BOGUS DEVIL VIDEO
Andrew Boyd back-pedalling on Right of Reply, (22 January 1992 6.30pm) Sheena McDonald chairs a debate between Andrew Boyd and David Benson a TOPY fan on Channel 4's Right of Reply over gross inaccuracies in Boyd's Dispatches documentary Beyond Belief which sought to prove that Satanic Ritual Abuse existed by portraying a piece of TOPY performance art as actual footage of the birth of a baby bred for sacrifice! Boyd admitted in the debate that he knew the TOPY performance art video connection before broadcast but went ahead anyway. Click on the picture above for the full historic interview obtainable nowhere else.
The programme makers knew very well that the video was simply far-out Performance Art by The Temple of Psychic Youth (TOPY) a popular rock group who have many other over-18 rated videos in public circulation. Most of the scenes used in the original video were library shots cut in from other sources and the film contained NO evidence of Satanism nor Abortion, nor buggery.
'Beyond Belief' was simply the latest irresponsible hatchet-job in the unending campaign by a small clique of 'experts' to promote their wildest suspicions about the myth of Satanic Abuse.
The attempt by Dispatches to pass the video off as a secret film of Satanic Rites was utterly reprehensible. Their programme misrepresented facts and overlooked the partisan motivations of some people who took part in the programme, as we shall reveal.
'Beyond Belief' was the 'first-guard' in what will become a last-ditch attempt to breathe life back into the Satanic Panic by the same obsessed therapists and journalists who invented the idea in the first place.
Another documentary supporting controversial disclosure techniques is to be screened soon by the First Tuesday programme. This will largely be co-ordinated by journalist Tim Tate, the researcher who gave Britain their first bogus national satanic panic in the form of the discredited Cook Report, 'The Devil's Work'. Further 'Seminars for the Obsessed' occurred during February, March and April, where the growing isolation of 'believers' in Satanic Abuse means they will reform in secret and regurgitate their 'expertise' on an unsuspecting public.
The very same pro-sramists who promoted the Myth in 1988/9 are getting it on again. The same old unproveable stories, the same unproveable allegations, the same disproven cases, the same illogical lies about occult doctrine and aims. What appears different in Boyd's Beyond Belief are the players and the wrapping. But nothing has really changed.
Behind the scenes of this Dispatches film the 'evidence' is traceable directly to the same people who initially promoted the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse in the U.K. and whose Rotweiller mentality has been only temporarily subdued because of public ridicule after Nottingham, Rochdale, Orkney and the rest.
Choosing to remain quiet until the public's attention span waned, they have reformed into another battle-wagon using new ambassadors to push their obsessions yet again. But the shock-value has worn thin. The public has become impatient with the exaggerated claims of 'experts' in Satanic Abuse. The public have had enough of the Witch-hunt along with its coterie of obsessed social workers, radical therapists, fanatical fundamentalists, extreme feminists, and opportunist media like Dispatches whose reputation for fair dealing has forever been shattered by the commissioning of this duplicitous documentary.
Reviews of Boyd's Beyond Belief have ranged from completely-sold, lukewarm through critical, to absolute ridicule.
The tabloidesque emotional manipulation in the programme, which apparently used actors pretending to be patients to simulate trauma, won no friends in a broadcast which pretended to take a 'dispassionate' and 'objective' line in its investigations.
Thomas Sutcliffe of the Independent wrote that the programme
"didn't advance our understanding".
That its maker [Andrew Boyd]
suggested that evidence has been mocked because we couldn't face up to the truth but was decidedly fuzzy himself about what the truth was"
This Independent review ended by posing the perceptive question:
" Are witnesses psychologically disturbed because what they say is true, or is what they say untrue because they are disturbed?"
Even the Observer, the Newspaper whose journalists exclusively unveiled the 'new evidence' on 16th February 1992, had to later admit that they had backed the wrong horse.
John Naughton, Observer columnist, wrote:
"Rumours of Satanic Abuse have been around for a long time, during which time no policeman has ever found a shred of forensic evidence for its existence. Moreover the provenance of such rumours often turns out to be evangelical Christians who are, almost by definition, off the wall. So the big question which Mr Boyd's film set out to answer was "How long can such abuse remain beyond belief?" The answer, I'm afraid, is for a bit longer, or at least until he comes up with something more convincing." (Observer 23rd February 1992)But not everybody at the Observer was careful. Eileen Fairweather couldn't wait for the TV broadcast, She had been involved in the research for Boyd's programme and on 16th February wrote a piece with a completely uncompromising headline: "Video Offers First Evidence of Ritual Abuse" What a mistake that turned out to be!
