Dear Muppet,

(Nice to hear from you again!)

Thank you for supplying that posting from David which of course now COMPLETELY clarifies the nature of Roland and Sues' activities....

They are simple itinerant comic salesmen.....Now that's much clearer isn't it!

I see then that:

Roland and Sue will NOT of course, deceptively claim that "God" supports them, any more than "God" supports anyone else in this world of his.

Roland and Sue effectively work for a salary as do the rest of the world.

Roland and Sue do NOT, of course, seek to entice "sheep" (primarily young people that they can islolate from the advice of their family or friends) to "donate" all their goods and belongings to their further "comic selling" efforts.

Roland and Sue do NOT claim any special status as "leaders" within the existing JesusChristian community (where they might otherwise benefit from the servitude of the currently enslaved "followers" or have access to the possession of funds and property denied to the said "followers")

Roland and Sue will of course, at any point in time, be able to act independently of whatever "instructions" they may otherwise be advised by the person of David McKay.



I thank David for clarifying this matter of some enduring mystery to me, and in return would like to go so far as to wish him. absolutely no luck, in any future trial he may face for any libellous representations of the character of David Lowe that he may or may not, have consistently made in public, over the course of many months prior to this point.....

The all-knowing Dave, who has slandered me and my family for years, proclaimed another falsehood...stating time and time again that I am the same person as Muppet. Wrong!

Might we therefore not hope a light may go off in his foot soldiers' heads that Dave doesn't know what he's talking about in other areas, like the scriptures?

Why do bidding for a guy who knows less than most, who has no warm human feelings, and who spents so much time on such nasty endeavour as pulling families apart and keeping spirits down?

The line of work Sue and Roland are in reminds me of multi-level companies like Amway. Sell a product, but bringing in more bodies and souls is the game.

WIFE SWAP UPLOADS

[welikejesus.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2008 11:00PM by zeuszor.

My belief is that at first I was someone called NE. I then became AvL. I was then no longer, AvL, but according to Dave, started to pretend I was
(try and make some sense of that!). Then I apparently became AvL in league with DL, although for sometime, I was referred to as DN.

I think that I then started to be referred to as simply DL, who Dave (may or may not) think is worse than a mass murder or serial rapist
(just throwing in that over used, old fashioned media technique).

Blackhat then was supposedly my wife or was it my Grandma? and then at one stage, wasn't I supposed to be Blackhat as well? and didn't I later try to get rid of one of my personas?

Yep, Dave really seems has a handle on me (sarcasm intended).

It's really been fascinating witnessing the interest I seem to have aroused, from asking questions, repeating or raising things that have been alleged, quoting other people or suggesting matters should be investigated.

David seems to suggest that my posts have been cleverly crafted. Almost to the point, of suggesting, that I haven't really said anything at all. I thank him for that. Perhaps I have had some legal training or advice? He probably doesn't realise, just how helpful his cutting and pasting have been and the extra publicity certainly has also been a big help.

His real concern though, seems to be that word, investigated. Doesn't appear to like the idea one bit. But unfortunately for Dave, he can't sue me for suggesting that concerns raised about the Jesus Christians should be investigated. In fact, the more he seems to protest, the more people are coming to believe that there is some substance to the concerns raised.

However, Dave continuing to state as fact that I am DL for example, is most certainly actionable and I would encourage DL to proceed with legal action. Let Dave produce his, "so called" evidence in Court and let him try to prove his continual inferences regarding threats, etc.

Somebody mentioned Dave needing to edit out his mistakes. He has a huge tasks ahead of him. All his various errors are still scattered throughout ZB's website, including the references to AvL. Maybe DL's lawyers should write to her as well and include her in the action. After all, she is allegedly the website owner. I'd be happy to mail you her address, DL.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 02:16AM by private eyes.

Last night I watched the two episodes of "Wife Swap" available at the link Zueszor posted previously. I have to say that I am really glad that they did that show because it gives a clear window into the JC world. It was good to see Daniel again. He has grown so much and obviously came across as an intelligent good natured, and gentle child; and, Like Debbie, I have become more concerned for him.

After watching the show I have a few observations to make about what I saw and what I heard being said. Bad editing can not be used as a justification for what I saw and heard as it is typical of the JC line, and Roland and Sue in particular.

1. Sue is given the task of living in Debbie's shoes cleaning the house and begins to gripe about how hard the the work was and making the statement that she thought someone this rich would have "paid for a maid". I could not believe my ears, and had to play it again. Well Sue, some people are well off financially and live in big clean houses because they actually WORK hard.

2. Sue looks Nick in the eyes and tells him "nobody get benefits" in the JC's! This is an outright lie. Dave and Cherry both get benefits and the entire UK team receives free health care as a benefit. Time to fess up Sue.

