Contents of This Webpage.

CLICK on the links below to go to the Subheadings - use your browsers back button to come back to this contents list.

Mike Salter bandies about the term 'Organised Abuse' as though he knows what he's talking about but this below is the true origin of the term - and it's not what he's telling you.


The term 'ORGANISED ABUSE' was officially sanctioned by the Department of Health as a diplomatic euphemism for Satanic Abuse  when reporting on the social work blunders which occurred in the Rochdale Case. 

It was used to DEFLATE the claims of Satanic Abuse, not reinforce them.  There is of course no such thing as Satanic Abuse as the Governments' own report (THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF ORGANISED AND RITUAL ABUSE  (Prof. Jean La Fontaine 1994) makes clear. The Department of Health used the phrase 'Organised Abuse' to classify the residue of cases which a coterie of social workers had claimed were connected with Satanic rituals and which they had originally called Satanic Ritual Abuse and which the DoH preferred to classify as abuse by multiple abusers, i.e. 'Organised Abuse'.  

In effect the multiple-perpetrator scenario was already identified in Social Work and termed 'network abuse' or 'paedophile rings' but this didn't fit the bill in the claimed cases of Satanic Abuse because unlike Network Abuse (in which known paedophiles network together in groups  to provide themselves with victims and distribute child-pornography) the claimed Satanic Abuse Cases of the time mostly involved families, friends and neighbours.  The main features of both cases were 'multiple abusers'.

In the finality cases incorporating these claims fell into two types:

(a) There never really was any abuse, it was all worked up from coincidental circumstantial evidence by the paranoia of Satan hunters in social work.

(b) 'Regular' abuse had occurred and was reinterpreted as 'Satanic' by Social workers who believed that Satanic Ritual Abuse existed,
when it didn't.

In the course of time the fears were found to be unproven. There was no abuse in type (a) cases and all of the 'evidence' held to indicate Satanic Ritual Abuse in type (b) cases fell apart at the first test; many of these so-called 'indicators' were extremely foolish and brought social work into disrepute.    Those social workers who had supported the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse closed ranks to hide the blunders. They tried to amalgamate the profile of 'multiple perpetrator family and friends abuse' under 'Organised

From then on , for those who still believed that Satanic Ritual Abuse existed, the term 'Organised Abuse' became a secret code for 'Satanic Ritual Abuse'.   They would have never dared to admit it publicly then, for the media were taking a deep interest in the hysteria which was spreading throughout social work,  but  as time passed the Satan Hunters in social work continued to pursue this madness and represent, 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' within their clique as a subset of 'Organised Abuse'.  With the coming
of New Labour and new ministers who have little recollection of what went before the Satan Hunters have made their game-play and pressed the Department of Health into officially accepting the reality of Satanic Abuse by insisting that the term 'Ritual Abuse' should be officially recognised.

This is a very dangerous situation. It puts things right back where they were before Rochdale and Orkney cases collapsed and will undoubtedly cause further persecutions of innocent families throughout Britain.

The above is extracted from a 30 page paper presented to the Department of Health during May 1998.  Headed:


Full copies of this paper can be seen here:

The Origins of the Infamous BASPCAN -

Or how the NSPCC funded a stable of SRA fanatics to whip up a Myth.

'BASPCAN itself came out of the SRA Myth years of the 1980s and 90s  somewhat discredited.

The charities journal, Child Abuse Review published 
enthusiastic endorsements of belief in the 'Myth during and after the 'crazy years', such as Beyond belief: Beyond help? A report on a helpline advertised after the transmission of a channel 4 film on ritual abuse (December 1993) by Sara Scott, concerning the long-discredited Channel   Dispatches program titled Beyond Belief  of February 1992,

Presenting features in adult victims 
of satanist ritual abuse (June 1994) by Joan Coleman co-founder of the leading UK-based SRA Myth advocacy group-RAINS

Ritual abuse: A definition (March 1993) by Dr Alistair McFadyen, Helga  Hanks ,  Cath James and

Ritual abuse: Consequences for professionals 
    (December 1993) by Sheila C. Youngson

 By 1997, three years after  Prof J. La Fontaine's report, The Extent and Nature of Organised Ritual Abuse,  was delivered to the British Government which identified the somewhat glaring lack of evidence for any  'satanic conspiracy', it was difficult for Child Abuse Review to continue  advocating for the 'Myth.

Skeptical papers, such as Satanic Ritual Abuse
in Day Care: An Analysis of 12 American Cases (May 1997) by Mary_deYoung  were published, although the pro-SRA Myth papers outnumber the reality-based ones substantially, and the journal has never revisited the English, Welsh and Scottish SRA Myth cases that have become key events in contemporary British social care history.

In 2011 the Editorial_Board of 
Child Abuse Review maintained only one SRA Myth advocate; Professor  Bernard Gallagher of the University of Huddersfield, who had presented  his paper Results of research into adult and child reports of organised ritual abuse to the RAINS organisation at the Better The Devil You Know  September 1996 conference, at Warwick University.

