IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: The Truth Project, Peter Saunders, MWT and a Can of Worms
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
I think the Saunders matter is not over by a long shot.
Of course his supporters are coming out of the woodwork with statements like "so 2 people got drunk and had sex so what?" which glosses over the facts and actrually ignores the woman involved felt that it was rape.
I've had one claiming "child abuse victims" are highly sexualised and Saunders should be forgiven.
# I had this same talk when I kept hammering away on how the media lauded a convicted abuser who they traveled with to The Vatican to confront George Pell. Finally the ABC revealed he had been convicted (and admitted it) to abusing a 14 year old boy (other victims who traveled with him were distraught they had been fooled).
His supporters made the same "child abuse victims are sexualised" etc claim and said he should be forgiven.
When I pointed out that perhaps Priests who had abused might have been abused as children and were repeating the same actions and perhaps should be forgiven , they went off their heads.
There is a really weird sector of people who relentlessly support their "heroes" no matter what.
There is every chance police may re-visit the case.
Especially after Saunders claimed that he was the victim. Can you imagine how she must feel (if she's alive) reading that?
This goes to the heart of Saunders' character (or lack of it) and his extraordinary arrogance to hide the situation and present himself as an expert hypocritically fighting anonymity whilst claiming it for himself.
The entire episode is so terribly sordid given the circumstances. Shouldn't NAPAC's finances be looked at it Saunders felt he could pay for long boozy lunches with taxpayer's money and then be forgiven by NAPAC? (probably the end of NAPAC as well)
It's also an appalling look for IICSA to have not done due diligence. Do their so-called advisers / experts have to fill in a form about possible sex charges?.
As we have seen with Jimmy Savile....the BBC rolled over and took on financial responsibility for alleged and unproved abuse on their premises. The set a precedent. But we told them at the time..ignored of course. Hello NAPAC?
## interesting take on Peter Saunders history of child abuse. Seems it's been a changing story over the years ranging from one abuser (family friend) to 2 priests and perhaps more (and at least one drunken lady now in an Italian Restaurant)
trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/08/25/saunders/ |
|
MWTW |
To bloody right it has to change its not fair that you are guilty because you are accused.
To many nests have and are still being feathered by the encouragement of others happy to believe with not a jot of question, men being called 'Paedophile' when even if guilty they are not paedophilesure. Look back at Williams Thomas in his TV appearances and he just has to hammer that word he learnt early it pricks ears and gains attention.
People want it, they want it to be true, they want the story, they want the details every dirty little bit that the Vile Perverts got up to and the grander the story the more they belive, allegedly.
The backpeddling Mark Williams-Thomas is seeing the next big thing in 'injustice' I'm sure it won't be injustice when his next exposure comes out about his coaching of Saville accusers.
Let's all go 'Beeching' |
|
JK2006 |
I hate to say it but I squirm when I watch Victoria (soft sympathetic sad voice) Derbyshire "exposing" soccer coaches, priests, teachers with a clearly exaggerating sobbing middle aged man - and other ratings getting; click bait ideas - provoke prosecutions and convictions for possibly innocent men and women TOTALLY in order to boost their profiles and increase their wage packets.
It is almost impossible to prove innocence of historical allegations (though I have now done it several times, thanks to a decent, honest Judge). Especially when police and CPS are blatantly on the side of the false accusers.
Sometimes even also provoking them and causing claims.
Many innocent people are in prison today. Many families and friends destroyed. Many kill themselves.
IT HAS TO CHANGE. |
|
MWTW |
Oh JK, you have really hit the nail on the head of we only look this way not that.
Hiding in plain sight. |
|
JK2006 |
So what happens if two women go to the IICSA (of which Peter Saunders was, until yesterday, a vital member) and tells The Truth Project they were orally and vaginally raped in 2008 - by Peter Saunders? They (and others) may already have done so. Are they - or were they - sent away with fleas in their ears and the slogan "False Allegations are vanishingly rare" pinned to their ample bosoms? Or do they get taken to the pub for a drink?
Now the Victoria Derbyshire Show and others on both ITV and BBC know about Peter Saunders, will they still invite him on their shows to spout about how few "false claims" there are, compared to the "billions" of real abuse cases?
Answer - they still book Mark Williams Thomas, even after he's been exposed. So why not?
Like the IICSA and NAPAC, happy to collude with abusers hiding in plain sight.
Could they be guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice? If viewers or listeners, hearing the soothing platitudes of a "spokesperson" and assuming they are sanctioned by the BBC or ITV, contacts that person, meets them (as happened in Manchester in 2008 after a BBC TV show), gets plied with drink and taken into a public toilet, are they entitled to complain about the BBC or ITV if they believe they were raped?
Are they entitled to complain about police and/or CPS refusing to prosecute their "rapist"? Or, at least, to ask why?
When the spokesperson admits guilt in abusing the vulnerable victim ("consensually") but blames the victim and alcohol (who paid for it?), should the BBC or ITV be taken to task over promoting him (or her)?
If Cliff Richard sues the BBC and if the BBC are aware that the man who provoked and encouraged the false allegation against him was Mark Williams Thomas, should they continue to promote him, putting him on shows to plug his latest book, asking him to comment on cases as some kind of an expert? If so, they really ought to have him on now, justifying his friend Saunders' behaviour ("these drunk young women can behave terribly badly - by the way, do you have contact numbers for them so I can assist them selling their stories?") and explaining why there is nothing wrong in abusing vulnerable victims of abuse ("have you ever done the same, Mark?").
Oh, this Can of Worms has a lot of wriggly wobblies yet to emerge from it. |
|
|
|
|