Although initial promotion of 'Beyond Belief' assured viewers that it was 'detailed and scrupulously researched' (Oracle p447 19th February 1992) there were in fact many glaring inaccuracies and omissions . The SAFF have produced a long-list of factual inaccuracies unworthy of a programme with pretentions towards a definitive review of such a powerful subject.
During October 1990, in the midst of the uproar over the Rochdale Satanic Abuse Case, the feminist Beatrix Campbell was commissioned to reveal 'new evidence' to prove a satanic link in the infamous Nottinghamshire Broxtowe child abuse case. The Broxtowe case was the king-pin upon which all other U.K. SRA allegations have been built and pro-SRAMists (promoters of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth) involved in that case also provided some research for Boyd.
Replete with similar melodrama to Beyond Belief the 'discoveries' in Campbell's piece were 'secret' tunnels under a cemetery in Nottingham which matched some of the testimony of children and a cache of sexual prosthetics found in a Lodge in the cemetery. - Only after the emotive effects of the programme was it disclosed that Nottingham is riddled with such tunnels and caves and that this is common knowledge to all residents.
The cache of prosthetics turned out to be the usual haul of litter from the grounds which the caretaker was waiting to dump. These weak circumstances lead Dispatches to actually claim 'new evidence'. Pathetically many 'believers' still consider the evidence presented in this programme to be worthy even though in the course of time it turned out to be utterly worthless.
What is not common knowledge is that around the time the commissioning editors of Channel 4 gave the go-ahead to Campbell's programme they refused a commission from an alternative programme by two award winning journalists which intended to DISPROVE the existence of Satanic Abuse in the Nottinghamshire Case.
A year later, the debate over any Nottinghamshire Satanic connection wore itself out with the authorities officially pronouncing that there was no Satanic Ritual Abuse aspect in that case.
The two journalists who knew this and who could have proved it had they been given a commission by Dispatches, are still waiting in the wings. Yet in the rarified atmosphere of Channel 4's commissioning suite, Dispatches still continues to indulge in senseless Occult-Bashing with this latest programme!
It is ironic that Channel 4's pretentions towards Access Television seem dependent not upon the spirit of its formation but upon the personal preferences of some of its commissioning editors. The accepted idea that Channel 4 can be trusted to represent and protect alternative and minority views cannot now be relied upon.
It would be unthinkable for a racist to be in a position to pursue their prejudices within Channel 4s output, yet there is more than an inkling to suggest that Cultural prejudice rules the day in Dispatches.
With the, thankfully, successful decomposition of stereotypes on race, gender and the continuing dispelling of myths surrounding minorities, documentary journalists are finding it more and more difficult to incite xenophobia without jeopardising some valid minority viewpoint. How much safer to pick on a bunch of irrelevant hippies who have no power-lobby to fall back on and whose interests are not only considered morally indefensible but are ignored by Broadcasting Standards.
Pack-instinct victimisation is obvious in the way Beyond Belief was made. The importance of accurate research and corroboration when broadcasting extremely serious allegations of murder and child sexual abuse is too apparent to need emphasising. Particular care is required in a documentary which contains recommendations for the enactment of new laws and which demanded automatic amnesty for witnesses who might be accessories to murder.
Andrew Boyd's Beyond Belief was replete with selective presentation and censorship. He did not for instance interview any expert who did NOT believe in SRA.
This is not the type of thing we have come to expect from Dispatches. Why was it allowed to occur? Just who is responsible in Channel 4s hierarchy for vetting the programme and why didn't they do their job properly?
The un-facts used in Beyond Belief were largely sourced from Boyd's recent book Blasphemous Rumours: Is Satanic Abuse Fact or Fantasy which contains a list of the people from whom he obtained most of the background material for his 2 years of research on so-called Satanic Abuse:
He repeated this statistic in Beyond Belief as though it was fact. Viewers have no way of knowing that these cases are unproven and anecdotal, mostly originating from the pro-SRAMist network itself. These cases were, like Boyd it would seem, passed around to people who added them to their own 'list of cases'. This multiplied the number of cases dramatically.