3. Sue took a third stage grievance against Darcy (a 9 year old girl) for not finishing an 8 hour old bowl of soggy breakfast cereal telling her that she will NOT eat until she does. So typical of how JC's target children in these adult styles of communication. I am starting to really feel sorrow for Daniel and what he must endure.

4. Daniel was stressed about the water leaking into the van wishing it could be all fixed without having to go through all the usual rigmarole of waiting on some sort of "provision" from on high to happen. Come on Roland buy some bloody silastic or something. Daniel had requested to go to school, just two weeks prior to the show, and expressed strong embarrassment about being dropped off at the school in the JC van and was dropped off down the road out of sight. He presented as a very lonely boy whose only real companionship in the world was his pet rat. Roland when questioned about the living standards and embarrassment of Daniel did his usual justifications. It appears to me that Daniel will take off the first opportunity he gets, and good on him if he does. He is living in squalor, having spent practically his entire life living in a van eating out of rubbish bins with parents who leech off the very system they criticize.

5. Daniel was able to experience a birthday party, possibly for the first time, because of Debbie's influence. This is because Roland stated they don't celebrate the birth of their own son. I can attest to that mindset having seen him publicly criticize his son saying he was a "liability". Daniel was VERY happy to be treated as a child and have his birth celebrated, even if it took a stranger to do it. He was taken for a go kart ride and had an excellent time. He got to have his own room in a flat with a bean bag, bed and no leaking roof, and stood in the room spinning around with his arms outspread praising the existence of power points; such was the culture shock of it. He is a child growing up in a developed country who is forced to live as though he was living in a developing country due to the perverted idealism his parents maintain as they follow Dave.

6. Roland refused to work longer than half a day doing recycling. Some "freegan". I have to agree that he certainly appeared bone lazy and could not even put in a days work, i.e. time actually DOING something besides telling others what to do.

7. I have nothing but praise for Debbie as she put in a solid commitment t living like them. It was only due to her that they got a clean bucket to use for the communal shower, that Daniel got a much needed haircut and had his birth celebrated. Good on you Debbie. I also agree that it is not fair that you have to pay 4000 pounds for your child's dental work while Roland and Sue get it for free. A clear example of them receiving benefits, which Sue denies.


I am looking forward to the "aftermath" where both families get to give feedback.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 05:27AM by apostate.

Wow, the quality of this thread!

Because I'm still on dial-up, the WifeSwap show is out of reach for me. I do have broadband friends, so I think I'll pay them a visit very soon. Obviously I haven't seen the show, but Apostate's perceptions are a joy to read.

Apostate, those were exactly my sentiments about the wife-swapping show. I felt like crying for young Daniel, (how sad his coersed statement on the crampled bit of paper read by Sue at the end). It reminded me of "Kidneys for Jesus" when poor Casey was reprimanded for being in pain and having second thoughts.

I also felt sad for Sue and Roland with their hardships and mission going no-where over twenty years now and Roland's impotence in doing a full day's work. They said some good things....only to have Debbie rightly counter that she, her family, friends and neighbors were doing and caring about these subjects without making a fuss about it.

Why wasn't Dave mentioned? Does anyone know? Sue said she was thinking about getting a flat. Maybe some good will come out of the show for Daniel and all Dave's disciples.

Also they seemed to have gotten a better campervan at the end. Was that payment for participation in the show?

Debbie, I thought, was fantastic. A sensible woman after my own heart. The contrast between a normal and a cultish situation couldn't have been better depicted. Well done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 07:41AM by Dogmother.

Fran writes: [welikejesus.com]


"Anita seems to be having some difficulty in answering the questions I posed to her on another thread in this section. Here are the questions I asked:
How do your actions line up with the Quaker testimony of Integrity? What about Peace and Community?.... " etc, etc."


While you are tossing those stones, Fran, how do your actions line up to the same standards?


Are you going to confront your leader to retract and apologise for making false testimony against so many people? You know that Blackhat is not David Lowe or his wife or his grandmother, and yet a whole thread remains on your forum making that false assertion with no word of correction. You know that Dave's story about being in Sydney when he was doing a fulltime bachelor of science degree and working as co-editor on the student newspaper at Deakin University in GeelongVictoria is not credible and that the claim he only heard about the boy in the wheelchair and offered advice via email is a nonsense as email did not exist in Australia at that time. What effort do you make to maintain peace and community with family members? You know that your community "gossiped" about its own members and conspired to remove them in contravention of its own standards on 'grievance' procedures. You must know that much of Dave's account of the Split is an inverted fabrication, that has undergone a series of revisions over time. Have you, like others in the community, complied with Dave's request to shun Sheri and to rudely rebut her family newsletters and birthday greetings? You must be able to see that much of Dave's posting concerns confronting and attacking others. How does Dave's accusations of corruption against the Quakers, his name calling of concerned mothers, and personal insults that are peppered throughout the forum represent Integrity, Peace and Community?