The conference was also
attended by leading fundamentalist speakers advocating for the 'Myth.

Extracted from the Dramatis Personnae Website.

How the term 'Organised Abuse' was invented by Satan Hunters to avoid using Satanic Ritual Abuse.

The first published account of SATANIC Ritual Abuse (NOT Ritual Abuse which came much later) was in 1980 (Michelle Remembers).

By 1986 the fundies unproven suspicions had developed the idea of Satanic Crime (teenage misdemeanours, heavy metal music, fantasy games etc.) and the associated idea that Satanits were organising a conspiracy to snare young kids to corrupt and abuse them. The fundies easily sold it to stupid US police forces and in particulr third wave Feminist radicals who jumped on the bandwagon and  took the scare mainstream.  

In 1988 The UK fundamentalist group Reachout Trust imported the same Satanic Calendars, Satanic Indicators and Satanic Profiles from the same US sources and promulgated the idea of SATANIC Ritual Abuse to UK evangelical Christians and anyone here who would listen. See  

Reachout created a bridge between the phalanx of Radical Feminists who had taken over child-protection in the 1980s and an army of fundie do-gooders constantly seeking SRA during conversion therapy/exorcisms/counselling sessions.

 The coterie of leading-edge Radfem social workers who linked to and worked with the fundies were man-haters and closely allied to the NSPCC's BASPCAN group, and consisted of psychologists, social workers, child charities and womens' therapists who intended exposing what they believed was a hitherto unknown dimension of Abuse which would supposedly show how 'evil' men really were.

 It all pivoted on the book The Courage To Heal (1988) which puported to prove that most women's problems stemmed from sexual abuse during childhood by their fathers which was so traumatic that memories of it had been buried and could be found using 'recovered memory therapy' - a completely untested form of hypnosis which inadvertently implanted false memories into the minds of vulnerable women resulting in a tsunami of false claims against their own families and associated relatives.  

In the hands of eager fundie pastors, exorcists, and counsellors recovered memory therapy  technique created fantasised stories of abuse which naturally became SATANIC in their narratives. So these two erstwhile opposing groups - Radical Feminists who opposed Christian Patriarchy, and Fundie activists who opposed feminism, and women's rights, together in 1988 jumped on the bandwagon that was the 1990 SATANIC panic.

The terrible errors and mistakes this caused is well documented on the SAFF website and elsewhere - despite the SAFF campaigning to stop the 1990 SRA panic it destroyed the lives of 86 children and their families. By 1991 The scandals of the false Rochdale SRA case  ( )and the false Orkney SRA case ( ) had occurred and social workers and believers in SRA were finally ostracised.

The NSPCC lied and tried to distance itself from the hysteria it largely helped create by saying it had never used the 'S' word when it had. ( )

The Reachout Trust was discredited in many articles by journalists who turned on those fundies they had earlier eagerly sought out for sensational claims of satanists eating babies etc. 

Attendance at the then regularly cocurring Satan Seminars were forbidden by many social service departments. Social services directors who had backed SRA resigned in disgrace. 

 By 1994 the government's official report on SRA (The La Fontaine Report - ) had concluded that there never was any SRA and it was all the figment of the minds of fundamentalist fanatics. 

Believers in SRA went very quiet publicly but still networked together behind the scenes pushing their manic ideas.
Those members of RAINS who had been at the forefront of pushing the idea of SATANIC ritual abuse, then did a swerve and began talking about RITUAL abuse, NOT Satanic abuse.  It was the same people, the same 'bizarre' claims and the same false evidence as before but they dodged the focus of attention by dropping the SATAN word.  

In 1994, the Dutch government's report on their own SRA hysteria at Oude Peke, defined Satanic claims as

'sexual sadism, surrounded by rituals, and performed in groups against several children in combination with extreme forms of physical violence and threats'.

NOTE: NO SATANISM involved, even though the 40 page official report mentioned Satanism over 30 times!  By 1996 RAINS had formulated their own definition of 'Ritual Abuse' which was:
'the systematic physial, sexual and emotional abuse supported by rituals or symbols with or without a religious or occult ideology'. 
All this mumbo-jumbo was just a method of academics escaping blame for the terrible consequenceds of their prejudice and lack of professionalism.  It wasn't SATANISM, but it WAS SATANISM depending upon whom you spoke to and how you wanted to impress them.   When writing to a 'sold' audience of 'insiders' it was SATANIC abuse. When talking to outsiders or the media it became 'Ritual Abuse' or the even more bland 'Organised Abuse' which appeared to have absolutely no connection with Satanism to everyone except those who knew they were actually referring to Satanic Abuse.

Thus the evolution of Satanic Ritual Abuse continued within SRA believer cliques across the Western world and they simmered up their broth of lies and duplicity by developing a whole new demonology of things that they thought were evil and termed Ritual Abuse to avoid using that dreaded S word which had become so tainted with falsity and error that it discredited everything else they said about 'victims' tales. In other words business as usual. 

Extracted from SAFF Information Worksheet

Just when you thought the Satanic Panic had been consigned to history...

