understand that definitions vary, and so some may want to refer to this as paedophilia, but if they do, then they are going to have to accept that it is curable... something that most experts say is not true, and certainly not something that the hate-mongers on the hate sites are saying is possible.) But let "Over-protective mother" herself have the last word on this. All indications were that by December, 2003, she had become fully convinced that whatever X had confessed to was NOT evidence of a threat to her children. She had become quite relaxed with X being a part of the team, and I think she even made him her second-in-charge. Even years after she left, when she decided to make public what happened in the 1990s and what was reported of it in 2003, she still concluded by saying that there had been nothing sexually inappropriate that happened between X and her children during all the time that X had lived and/or worked with her and her children.

James has pointed out that official autonomy for JCs did not exist at the time that he was there in L.A. By December, however, when James was NOT in L.A. there had been a lot of discussion about autonomy, and A was clearly getting a swift run-up to it. She was the undisputed leader of the base. She had shown an ability to make numerous arbitrary changes, and to get others there to submit to her unquestioned authority. She bragged to several that she had learned in her days as a restaurant manageress, ways to manipulate people into doing what she wanted them to do (apparently learned from her mother). But most amazingly, what did NOT happen at that time, is that no action was taken against X. He was not kicked out. He was not reported to the police. He was not sent for counselling. If any of these things had been even slightly entertained in A's mind before she achieved absolute rule in L.A., they totally slipped her mind when she received the power to do all that and more. Instead, she flexed her musicles in other ways, while fully embracing X as her lieutenant. And whatever paranoia she had about male leaders, she seemed to fully revel in the attention that she was getting from her circle of male servants.

This total acceptance of X went on for a very long time, considering that there was no need for it to have continued, and considering the anger she expressed about it later, when she felt that it could be used against me.

September/October, 2004.
Near the end of 2004, more than a year after the disclosure about 'X', I arranged to visit the various bases and to see how they were going... my last visit (I believe) before official autonomy kicked in. I want to emphasise that "A" HAD NO COMPLAINT ABOUT 'X' AT ALL FOR WELL OVER A YEAR, EVEN WHEN SHE HAD ALL THE POWER AND FREEDOM SHE NEEDED TO HAVE HIM KICKED OUT. If there is room for accusing anyone of having been irresponsible in relation to 'X' then she was the culprit. I have not a doubt in my mind that the entire incident had been forgotten, that she had seen for herself that it was a one-off matter of poor judgment for which 'X' was truly sorry, and from which he had shown himself to be truly changed.

When I arrived at the flat in Lynwood, I observed other things that bothered me. One day, while others were out (including A) I decided to do them all a favour and fix dinner. I found in the cupboards a huge stash of polenta, often given away to the poor in America, but almost as often not used by those poor people who preferred junk food and takeaway. A was obviously not a fan of polenta. But I decided to show what could be done by adding heaps of spam and corn niblets to the mix, and when the others arrived home for dinner, we feasted on it. But not before A criticised me for having invaded her kitchen.

It seemed that A had lost sight of the communal nature of the Jesus Christians and that she was setting up a class system where she and her children were given favoured treatment. I discussed some of my concerns with A and others who were present in the room. She complained that I should not be doing that, because it was inconsistent with 'autonomy'. She was supposed to be able to run things to her own rules. Nevertheless, what I was saying rang true with the others and they were soon beginning to question what was going on. "A" found it unbearable, and announced that she was leaving, which she did. But it was over issues to do with abuses of power on her part, and not over problems between her and "X".

it was only after she had been gone for some time (several years, I believe) that she came up with the slander against 'X' and published it on the Internet, apparently as her way to get back at me.

We had to accept that there was some truth in the original allegation, and so we (and X in particular) have put up with this all these years. I understand that he even went out and reported HIMSELF to the police, who could not be bothered with acting on such a weak case. But at least it helped to give him back some of the confidence that this malicious allegation had taken away.

