[jcs.xjcs.org]

Quote
Dave
It's not a conspiracy in that you hold meetings and plan what each person will say, but it's part of the overall purpose of this board (which Brian has described so aptly), i.e. to take me out and destroy the Jesus Christians by destroying my reputation.

David, you do not even have a reputation to destroy.

You are your own worst enemy, and do half of my work for me.

Nobody will miss you when you are gone from this world, except for the members of your group and a few others.

Just a point of clarification:

The letter DM wrote in the Newcastle Herald, was in response to the article/report they wrote in the same paper (NH 14/11/98), NH referring to the Newcastle Herald.

The article I got hold of was the main story from Australian Associated Press 12/10/98.

So it would have been more accurate for Apollo to have written:

Here's Dave McKay's response to a similar article published in the Newcastle Herald,

rather than:

Here's Dave McKay's response to the article.


[jcs.xjcs.org]

I am working on getting the Newcastle Herald article as well, but their online newspaper archives only go back ten years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 02:04AM by zeuszor.

From Kidneys For Jesus:

RONSON (VO): I think it’s impossible to be objective about the kidneys. Your opinion changes in relation to the way Dave chooses to take hold of your life. Leisel’s life has been shattered, so she can see little good in it.
Cut to LEISEL: Like, you know, there’s no real plan. Like this kidney thing came to him suddenly so there’s not really any plan for the future here. He can come up with something tomorrow that’s more dangerous than what he’s doing today, and everyone will follow him.

The old fart needs to go in the sewer and find his reputation. Everybody knows he's linked with the father of lies. He forgot you reap what you sew. What an idiot!

ummm...well, perhaps an unknown someone down, in Texas does?....

Oh, but then again... you did say "in their right mind". didn't you. Zeuszor!


There is clearly no "genuine repentance" in McKay, at all

for recklessly subjecting children to the wiles of Bruce

(while he was otherwise busy "selling" McKay, Satan bless his soul!!)

Now that Zeuszor has provided irrefutable proof of the extent of the paedophile activities in India under Davejc's leadership and Davejc is no longer able to deny that these did indeed take place or minimise the offences, he immediately attempts to, by implication, take the credit for the paedophile making his confession to the police.

[jcs.xjcs.org]

He also attempts to use this spurious credit that exists only in his own head and in the heads of any true believing JC's as a means to point up the unfairness of questioning his behaviour:

Because most people would do like you and just sit on what you knew for more than a year, not even telling a mother with children that you knew about X's past. But it doesn't stop those same despicable people coming here and trying to condemn someone who suceeded in getting a pedophile to totally admit all that he had ever done in the past and gotten away with.

Thanks again to Apostate who doesn't allow this 'repositioning' of the truth to pass without correctly naming the person responsible (not Davejc, obviously) for the paedophile turning himself in:

[jcs.xjcs.org]

'Dave, at least one family with children knew absolutely nothing of Bruce's sexual proclivity and had young children in his care. It disgusts me that you did not publicise the extent of his lack of control. It is the height of hypocrisy to try and pin something on Xenophone of which you yourself are guilty.

I have not seen anyone here condemn Peter Boyd (Primitive Methodist pastor) for getting Bruce to admit his offences, only posters challenging your ongoing minimising and past secrecy.'

Hear, hear! Well done Apostate!

McKay is criminally insane...hence he simply "uses" situations, for his own benefit by postulating the best lie to suit the occasion, even irrespective of previous comments he has made (that will then be denied)....he has been doing this since I knew him....and over the ensuing 30 years has simply become completely bereft of any prick of conscience at doing so.....

Now then, on to the matter of "X"...

hello has very sensibly posted this:

[jcs.xjcs.org]

We have a situation here that is extremely dangerous to the JC's. I hate the thought of vigilante mobs and certainly don't want to be part of one , or to in any way incite one. In this instance I see that this situation could easily inflame to become much worse.

Dave - I want to be very clear with you. I care about the Jc's very much. By INSISTING that ' x ' goes for a full assessment - (and it would be in your best interests to keep the proof of that insistence. A record of what you have written to him and copies of your emails with the date that you sent them.)- that may be your only hope of guarding against what many people see as the valid criticism that your community is soft on paedophilia.

One of the things that I respect about you is your willingness to tackle subjects such as paedophilia and tell it how you see it. Unfortunately , some of the things that you've written can easily be taken out of context and the implication is that you support paedophilia. Some of your comments could be used against yourself and your community in the most vile way.

Your only defence is to take appropriate action with ' x ' and John. It is essential to the reputation of your members that you go through the proper channels. I am begging you to do everything in your power to make sure that ' x' goes and has a full - face to face assessment and that John is reported to the social services in the UK. You may view it as a small risk , but this precaution will protect the members of your community from further criticisms and allegations.

If you leave things as they are you are putting members of your community at risk. There is also a risk ( no matter how small ) that ' x ' may reoffend. Or that John may reoffend. However small that risk might be , it isn't one that YOU should have to take. If you comply - then any further incidents will be a failure on the part of Social Services or child protection etc.

I have provided a link to an organisation - though there are similar organisations across the world. Please take the time to speak to them. We need to take action here for the good of everyone concerned. I would really like the support of the other posters here. Or if you disagree please can you state why.

In my opinion, we ought to give McKay a deadline in which he should be able to produce such documentation of X's and John's assessment, and potentially of their treatment as well. What's fair, everybody? One month from today? Two? What is the consensus on that here?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 10:00PM by zeuszor.

I haven't heard much about this John.

Is John the man who had learning difficulties?

Is he the man Liverpool Writer is referring to in the very first post on this thread?

Zeuszor, one month from today sounds more than reasonable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 10:29PM by Apollo.

Quote
Apollo
I haven't heard much about this John.

Is John the man who had learning difficulties?

We believe so.

Quote
Apollo
Is he the man Liverpool Writer is referring to in the very first post on this thread?

We do not know.

Quote
Apollo
Zeuszor, one month from today sounds more than reasonable.

And what to do if no such documentation is produced within one months' time? What do you suggest?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2011 10:31PM by zeuszor.