Mike Salter and Valerie Sinason hugging

BEWARE The 'Son' of  The Satan Woman!

For 30 years SAFF has curtailed the megalomanic ambitions of Satan Hunters in Therapy and Social Work, but whilst Britain's Children slept safely in their beds, in the U.S.A., Australia, Germany, France and the Netherlands, an obsessive group of new satan-hunters has grown apace and is now attempting to import the Satan Hysteria back into Britain. 

The old-guard who invented SRA in the 1990s have grown old, many of them are now retired and are being replaced by a new generation of Satan Hunters.   Here we profile a key player, Mike Salter, a criminologist from Australia who has spent the last decade ingratiating himself with the old vanguard of the SRAmyth promoters.   The image (right) of Salter with that doyenne of the 1990 Satanic Panic, Valerie Sinason, was taken at an ISSTD conference in 2012.  See, cutting below right, for just one of the MANY discredited allegations Valerie Sinason has made over the years in persisting with her manic ideas about Satanic Abuse. Does her new protege really believe that 100 kids were sacrificed in Satanic Ceremonies?

Valerie Sinason says Devil Cults slay 100Despite SAFF work in exposing them, few people realise that when the Satan Myth bubble broke in 1994 and supporters of it were disgraced they weren't sacked, or in any way dissuaded from their obsessions, oh no, they simply reformed quietly in dark corners to work-up their social poison about Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Despite a 100% failure rate on every single one of their claims they still maintain SRA exists and are still trying to convince others about it in Academe.

In his own campaign to verify the existence of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse, Mike Salter networks with academics and conspiracyloons who present contorted evidence, persecute religious minorities and popularise ideas which negatively impact vulnerable and mislead people who fall for the SRA line, yet despite this his career has been a barnstorming success. This is how he describes himself:
'Michael Salter:  I am the Scientia Associate Professor in Criminology at the University of New South Wales, Australia. I specialise in the study of organised sexual abuse. In addition to my work on complex trauma, I have researched and published widely on violence against women and children. I sit on the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Board of Directors of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. I am an Associate Editor of Child Abuse Review, the peer-reviewed journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (BASPCAN), and I sit on the editorial board of the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation. I act as a consultant and trainer to a range of non-government organisations and government departments at the state and national level. I am an expert advisor to the Australian Office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.'

Michael Slater saying he wants to re-trial all the
                false SRA cases from 1990 and believes them to be realImpressive. Within a few years he has enmeshed himself within the Satan Hunter fraternity, yet note that he puts an emphasis on 'Organised Abuse'  sells himself as a specialist in 'Organised Abuse'  and rarely bandies about the Satan word in his academic papers. 

Salter was first introduced to SRA by his girlfriend who claimed to have been a victim of SRA. So impressed was he at her stories that it formed part of his Thesis at the University of New South Wales.

She suffered from Satanic Abuse, she says, but in his latest 'academic paper' recently published in the British Journal of Criminology, there is not one mention of Satan or Satanism.  In an earlier interview, ( originally uploaded to his personal website but now no longer there, he make clear that he isn't afraid of talking about Ritual Abuse and  wants to re-try all the original Satanic Ritual Child Abuse cases that went to court and failed in the 1990s. He thinks every one of them would now be accepted as real SRA cases.  You can see that part of the interview in the image above.

In other words despite 30 years passing and ALL the evidence pointing to those SRA cases as being false, including the testimony of the children involved who, now as adults have said that they were NOT abused,
Salter still insists that they were victims of Satanic Organised Abuse.   We would say that was a form of abuse in itself; restarting the persecution of innocent children, now adults, who have spent years escaping the stigma of non-existent abuse is just too cruel. 

Where does Salter's absolutely unshakeable belief in SRA come from?  It apparently stems from 50 self-styled 'SRA victims' whom he has interviewed at length.  It comes from their ghoulish tales.  It does NOT come from any new forensic evidence. It does not come from police investigations which have actually found Satanic Abusers, because there has been no case in the past 32 years in which police have succeeded in finding any.  

When Satan
                  Came To Town BBC Fiona Bruce - The Rochdale Satanic
                  Abuse PanicI would like Mike Salter to view this 2006 documentary by Fiona Bruce for the BBC which reviews in detail the tragedy of what happened in one of those cases, the Rochdale SRA case.   Salter believes this case would be reversed and found to be a true case of SRA if it  happened today.  Is he bonkers?  After many trials, court appearances, legal wranglings in court, two police inquiries and one internal inquiry by the Social Services Inspectorate, the Rochdale SRA case was proven beyond doubt to be utterly false in all respects.   

Yet, if this glib newcomer dare watch it,  he will hear the poor children - now adults -  tell their own story of how social workers and 'specialists in SRA' tortured these kids and virtually destroyed their lives.  He will see these young adults weep, and watch the youngest grasp for words in a psychological mist of PTSD caused by his treatment by the Social Workers hunting down SRA that Salter now insists was real when it wasn't.  This young boy was unjustly incarcerated 'in care' for SIX YEARS.   Look into their eyes Salter!  See the pain the SRAmyth has caused and then tell us all again that we all got it wrong and if it was tried again it would be found true.