Additionally Boyd conveniently and completely fails to differentiate between suspected cases and those which have actually come to court.
Not one case of Satanic Abuse has stood up in court but how much less proof are allegations by victim imposters' cases which relate to evidence so unreliable that prosecution never follows?
Neither does Boyd clarify the proportion of cases which refer to adults and the proportion which refers to children.
Anyone who has tracked the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth over the past four years begins to get a strong feeling of Deja-Vu as definitions change by the minute at the convenience of the pro-sramists.
We have been this way before. In his book Boyd writes that Dianne Core of Childwatch says she has had first hand experience of 37 cases yet the S.A.F.F. has documented Dianne Core's involvement in just two cases in which police action was taken. Not one case she was involved in proved the existence of Satanic Abuse but apparently her actions did result in a complaint by a police officer that Core's interference had compromised one of their investigations.
Despite a two year long campaign by Childwatch (1988-1990) in which the group combined with Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens and used every tabloid opportunity to hype the Satanic Abuse Myth (at one point Dianne Core was reported as claiming that 4,000 children per year were being sacrificed to satan) Childwatch were unable to find one case which proved Ms Core's belief that Satanic Abuse existed. Yet astonishingly Boyd adds Core's 37 cases to his 900 total on her say-so.
In contradistinction the S.A.F.F. claim that Dianne Core has not produced one proven case of Satanic Ritualised Abuse and the statistics over two decades prove us right.
In the same way, Boyd writes that another of his sources, Maureen Davies, (an avowed fundamentalist who believes in demon infestation, exorcism and end-time ministry,) claims that she has First Hand Experience of 70 cases of ritualised Abuse. Yet it is a matter of public knowledge that despite her link with many of the early supposed Satanic Abuse Cases, Ms Davies has been unsuccessful in proving ANY Satanic content in any of them. Moreover in her last interview with the press (Sunday Telegraph 7 April 1991) Davies admitted to Victoria Macdonald that
'she has never had to deal with anyone younger than a teenager'
Of course Maureen Davies was being somewhat divergent here. Two years earlier, on 17th July 1989 when the public's gullibility about so-called Satanic Ritual Child Abuse was at it's height Maureen Davies gave an interview to the Newcastle Journal in which she is CLEARLY reported as saying:
"Child victims who have broken free from covens have told of being raped, or bestiality, animal and even human scarifice. Spokeswoman Mrs Maureen Davies said: "Ritual Abuse and sacrifice is a phenomenon which is only just coming to light in this country . "It's like child abuse was five years ago when children were too frightened to speak out NOW CHILDREN ARE GAINING COURAGE AND ARE BEGINNING TO TALK"
Because regression therapy is a form of hypnosis the confabulations were implanted deep into their subconscious and accepted by the patient as completely true thereafter. Because this was a witch-hunt by sectarians and feminist social workers, the regression 'therapists' did not bother to validate the claims, which often shockingly incriminated innocent parents and other members of the patient's family, but instead stopped when they had reached their own prejudices and handed the 'evidence' over to the police who went through the numbers persecuting completely innocent families in the process.
This self-fulfilling prophecy confirmed the worst fears of the witch-hunters and made 'regression therapy' very successful in their eyes. Although a similar technique is used by psychiatrists it is part of a slow process of psychoanalysis spanning many months if not years and which combines many other insights of what has brought the patient to their impasse. Regression therapy was a quick-shot system. Any woman could volunteer to undertake it and within a single session their 'satanic torture' could be conveniently uncovered!
The crucial part of the idea of regression therapy is to take the patient back into their childhood to experiences which they have supposedly 'forgotten' due to the trauma involved. This is of course farcical to anyone who has really suffered Post-traumatic stress disorder (e.g. concentration camp victims can remember every minute of every horror they experienced) but it was the fantasies of regressed adults which produced the 'testimony of children' which Davies,and her ilk used to persue their sectarian objectives. When adult women fantisised about their abuse as children each imagining was recorded as real and those statistics used to project the 'fact' that thousands of children were being satanically abused right now under the noses of the authorities who were ignorant of the process.
It was this kind of thing which enabled Dianne Core of the Childwatch group to claim in media interviews that 4,000 children a year were being satanically abused in the U.K. when there was not one jot of real evidence to prove it. Typically the despicable British Media jumped on this Un-fact and pumped it for all it was worth.
