Don't you just love it?

They are all as bad as each other when it comes to claiming being a victim.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/ted-...e-victim-status/amp/

fascinating when Saunders was also booted from the Vatican's inquiry into child abuse for hectoring & bullying the other board members.

And now Pell faces charges.

Yes - Saunders has always been one of the more cunning and persuasive of the False Allegations Industry - I suspect a genuine "victim" with the intelligence and skill to seem very convincing - until suddenly faced with the massive problem of those who do not fit into the extreme positions. There is no reason why an abuser cannot also be a victim. The wrong social and legal position is allowing accusers to be assumed to be always truthful. Some are. Many aren't. Saunders can see the immense problem coming if accusers start being properly investigated as well as their alleged abusers. As Henriques says - Equality of Arms.

JK2006 wrote:
There is no reason why an abuser cannot also be a victim.

There is if you are a social justice Marxist, like all of these "abuse" campaigners. The reason is that they seek to divide society into goody and baddy groups.

JK2006 wrote:
Saunders can see the immense problem coming if accusers start being properly investigated as well as their alleged abusers. As Henriques says - Equality of Arms.

Hence the big push to introduce legislation preventing any discussion of the accuser's behaviour or credibility in a prosecution.

No Randall; don't agree with your "all". Some are, some aren't, most are somewhere in the middle. Let's never join our enemies by using the same technique of pretending only the extremes exist. Superficiality and only considering caricatures gets us nowhere.

Moor Larkin has mentioned and/or written about Peter Saunders several times, e.g. jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2017/02/chameleon.html

More

JK2006 wrote:
No Randall; don't agree with your "all". Some are, some aren't, most are somewhere in the middle. Let's never join our enemies by using the same technique of pretending only the extremes exist. Superficiality and only considering caricatures gets us nowhere.

I stand by my "all." Anyone who campaigns is bogus. Why? Actually helping real victims of sexual abuse and preventing future abuse requires a more considered, low-key, reflective approach, rather than headline hyperbole and rabble-rousting rhetoric.

Randall wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
There is no reason why an abuser cannot also be a victim.

There is if you are a social justice Marxist, like all of these "abuse" campaigners. The reason is that they seek to divide society into goody and baddy groups.

JK2006 wrote:
Saunders can see the immense problem coming if accusers start being properly investigated as well as their alleged abusers. As Henriques says - Equality of Arms.

Hence the big push to introduce legislation preventing any discussion of the accuser's behaviour or credibility in a prosecution.

There hasn't ever been a court case against Saunder's alleged abusers. Which is fairly unique for a self-appointed "advocate".

Still nice work if you can get it..plenty of attention, a wage from a "charity", an all-expenses paid year in beautiful Rome.. what's not to like?

hedda wrote:
Randall wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
There is no reason why an abuser cannot also be a victim.

There is if you are a social justice Marxist, like all of these "abuse" campaigners. The reason is that they seek to divide society into goody and baddy groups.

JK2006 wrote:
Saunders can see the immense problem coming if accusers start being properly investigated as well as their alleged abusers. As Henriques says - Equality of Arms.

Hence the big push to introduce legislation preventing any discussion of the accuser's behaviour or credibility in a prosecution.

There hasn't ever been a court case against Saunder's alleged abusers. Which is fairly unique for a self-appointed "advocate".

Still nice work if you can get it..plenty of attention, a wage from a "charity", an all-expenses paid year in beautiful Rome.. what's not to like?

In my opinion, charities tend to corrupt good intentions.