Despite 30 years passing and ALL the evidence pointing to those SRA cases as being false, including the testimony of the children involved who, now as adults have said that they were NOT abused, this foolish man insists that he is right and that SRA is real.  

                funded BASPCANOne of Salter's 'honours' listed in his bio above is;     Associate Editor of Child Abuse Review, the journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect.      Readers may not know of this rare publication so we will enlighten them;  BASPCAN was a leading-edge feminist front for introducing radical Marxist-feminist policies into child-protection in the late 1980s and was a driving force behind the 1990 Satanic Panic. 

The original BASPCAN was funded and resourced by the NSPCC.  The NSPCC gave the group influence but as you can see from the potted history of BAPSCAN in the leftmost column here: their approach included strenuous  attempts to promote the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse of children.

 NSPCC gets the boot from Rochdale Social ServicesThe NSPCC fell for it hook line and sinker. When the truth came out the NSPCC was, rightly, blamed; the charity lost a number of 'at risk registers' across the country when local councils cancelled their contracts and the NSPCC had to publicly apologise for backing Satanic Abuse which did not exist.   The NSPCC was instrumental in the Rochdale case, their local branch assessed the children and they simply imposed BASPCAN prejudice into it.  

You can see two comparison cuttings in the graphic above. the larger one was when the NSPCC announced on the basis of glib tick-box questionnaires to some of its branches that SRA was a threat to children in Britain.  The second cutting overlaying it is the contrite public apology of the NSPCC admitting they got it UTTERLY wrong.  Those shouting from the rafters that they were there to protect children had actually HARMED children.  Satanists had not.  Yet here again, today, Satan Hunters like Mike Salter and his clique are apparently still ploughing away with their obsessive beliefs. As an Associate Editor of Child Abuse Review, (the journal of BASPCAN) he is well placed to influence child-protection and SAFF are here to see that he does it fairly.

NSPCC Bloody Mindedness

 What you will not know is that during the time that the NSPCC was cultivating BASPCAN the SAFF was conducting long and detailed correspondence with the director of the NSPCC (and his close aides)  to alert him to the fact that SRA was a figment of the imagination of Satan Hunters in social work.

Our attempts to alert the NSPCC were met with reluctance and aloof disdain.  When we said that they were giving us the run-around, they laughed.  When we alerted them to the fact that their statements on the dangers of Satanic Abuse were being misrepresented by certain journalists they told us ' it is not for the NSPCC to correct the media'.  

When SAFF lost patience and said we would expose their bias publicly, then and only then, did the NSPCC jump into action... and got their blue-chip barristers (Mischon de Reya) to threaten us with legal action! 
So that's what the NSPCC do with your donations! 
Of course as we told the NSPCC at the time, you can't be sued for telling the Truth and so SAFF published anyway.  You can see the whole sorry story here:

Yet today, this catalogue of errors, which broke up so many innocent families and robbed over 80 children of happy family lives causing them long-term damage, has been apparently forgotten by Salter who is not only still pushing the BASPCAN 'Organised Abuse' line but apparently reinforcing it with his own material.

His latest offering is the ridiculously titled paper The Antiepistemology of Organised Abuse: Ignorance, Exploitation, Inaction.  Which has recently been published in the British Journal of Criminology, no lessSalter's paper posits assumed networks of gangs of organised abusers without once mentioning the Satan word.

Yet Salter has steadfastly refused to engage in any debate or discussion about these issues, other than with the sold audience of his own clique of academics and the loonies in S.M.A.R.T. of which group he is a star mover and shaker.

Despite his declarations that Satanic Ritual Abuse exists Salter, like his, hero Valerie Sinason, he has not been able to find ANY actual cases of Satanic Ritual Abuse anywhere in the world which he could bring to trial to prove his contentions. Yet here he is making a successful career from pandering to the worst fears of worried parents, charities and child-protection groups without any apparent understanding of the hurt that causes to all those innocents whose lives had been destroyed by this evil lie 30 years ago.  

                Dillon calls SAFF abusers and Mike Salter agreesWhen the SAFF first challenged Salter on Twitter about his weak theories on SRA it was in relation to a thread  about SATANIC abuse which he was conducting with known RAINS supporters (see image on the right) . 

What you won't know is that Dr. Jacqui Dillon (with whom Salter is tweeting) runs a survivor group for self-designated Satanic Abuse Victims who have schizophrenia called The Hearing Voices Network. Dillon was an ordinary member of the public who suffered from schizophrenia (voices in the head) but who disagreed with orthodox medical practitioners about the cause. She  insisted that the voices were attempts by Satanists to take control of her mind and a sure-fire symptom of being 'Satanically Abused'. 

In 2009, ( long before she was given her doctorate) she explained her philosophy here;

You might think that Salter would seize the chance to debate his research and compare it with SAFF's, after all, we are all seeking to save children suffering aren't we? But no, what the creep did was to insinuate that we had a criminal motive and then BLOCKED us to stop any debate.   He would sooner correspond with a woman who challenges orthodox medical treatment and ipso facto encourages other schizophrenia patients to believe that if they hear voices they may have been Satanically abused! 