Now known as False Memory Syndrome the destructive psychological effects of 'regression therapy' lead to at least two deaths and the ruination of hundreds of innocent peoples' lives. All this is now well recorded by the British False Memory Society (BFMS)who have done a sterling job of trying to protect innocent families against almost insurmountable odds.
Yet Boyd adds Davies' 70 cases to his total as though they are real.
Knowing the background would you? How can Boyd justify this lackadaisical approach to data which is destined to convince the police and the judiciary that radical changes are required to criminal law and amnesty for witnesses?
Dr Stephen Hempling is another of
Boyd's sources. Hempling, a retired police forensic expert, appears in Beyond Belief
telling viewers that as far as he is concerned Satanic
Abuse must exist because reports were too consistent and persistent. From
a forensic expert this sounds like an impressive opinion indeed yet as Thomas
Sutcliffe of the Independent points out, such logic is
'reminiscent of the intellectual rigour of flying saucer enthusiasts'.
In Boyd's book Blasphemous Rumours Stephen Hempling is reported as being 'aware' of 8 ritual abuse cases. In fact Hempling is referring to 8 supposed cases of ritualised abuse in Sussex which he featured in an article he wrote for the journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse And Neglect, an NSPCC funded group which has firm links with the cadre of leading edge Satan Hunters. Unfortunately for Dr Hempling and Boyd, as soon as it was published the Sussex Police said that the incidents had been investigated thoroughly and there was no evidence linking the eight cases. Their investigations had not lead to any prosecutions. (Guardian 12 June 1991)
So Hempling's cases, according to the police, are not even suspected. In short it doesn't seem that Hempling has first hand experience of any real case of Satanic Abuse, yet here he is opining as an expert and it all goes into Boyd's book at face value.
So far we have dispensed with over 100 cases by simple critical inspection of 'evidence, which Boyd accepted. We could do the same with most of Boyd's sources, until his 900 claimed cases virtually disappear.
Boyd reports Horrobin as claiming that he has First Hand Experience of more than 100 victims. But victims of what? The untutored observer is not helped to differentiate between the supposed ritual abuse of children and the supposed ritual abuse of adults. Neither is the reader/viewer aided in the definition between what Horrobin considers 'Occultic Abuse' (i.e. Fantasy Games, Rock Music, Vegetarianism, hypnotism, meditation, Yoga etc) and the medical and psychological definition used by secular professionals whose opinions Boyd seems to use when it suits.
In fact Horrobin's organisation (The Christian Trust - also known as 'Ellel Grange' from the mansion in Lancashire which the trust first used to base its UK operations), runs intensive residential courses for evangelicals in Ministering to the Sexually Abused. These courses cover 'The Demonisation of Man' and how to cast out 'Sexual Spirits', 'Ritualistic Spirits' and 'Demonic Entry Points'. People who are 'rescued' from Satan by Horrobin's organisation are first given a 190 part questionnaire which lists over one hundred and fifty fairly ordinary things which Horrobin's organisation consider Satanic! These include Abstract Art; Horse-shoes over Doors; tea-leaf reading; Punk Rock; meditation; The fantasy game Dungeons and Dragons; Handwriting Analysis; Mascots; Acupuncture and Men who wear gold earrings!
With such an unreasonable spread of qualifying criteria is it any wonder that Horrobin claims to have experienced over 100 cases? He would find it difficult NOT to discover cases, which to his mind, might have some connection with Satanism using those parameters.
If Boyd took anecdotal evidence for his programme from research provided by people with such an 'imaginative' world-view as this, is it any wonder he ends up interpreting Performance Art as Satanic Abuse? There is of course the sneaking suspicion that Boyd, Like Horrobin, considers all Yoof Culture to be in league with the Devil and that ridiculous claims of 'Backward Masking' (i.e. a supposed mind control method where all rock music is interspersed with subliminal commands which turn teenagers to Satan) are believed by both. Thus the attack on the Temple Of Psychic Youth, begins to make sense.
On any count Horrobin's 100 cases are suspicious if not worthless in relation to Boyd's allegations of Satanic Murder and Abortion.
On 8th August 1990 The Guardian reported that;
'Ms Hutchinson said that she had no evidence to substantiate her claims, but insisted the practices were widespread.'
Until the S.A.F.F. see categoric proof and case-histories are produced Ms Hutchinson's opinions will remain opinions and her 300 cases will remain suspect.