"Anita says that she will answer my questions when I answer hers and that her question is how we justify the whipping that happened in Kenya. ... Are you aware, Anita, that we have NEVER whipped anyone against their will? Perhaps when you realise that, you will start taking responsibility for the things that you have actually done wrong."


No, you presented a black servant who you accused of petty theft the option of being handed over to police (that you have described as the most corrupt in the world), to be beaten severely by them, or to submit to a "lesser" beating directly from your hands and had him sign an affidavit before it was administered. Much has been made of the claim that a community member offered to take the beating on his behalf and he, as all reasonable people would, refused to allow someone else to suffer for him. This speaks of his integrity rather than your own. The fact that psychological games were introduced into the brutal act of whipping, only compounds the fact that you exploited an opportunity to assert authority over someone in the most transparently brutal way, that all reasonable people and civilised conventions oppose. It gives some insight into what you are capable of if you could get away with it in countries where you don't have the power to literally whip people, and where one assumes more covert methods of control are used.


"We are still waiting for your answers."


So are we.


A private citizen has a right to privacy and is entitled to keep their beliefs, associations etc private. But a group that seeks public exposure to promote itself, to recruit new members and to make accusations against others, exposes itself to public scrutiny and will be rightly judged for their failure to justify their behaviour.


I don't know where you get off, Fran in preaching to someone your whole organisation is doing all it can to undermine and destroy, about taking responsibility for the things you think they have done wrong. I bet you have a list of people you would like to whip into submission.


The JC's remind me of the story Jesus tells of a servant who gets a massive debt erased that could have seen him and his whole family jailed for life, but who then shows no mercy in picking on someone who owes him a trivial amount.

Dave has recently posted this on the moneysavingsexpert.com.

Just to clarify, Wife Swap is entertainment. It's called reality TV, but that's not absolute. The film crew had a schedule to keep, and so Roland was basically dragged off to a job, posed for a few pictures, and then told that it was time to leave and get back to other filming. It was the producers who apparently told the audience that Roland packed the job in after a day. And I think the "day" he "worked" was a Saturday, so it's possible that even the employer was in on the whole thing on a day when his business may have normally been closed. At any rate, the producers had no intentions of letting Roland return on Monday, much less Sunday.

Wake up, people! Things are not always what they seem to be.

And I don't understand why people are still going on about Roland and Susan not paying taxes. If they are breaking a law, then fine. Report them. In fact, you can report them even if you genuinely THINK they may be breaking a law. They can handle it.

But if you're not prepared to do that, then kwitchurbellyakin about them having all the fun and you not being happy because of it.



The system job was just a little 'entertainment' from a couple who just really want to
'educate' us. What better way to launch a new recruitment drive than through another attention seeking media splash.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2008 07:57AM by muppet.

Dave the "spin doctor" recently spun

Just to clarify, Wife Swap is entertainment. It's called reality TV, but that's not absolute. The film crew had a schedule to keep, and so Roland was basically dragged off to a job, posed for a few pictures, and then told that it was time to leave and get back to other filming. It was the producers who apparently told the audience that Roland packed the job in after a day. And I think the "day" he "worked" was a Saturday, so it's possible that even the employer was in on the whole thing on a day when his business may have normally been closed. At any rate, the producers had no intentions of letting Roland return on Monday, much less Sunday.

Wake up, people! Things are not always what they seem to be.

And I don't understand why people are still going on about Roland and Susan not paying taxes. If they are breaking a law, then fine. Report them. In fact, you can report them even if you genuinely THINK they may be breaking a law. They can handle it.

But if you're not prepared to do that, then kwitchurbellyakin about them having all the fun and you not being happy because of it.

Dave it is time YOU woke up and quit all your bluff and bravado. We are not stupid. I watched the show and saw Roland arguing with Debbie about doing work and how there was no way he would ever go back clearly stating that he would NEVER be forced to work for the system. Was that just an act too? I don't think so. Roland was presenting as though it was something he detested. Those were his words... not the producers. The narrator was simply voicing what Roland himself publicly stated on camera. Debbie put a more concerted effort into walking in someone else's shoes than Roland did. Next you will be saying that Sue never complained about the rich family not having paid for a maid while she was griping about doing household chores, or that Daniel never publicly complained about the stressful living conditions of a van with a leaky roof.

Regarding Daniel, can anyone who lives in the UK notify child services about Daniel's living standards. Maybe we can FORCE these guys to take better care of him. I understand that the UK system is different to the Australian system in that they have no mandatory reporting system in place for child neglect. I can only hope that some child protection agencies are made aware of Daniel's position either by viewing their flagrant neglect of him or by being informed directly. I had my suspicions about how he lives, seeing the show confirmed it. Roland and Sue are not considering Daniel's wellbeing in their current style of living.