Does this sound like a disinterested academic wanting to truly get at the truth?  Or a typical Satan-Hunter accusing anyone who questions the idea of SRA of being a paedophile to avoid having to discuss the facts?

One of the reasons for Salter's careful use of the Satan word might be what happened in October 2020 when the Grey Faction group tried to get Salter to talk to them about his allegations about Satanism.  After all they ARE Satanists and they knew he was talking rot about their religious beliefs. They wanted to speak to him about some of his more outlandish allegations.

Most of Salter's accusations against Satanists were at that time in the U.S. and Canada so the U.S. based Grey Faction had every right to challenge him there.   Because Salter wasn't forthcoming they turned up outside one of his lectures.  The full story of this and Salter's past history of attacking the religion of  Satanism is covered here:
The Grey Faction article gives a blow-by-blow account of Salter's activities in North America and is perhaps a portent of what he hopes to achieve in the U.K.?

Today the SAFF critically reviews  Salter's latest offering, a 36 page paper published in the British Journal of Criminology  laboriously entitled The Antiepistemology of Organised Abuse: Ignorance, Exploitation, Inaction. (which we shall term simply 'Antiepistemology'.
The editors of  BJC should feel eternally ashamed at publishing this substandard nonsense without peer review.

Mike Salter and Beatrix Campbell

So we can see exactly where his first loyalties lie, just 5 pages into his introduction Salter quotes the Radical Marxist Feminist Beatrix Campbell..
Children and adults complaining of sexual abuse have been accused of suffering from “false memories”, effectively delegitimising their capacity to remember or testify accurately to their experiences (Campbell, 2003).

He does not cover the fact that every SRA case Campbell has been involved in promoting has failed in the courts and that her complaint over critics of Recovered Memory therapy (a feminist shibboleth) is untrue.
Critics have never attacked or demeaned any victims but instead have applied the scientific method to show that vulnerable people who have fallen into the clutches of some feminist therapists have their illnesses made worse by the application of Recovered Memory Therapy.   Indeed some  have died. As the tragic case of Carol Myers indicates.  Carol's parents maintain that Recovered Memory Therapy in this case, which members of RAINS were involved in, caused Carol to commit suicide and we believe them for we have many other examples of how it has harmed patients. 
Full story here:

In fact those academics studying False Memory and Recovered Memories, ( many of whom are far more qualified in psychiatry than he or Campbell) are beyond reproach and their findings should be listened to, not averted.  SAFF don't believe in academic bias, so here's a link so you can find the work of some of those who Campbell dislikes who refute Recovered Memory Therapy:

This might be called misinformation by omission, which is of course exactly what Salter's paper is about; Antiepistemology!  It is incumbent upon Salter to balance his paper with opposing evidence on all assertions and allow the weight of evidence to dictate the conclusions.  It is omission of balance like this which we think completely undermines Salter's paper and defaults it as a scientific document.  The scientific method should not involve stacking the deck and avoidance of unpalatable research findings to present a prejudiced view of a conclusion which the writer intended from the start should it?

  To that end here's two more links which those unfamiliar with Campbell's Satan Hunting activities can bring themselves up to date. Here:  and here:

Sarah Nelson thinks 1650 people in Edinburgh have
                  been Satanically abusedMike Salter and Sarah Nelson

Nowhere is this complete lack of balance more evident than when Salter moves on to promote the views of Sarah Nelson (page 6). Nelson was a key player in promoting the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse during the Satanic Panic but you wouldn't know it from Salter's paper. There is no mention of Satanic Abuse, instead Salter quotes this:

So called “bizarre” practices including sadistic abuse (involving the torture of children) and ritual abuse (in which offenders abuse children in the context of ritualistic ordeals) were particularly troubling features (Cheit, 2014; Nelson, 2016).

Sarah Nelson's ideas on SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE were clear in the 1990s. The image above of her lecture to the RAINS group in 1996 boldly has Satanist Ritual Abuse in the title and the text.   As you can see  she told delegates that 1650 residents of Edinburgh, Scotland, had likely been Satanically Abused  She's never been able to substantiate this estimate in the intervening 26 years and as far as the SAFF is aware there have been no new cases of SRA at all in Edinburgh in that time.

So if the first two 'authorities' Salter quotes were key players in the original 1990 Satanic Panic how come he never mentions Satanism at all in his 'Antiepistemology' paper?   Simple. When these people use the term 'Organised Abuse' it is a euphemism for 'Satanic Abuse' which outsiders don't see.  Look at this:

'Ms. Nelson had previously presented her paper, including her advocacy for the
SRA Myth in its 'Mind Control" version, to the British Association for the
Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (BASPCAN) Third National
Congress in Edinburgh in 1997, and part of it was published in Child Abuse
Review (1998).'   - Dramatis Personae website'

Julie Taylor BASPCAN conference organiser 2015Sometime in the early 2010s IPSCAN, (an international organisation intent on training social workers and child-protectionists across the world under the banner of  Child and Family Training,) grew out of BASPCANBASPCAN continued to hold conferences yearly and may still be doing so. BASPCAN are based in Edinburgh with lots of support from Edinburgh University it would appear. 