Having just about halved Boyd's claimed 900 cases we find Audrey Harper listed by him for 45 cases of claimed Satanic Abuse. Harper was a co-director of REACHOUT a controversial Christian evangelical Trust which most independent observers consider to have been the prime mover and shaker in floating the Satanic Ritual Child Abuse Myth in the U.K. Reachout also considers Christian Spiritualists and Jehovah's Witnesses as a form of Satanism! Audrey Harper was Maureen Davies' co-director and star lecturer throughout the early years of the Satanic Scare and combined evidence with her on TV and newspaper interviews, promotions and lectures. Mrs Harper's pool of cases will be substantially the same if not identical to that of Mrs Davies'.
How could Andrew Boyd have overlooked the fact that Kevin Logan, a Blackburn Vicar, had closely collaborated with both Maureen Davies and Dianne Core. To the extent of supporting each other's views in newspaper and media interviews (and appearing together in the discredited Cook Report special The Devil's Work) including arranging with Davies to pick up and safe-house a SRA victim who later turned out to be an imposter.
Logan also provided Core with 'cases' and background which were used in a dossier on Satanic Abuse which she said she intended to present to the Home Secretary but which reportedly 'got lost in the post' and never arrived. None of Logan's cases were proven and the possibility of cross-contamination is just too great to admit any of the 18 he claims without further extrapolation.
Far from being even an approximate estimate, Boyd's statement that there have been 900 victims of Satanic Abuse is a guestimate which is very wide of the mark. The S.A.F.F.'s own researches, which have always proved exceedingly accurate, show that SUSPECTED cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse from 1988 to date have involved just over three dozen children and that includes those wrongly accused in Rochdale and the children in Orkney. [Update: Eventually a t least 86 children were victimised by social services in spurious SRA cases by the end of the SRAM hysteria in 1994] NOT ONE CASE OF RITUALISED ABUSE HAS BEEN PROVEN IN THE COURTS. To all intents and purposes statistics show ZERO cases of Satanic Abuse in the U.K. and Boyd's programme has not changed that zero total despite fictitious claims otherwise.
Oracle described Andrew Boyd's programme as 'scrupulously researched and well-written investigation' but in fact it begins and ends with wildly exaggerated approximations and unreliable definitions.
And there's worse to follow for the key player in convincing the audience of the veracity of both the 'prima-facie evidence' of the video and Boyd's insistence that children are abused as part of Satanic Rites, is 'Jennifer', a witness who claims to be a victim of Satanic Abusers and who validates the video during the broadcast by claiming to have been an ex-member of the group which made it.
'Jennifer' claims that she took part in similar rituals in the same room as that shown in the video and interprets a scene from the video as being a ritual abortion. This looks like powerful evidence which will be a clincher with viewers.
Boyd: "Did you see this happen?"|
Jennifer: "Yes I did"
Boyd: "How many times did you see it happen?"
Boyd: "Who is performing the Abortion?"
Boyd: "Is there a significance in that?"
Boyd: "What would happen to the foetus?"
Boyd:"And what would happen to the remains?"
Boyd:"We've seen something which looks rather like a dentist's chair occurring
a number of times in this tape. Have you seen this chair at all?"
Boyd:"And where was it?"
Boyd: "Is what we are looking at that room?"
Boyd:"Are you certain?"
This sound's pretty well conclusive. Certainty
beyond any thought of criticism. Viewers were very convinced. Jennifer's testimony is the only
corroboration which Dispatches offer for their 'video evidence' but she sounds sincere.
Should we believe her?
Jennifer turned out to have been a victim of evangelical Christian therapists not Satanists as the double-page expose on the right from the Mail on Sunday on 1st March 1992 clearly shows.
'Jennifer' had been indoctrinated with the idea that she had killed her baby during recovered memory therapy by evangelists who wanted it to have been true! Despite the absolute convinction in her interview with Boyd her husband told the Mail On Sunday that she only started sayng these things afer being 'saved' at Ellel Grange the fundamentalist 'healing' centre run by Peter Horrobin.
The scene does not show an abortion as was claimed. The shot, which lasted only a few seconds, was so questionable that the programme makers consulted an obstetrician, Dr Wendy Savage, for her expert opinion. Eileen Fairweather , a researcher for Dispatches, used statements from Wendy Savage which seemed to confirm Boyd's view, in an article in the Observer (see above).
