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: My letter to Alexis Jay IICSA
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Honey |
Little Sausage wrote:
Amazing, bloody amazing...
I wish I could write so eloquently,
Great letter jk.
You don't do so bad yourself, Sausage.  |
|
Little Sausage |
Amazing, bloody amazing...
I wish I could write so eloquently,
Great letter jk. |
|
Jo |
Wow, that's a stonker of a letter. Hope they take note. |
|
JK2006 |
Dear Alexis Jay,
I take strong exception to the report about the Church of England and accuse the IICSA in general of hypocrisy at least and attempting to pervert the course of justice at worst.
The culture of the Church of England facilitated it becoming a place where abusers could hide.
Your agenda has been biased and blinkered. You refused to hear the numerous examples of false allegations from people like myself, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Nigel Evans MP and the hundreds of other victims of false accusers.
I have no idea how many children were abused by vicars, priests or anyone else but I’m sure a lot were, back in the days when it was considered less appalling a crime than it is today. Times change. I believe women are even allowed to vote these days. Fortunately we’ve not wasted vast sums of money investigating the crimes of the suffragettes.
But it’s the hypocrisy I object to. Knowing their founder Peter Saunders was an admitted rapist of vulnerable abuse victims, NAPAC brushed his behaviour under a carpet. When the Vatican discovered his past including, I suspect, holes in his own allegations of abuse, they booted him off their commission but allowed him to “resign”. I fail to believe the IICSA didn’t also know about his activities (surely the Vatican will have told you) yet you chose to ignore them and value him as a representative of “survivors” until a national newspaper publicly revealed them, at which point you also kicked him out, under the guise of letting him “resign”.
Just like the Church of England - places where abusers could hide.
How many other abusers work at the IICSA or at NAPAC or at other “honey pots”, attracting the vulnerable abuse victims, perhaps then taking them to the pub for several drinks before raping them in the toilets (and blaming them)?
The vast majority of accusers either exaggerate or make up their stories. Hundreds of innocent men and women (yes, I know victims of both genders) plead guilty to avoid causing distress to the false accusers or to get shorter sentences for crimes that never took place. Trials can now result in convictions where the only “evidence” is the word of a false accuser, often after money, revenge, attention, sympathy, compensation, custody of kids or genuinely deluded through alcohol, drugs and other reasons.
Your agenda avoids all of them and simply accepts the word of liars. It ignores the presence of abusers in its own ranks. As you can read in my new book Not A Knee On The Neck (How British Police kill people), often this agenda causes death. I bet you that NAPAC still gives Peter Saunders large sums of money, probably disguised to his wife or family or a Cayman Islands company; happy to fund the lifestyle of an accused rapist; choosing to forget the “you will be believed” slogan when applied to one of their own.
Did NAPAC investigate whether there were many other victims of Saunders’ behaviour? I doubt it. Whether other NAPAC staff also use the charity as a honey pot? I doubt it. Did the IISCA? I doubt it. Did either ask police to reopen the case and reinvestigate it? I doubt it. Or enquire why the claims went nowhere? I doubt it.
How many other genuine victims of abuse or false accusers went to NAPAC or the IICSA and were subsequently abused?
I’m sure, if you had advertised, as you have done for other organisations, similar numbers of “victims” would have come forward after the Saunders revelations. But that has not been your agenda.
Meanwhile Welby, like other leaders, has accepted your flawed findings and is shocked and ashamed by his Church. So he should be - not just for the abuse which we all know has gone on for years but for the abuse of innocent men and women by false accusers, receiving no help or assistance from the Church which is nervous that it could be accused of ignoring “victims” who, in most cases, were liars either exaggerating or inventing claims.
It is shocking that everyone ignores many of the real criminals (abuse is a better story for most of the media, of course). The Carl Beech, Jemma Beale, Danny Day types are just the tip of the enormous iceberg ignored by your agenda. And the damage done to families, friends, work colleagues, relatives of innocent people is far worse than anybody could imagine. I think the case of Cardinal George Pell illustrates what really goes on; in many cases (and many religions) false claims of sex abuse are a weapon for political purposes.
As a tax payer I’m offended that my millions paid in tax over the years is wasted by corrupt or incompetent inquiries such as the IICSA instead of preventing deaths in care homes from Covid19. You should be investigating both sides of this. A balanced not biased investigation.
Do please read my book. You might learn something.
Best wishes,
Jonathan King
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7391713...molested-victim.html
cc Gabrielle Shaw NAPAC |
|
|
|
|