There is a Satan Hunter mafia in Scotland pursuing their own international agenda linked to a very weird US Satan-hunting group called S.M.A.R.T (see later)  .

The persecution of the Satanic and Pagan religions by these people is of course a religious hate crime which is now illegal and breaks the rules of all British Universities. You would think they would want to extirpate it but they just keep on funding it instead.

You will find in the leftmost column here  a breakdown of how the original Satan Hunters freely used the term Satanic Ritual Abuse in the 1990s but then dropped the term when the public and media turned against them after the scandal of the Rochdale SRA case.  They began using Ritual Abuse or/and Organised Abuse as a substitute for it.

The Great 'Organised Abuse' debate - Has Salter ever defined it?

There are three forms of abuse confusingly used interchangeably by Satan-Hunters.  Satanic Abuse, Ritual Abuse and Organised Abuse.

 Clearly Salter uses the term 'Organised Abuse' and 'Ritual Abuse' in place of Satanic Abuse.  He adamantly proclaims as much in his interview above where he says;

'I don't shy away from talking about Ritual Abuse, I've spoken and written about it extensively.'

Note that the term 'Ritual Abuse' was first official defined by RAINS in 1996 eight years AFTER they and their clique first made allegations of Satanic Abuse. 

This is how it happened:

The first SRA claims began in 1988. There were no ifs and buts about these claims, they were allegations of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse, full stop.  Organised Abuse and Ritual Abuse were simply not mentioned.

Two seminal pieces of statistical work by the SAFF (July 1991 and 1993) had exposed the hidden menace of Priestly Abuse which up until that time nobody wanted to talk about. SAFF work here  and here  made the mainstream media sit up and take notice resulting in a series of documentaries and articles on the problem.  

Definition of Ritual Abuse from RAINS 1996The Satan-Hunters could not now ignore Priestly Abuse as, unlike SRA there was ample evidence of it.

In 1994 Prof. La Fontaine's government report was published it was titled The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse, showing clearly that the parlance Organised Abuse and Ritual Abuse were the same things and related directly to Satanic Abuse. 

The report concluded that SRA did not exist, so calling cases 'Satanic' became counter-productive and as the tide turned against RAINS after Rochdale ( and the equally as scandalous Orkney SRA case ), Satan-hunters began favouring the term 'Ritual Abuse' instead of Satanic Abuse.

The term 'Ritual Abuse' neatly incorporated the newly found Priestly Abuse threat AS WELL AS their contentions about Satanic Abuse.'  SAFF research showed that Priestly Abuse of children almost universally EXCLUDED ceremonial and rituals of the Christian Church which is why we termed it Priestly Abuse instead of Christian Ritual Abuse.

The epidemic of Priestly Abuse was committed by perverted priests and vicars because they were perverts, not because they were Christians.

This of course is entirely different to the persecutory way that RAINS had pushed their beliefs in Satanic Ritual Abuse and defamed Satanists and Witches. In RAINS twisted schema Satanists were abusing children precisely because of the demands of their own religious philosophy and liturgy.  This was of course simply prejuice as Satanists and witches do not have a liturgy which requires the abuse of children. However the false idea that there was some 'ritualistic' aspect to Priestly Abuse allowed RAINS to avoid difficult questions about SRA and lump SRA and Priestly Abuse together. 

Realising all this the SAFF consistently pressed RAINS  for their official definition of 'Ritual Abuse'.  In 1996 they gave it.  You can see it in their official letter to the SAFF of 15th January 1996 (see image right) and here is their definition below:

'The systematic physical, sexual and emotional abuse supported by rituals and symbols with or without a religious or occult ideology.'
Yes folks, that's how daft RAINS really is.  It's sexual abuse by anyone, with or without a religious occult ideology   in otherwords just child-abuse.

In a contorted attempt to avoid actually using the term SATANIST, or anything that might smack of the sectarian persecution which lies behind the Satanic Panic, the people at RAINS also abandoned any mention of the specific and unique key motifs which, for eight years before, they had insisted was proof that a new form of Abuse was occuring in Satanic Cults due to the liturgy and beliefs of that religion.  Now, backpeddling, they were talking about some sort of unspecified compulsive ritualism which was not specific to Satanic ceremonies.  Did they really mean it? 
No they did not.

Eight months after RAINS had sent us that letter (September 1996) one of their number Sarah Nelson, was at another Satan Seminar organised by RAINS at Warwick university, delivering a lecure on 'Satanist Ritual Abuse, Challenges to the Mental Health System'  in which the word Satan was used no less than 28 times in 8 pages!  

Clearly, what they say and what they do are two different things.

SAFF have shown here that the term 'Ritual Abuse' is and always has been a euphemism for Satanic Ritual Abuse.

The term 'Organised Abuse' was misused in a similar way by the Satan Hunters.  SAFF have tracked the development of it for you below.