Fairweather interspersed Savage's comments within conclusive comments about the scene from Dr Stephen Hempling. The programme makers were inferring that the scene had been conclusively identified as an abortion. But that is not the case.
In an interview with West Midlands BBC Radio the day after broadcast Mrs Savage corrected that impression. This is how the interview went.
"In another sequence which wasn't absolutely next door to this bit where the ball was near the vulva it looked as though something was being pushed into the vagina but there wasn't any obvious blood pouring out and as they were so keen on showing you blood I would have thought that if there had been blood they would have done so and it is certainly not the way that I would do an abortion nor the way that I've read that illegal abortionists do it because they do look at the cervix, the neck of the womb in order to pass an instrument through it and not just push things into the vagina willy nilly. "
On February 23 she spoke again to the Mail on Sunday newspaper. They reported:
'Dr Wendy Savage said last night that it was not an abortion.
" I told the film-makers this, but they chose not to use it. I also told them that in my opinion someone had a very fertile imagination".'
Not quite the same impression of absolute proof as that given to viewers in the programme or in the Observer article; by any stretch of the imagination. Here one of their own 'experts' (Wendy Savage) apparently told Dispatches that it was NOT an abortion, yet this fact was not included in the programme when transmitted!
Yet the massive nationwide publicity of Boyd's programme resulted in Scotland Yard 'swooping' on the headquarters of the group in Brighton - only to close the investigation month's later because of lack of evidence. The public saw the 'swoop' headlines, but never got to hear that there was no case to answer. This is how it always works with shock-horror SRA headlines. The truth rarely gets a hearing.
In fact there are MANY inconsistencies in Boyd's research and allegations. We are told that 'Jennifer' became a member of 'the group' in 1980, but the group was not formed until a year later. All these things could have been very easily checked by the police and by Dispatches for that matter, before beginning another Satanic Panic.
Is Channel 4 protecting 'Jennifer' or hiding the fictitious nature of the woman's evidence? Decide for yourself: During the BBC Radio West Midlands programme Andrew Boyd was linked in by telephone and in discussing 'Jennifers' testimony Boyd admitted that:
"in checking out the account of the survivor you are discussing we can't verify, er, blow for blow, what she is describing because it was a long time ago and none of us were there."It would appear then that Dispatches have set in motion police action, search and seizure over allegations of murder and abortion which have no basis in fact. In fact in the course of time the investigation was abandoned because there was no case to answer.
By Early March 1992 , Jennifer's identity was revealed. Her real name was Louise Errington, divorced mother of two healthy children. Following her unsubstantiated claims she had been suspended from her job as a warden of elderly people's flats in Weymouth and Scotland Yard was to interview her 'in due course'.
It is a mystery why Louise Errington's evidence was not included in Boyd's book when most of the rest of his 'proof' was similarly uncorroborated. Neither does Boyd make mention of this 'prima facie' video 'evidence'. It is as though it never happened. Although the book does mention TOPY in passing, in respect of them there is no reference to such things as satanic abuse, abortion, child sacrifice, child abuse and other horrors which were included in the programme.
In fact in his book Boyd plays the devil's advocate and challenges himself as to whether anyone can take Genesis P Orridge, their eccentric leader, seriously. A rather different impression to that expressed in the programme where his 'witness' accuses them of killing babies!
The group which Boyd named on TV could best be described as the fan-club of the rock band Psychic TV. Channel 4 are now acutely aware of this because after the programme the 'help-line' number was beleagured with complaints from HUNDREDS of dissatisfied fans of the group who all made the point that the video shown was no secret. Their favourite group, the callers said, weren't into abusing children, murdering babies, or carrying out abortions.
So quick and articulate was the response of the rock-bands' Fans that Channel 4 set up a confrontation between Andrew Boyd and a Fan in their Right To Reply programme on 22nd February 1992 during which Boyd made a number of lame excuses for inflicting his half-baked programme upon us, including:
"We did not set out to prove anything. We said that we had evidence which suggests that ritual satanic abuse exists . We are not talking about proof.. there are a lot of strands which together have to be weighed and have to be tried and have to be tested before we can talk about proof. We are not at that stage yet."
Ends: John Dennis, Mortlake.
Then please click here to go to our Feedback Forum - You can leave a message anonymously or just read what others have to say.