I absolutely detest paedophilia. I think it is very very wrong. But I think that when a bitter, twisted woman tries to use such an accusation in an attempt to destroy another person, and when deeply disturbed people like those posting on the hate sites (BOTH sites, Sisi) take that to create an even bigger and more damning lie about imaginary child abuse and paedophile rings within the Jesus Christians, then it is time to act. "A" herself concluded that, after all that time, and all the many opportunities that 'X' would have had to offend, not one improper move was made toward either of her children. I thank her for saying that. As I would thank Kevin, James, Brian, Malcolm, or anyone for saying that they do not believe that any sexual immorality is happening. Yet it is ironic that together, all these people have been the exact people who have managed to generate this whole disgusting sweety wife legend about me trying to imitate David Berg's sexual perversions.

I think it happens because each individual believes that they are legally protected as long as they can show (somewhere... anywhere) that, at some point, they said, "Nothing immoral or illegal is happening." Their sweety wife gossip is carefully couched in innuendo, leading questions, rumours, opinions, quotes taken out of context, and false assumptions based on false assumptions. But the end result is still the product of all of them working together, as can be shown by literally thousands of quotes from all three web sites. They are deliberately feeding Brian's madness and Rick's badness, at the same time that they cover their mouths like good little monkeys and profess that they have "spoken no evil". I asked for help to stop this, and I received two very direct noes from two women on the X site, silence from most of the men, and an attempt to "help" from Kevin, which only concluded in him re-stating the same things that led to it all in the first place. Cherry's efforts to speak sense to Kevin just results in arrogant responses like, "Oh, so that's how you remember it, eh?"

Quote
Xenophone
OK Dave, we get that you didn't like her. What do your personal grievances with Over_sensitive_mother over polenta and spam have to do with this? I see it as more red herrings and waffle. Dave you seem to be saying that you can't be guilty of putting children at risk because other people didn't take action against X. You mention that X's ex-girlfriend didn't take further action against him. You question the same from over_sensitive_mother and me. But the real question is how you handled the situation Dave. What have you done? Okay so we get that you didn't call the police on him, but did you even encouraged X to get any therapy?

I have never accused you of being a pedophile, and I am not doing that now. However, your glaring attempts to minimise the reality of the situation is concerning to say the least.

Now to comment specifically on something that Dave said earlier in the message...

Quote
Dave
...I thank her for saying that. As I would thank Kevin, James, Brian, Malcolm, or anyone for saying that they do not believe that any sexual immorality is happening. Yet it is ironic that together, all these people have been the exact people who have managed to generate this whole disgusting sweety wife legend about me trying to imitate David Berg's sexual perversions.

Quote
Xenophone
Dave, when on earth did I ever link you with Berg? Please show me. All the evidence you have shown is that I have DEFENDED you from criticisms of sexual immorality. If this isn't an outright lie then it shows how twisted your brain is that you automatically lump everyone who has ever spoken out against you into one grim category.

If it helps clear things up, I vividly recall having a discussion about Mo with Dave while I was in the community which I think illustrates nicely how Dave felt about him, at least at the time. Dave said that it was strange how such a man (Mo) could be so good at writing inspirational material, and having such shining Christian qualities, yet be so mislead in other areas. I particular he was talking about the Family's sex teachings and practices. Dave then went on to say that he was fairly certain that Mo was in hell because of this. Now Dave, you know that I never linked you with Berg's sexual teachings. I am only saying this for the benefit of others who claim that there is a connection.

So Dave, would you be so kind as to admit the following:

1) I never linked you with Bergs sexual teachings, as you said.

2) I found out about X's history after you and Cherry did, contrary to what you said.

3) I first expressed my concerns to you about X five years ago and not just recently, as you failed to mention.

And can you also clarify the following:

Whether or not you are accusing me of working with anyone from the RR forum? Please provide evidence if that is what you are accusing me of.

Whether you encouraged X to get therapy or some other professional help.