First time the term Organised Abuse was
                            officially mentioned'Organised Abuse'
was first speculated on as far back as 1990.  It was coined right in the middle of the Satanic Panic. This paragraph in the Daily Mirror  of 13th March 1990 (see image on right) introduces the idea to the public by saying:  

'Just as we thought we had heard the worst of it, the NSPCC has revealed organised abuse by child sex-rings, passing children around as if running a swapshop.

Double click on the image to get a full-size version to read.
You will see that this, then new, campaign against 'Organised Abuse' was being run by the NSPCC in cooperation with' Scotland Yard , the Home Office and Churches'.  Why would 'the churches' be involved?  Because Organised Abuse was another way of saying Satanic Abuse.

For as the child-protection industry tried to come to terms with the abuse hysteria in the 1990 panic it was thrashing about and developing new terminology.  The term 'Organised abuse by child sex-rings' was subliminal neuro-linguistics, just another way of saying 'Abuse in a magic circle' (magic circle = sex-rings).

So the idea of Organised Abuse was first floated in 1990 as a corollary to Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. That is why the Government's definitive investigation into claims of SATANIC ritual abuse which was published in 1994 had the title  The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual Abuse.  Clearly the terms, 'Organised Abuse' and 'Ritual Abuse' and claims of 'Satanic Ritual Child Abuse' were the same thing.

Here is another example from 1993, (the SAFF have many more on file) ;  Leading feminist Dr. Liz Kelly had co-authored the paper Organised abuse: a review of the literature and Demons, devils and denial: towards a feminist understanding of Ritual / Satanic abuse (Trouble and Strife, 22; 33-3) 

Again Organised Abuse, Ritual Abuse and Satanic Abuse in the same sentence. They are the SAME THING.

Thirty years back all child protection agencies began hunting down examples of 'Organised Abuse' AKA 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' but have had little success.  Networks of Organised Abusers were few and far between.  There has been precious little evidence of organised networks of abusers in relation to Satanic or Occult groups in the past three decades and certainly none proven.

RANS 2011
                      satan seminar quoting Ritual/Organised abuseThe term Organised Abuse was seized upon by Satan-Hunters in RAINS' clique as a euphemism for Satanic Abuse because it was much less sensational. They seemed to use 'Organised Abuse' whenever they were talking to other academics and child-charities whilst reverting to the mad claims of full-blown Satanic Abuse in tabloid  newspaper articles and Satan Seminars.  They unfairly used suspicions about Organised Abuse, to back their belief in the existence of Satanic Abuse just as Mike Salter is doing today.  

In 2011 the avowedly anti-Satanic RANS (Ritual Abuse Network Scotland)  whose leader, Laurie Matthews campaigns against SATANIC abuse - no ifs and buts - produced an advertising flyer for nationwide distribution promoting a new Satan Seminar entitled Ritual Abuse in The UK 10 Years On.  In this (image on the right - double click to enlarge) the terms 'Ritual Abuse' and 'Organised Abuse' are quoted side by side referring to the same thing.  'Ritual/Organised Abuse'  This is proof that since the Satanic Panic the use of Ritual Abuse and Organised Abuse as a euphemism for Satanic Abuse HAS NOT CHANGED. Believers roll false allegations about Satanic Ritual Abuse into their schema when talking about Ritual or/and Organised Abuse.

SAFF Warnings About the term 'Organised Abuse'

Front Cover of the SAFF 1998 presentation to
                      the Department of Health Warning about allowing
                      the term Organised Abuse as a euphemism for
                      Satanic AbuseThe SAFF knew this was happening and tried to stop it.  In 1998 we published a special 35 page report for the Department of Health which at the time  was involved in a public consultation over terminology used in the Working Together guidelines, in particular about 'organised abuse' and whether the term 'ritual abuse' (it's corollary) should become part of DoH parlance.  You can download the full SAFF paper here:    In it we explained how the term 'Organised Abuse' was being used to de-sensationalise claims of Satanic Abuse so that untutored observers would not fully understand the implications.  You can read the chapter from this report about the origin of the term 'Organised Abuse' in the leftmost column  here .

Let me run that past you again.

In 1998, long before Salter was a player on the Satanic Ritual Abuse bandwagon, the SAFF presented a special report to the UK Department of health warning of the intent of RAINS and other SRA believers to continue to spread the Satan myth by replacing the term 'Satanic Abuse' with 'Organised Abuse'.

Here, 24 years later that is exactly what the new generation of Satan Hunters around Salter are doing.   Satanic Abuse and Organised Abuse are, to them, the very same thing.

Why Does Salter not Mention Asian Gangs?

Perhaps the most powerful evidence revealing prejudice in Salter's approach to 'Organised Abuse' is the fact that the most glaring example of it is completely omitted from his paper.  Abuse by Asian Gangs was occurring in the late 1980s but because of the racial implications was not fully addressed. The scandal of child-protection organisations, charities and social workers IGNORING the prevalence of multiple abusers in networks preying on children in care was only exposed in 2010. 

The full overview of it is here: . and they found 10,000 victims in the Rotherham area alone.

Asian Grooming Gangs Cities affectedAbuse in Asian Gang networks was PRECISELY what many people who started the hunt for 'Organised Abuse' in 1990 were defining.   Children repetitively abused in networks of abusing men 'passed around as if running a swapshop'. 

So whilst those who Salter quotes as authorities on the subject of SRA and Ritual Abuse were wasting their time chasing phantom Satanists with false tales of 4,000 children a year being sacrificed on Satanic Altars, thousands more children were ACTUALLY being systematically sexually abused in Organised Abuse Gangs right under their noses. 

After the authorities were forced to look at Asian Gang Abuse (also termed Grooming Gangs) , following the despicable Rotherham case, further major networks of Asian Grooming Gangs were found in seven British cities!   What is this but incontrovertible evidence of 'organised abuse'?  Yet this nationwide phenomenon is apparently ignored by RAINS and BASPCAN whilst Salter doesn't mention it at all in his paper.

Ironically, Rochdale, the city beset by the worst false allegations of Satanic Abuse in 1991 is included in the list of cities which had an organised abuse network of Asian Gangs!   We can just imagine these Asian Gang paedophiles laughing at their luck, repetitively abusing girls  in Rochdale whilst obsessive believers in SRA were looking elsewhere in the town for imaginary Satanists! You couldn't make it up.

It is impossible for anyone truly analysing and estimating the extent of child-abuse by Organised Abusers to ignore Asian Grooming Gangs for it offers exact proof of their contentions - except for one thing;
 There is no Satanic Ritual Abuse in any of it

There is no Satanic Ritual Abuse in any of the Asian Organised Grooming Gangs.
These Grooming Gangs have functioned successfully for years without any of the ridiculous tricks, mysterious trigger-words and mystic mental gymnastics defined by Salter in his paper.

But you would never know it for the most perfect example of what the NSPCC was looking for in 1990, Asian Organised Abuse Gangs,  is completely omitted from Salter's 'Antiepistemology'.

It Never RAINS But it Pours.

We have mentioned RAINS several times.  The acronym stands for -  Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support - an ad-hoc group of social workers, radical feminists, fundamentalist Christians and others with an obsessive interest in validating their obsession with allegations of Satanic Ritual Abuse. 

In the 1990s RAINS had a membership of nearly 200 'professionals' trying to convince the government and British public that SRA is a real threat to children. It was formed in 1988 and is the group which organised many of the scandalous Satan Seminars held during the 1990s. They had proof of over two dozen key cases of SRA. Every single one of these cases failed in the British courts.  These first false SRA cases brought British social work into disrepute for the torturing of small children by repetitive interrogation techniques over many hours designed to elicit 'evidence' to confirm the prejudices of people attached to RAINS.  Again 'the true meaning of a thing always resides in its opposite'  the people who crusaded to save children from imagined Satanic Abuse were the ones who ended up abusing innocent children.

The key SRA case which brought RAINS hegemony to  stop was the 1991 Rochdale SRA case which was roundly thrown out by the courts and a subsequent Social Services Inspectorate investigation ruled that children should no longer be forcibly questioned until they broke and invented Satanic stories to suit the beliefs of SRA obsessed social workers.   

As soon as their ability to brainwash kids was stopped the Satan Hunters simply switched to concentrating on ADULTS who were psychotherapised using Recovered Memory Therapy into believing they had been Satanically Abused as children. 

Instead of the long interrogations of children there were long interrogations of mentally vulnerable adult patients in permanent analysis. Naturally the very same ideas, concepts, memes and atavistic fears were implanted in the adults that had earlier been implanted in the children's minds because the same people were doing the implanting of their worst fears.

Everyone knows Satanists distribute child-porno - because none has ever been found.

There is an insinuation in Salter's paper that Satanic Abusers are so devilishly clever they can somehow hide the evidence, secrete or destroy the videos and photos so that there is absolutely nothing for police, investigators to find or victims to produce.  This was a common excuse during the 1990s to account for the fact that self-styled SRA victims could never come up with forensic evidence to prove their claims. There were no proven locations, no bodies, no blood, no photographs, no videos, no murder weapons, no nothing. 

Here we are three decades later and there has not been one single photo or video found to corroborate the claims of Salter's SRA 'victims'.  During the 1990 panic one SRA 'investigator' actually had the cheek to say that 'the complete absence of evidence is evidence in itself'.   These people really are bonkers. Does Salter believe them?  Apparently so.

Here we are three decades later and there has not been one single photo or video found to corroborate allegations that Satanists are filming child abuse.

Salter's paper then starts in on the old RAINS ploy of blaming the Media for giving too much space to failed cases and false allegations. The insinuation is that the media was 'hiding' SRA like everyone else.

'Media content analyses in the United States and United Kingdom have found that media attention on “false allegations” in the 1990s came to eclipse coverage of child abuse as a whole, with a particular focus on Organised Abuse allegations (Beckett, 1996; Kitzinger, 2004).'
[ Did you catch the switcheroo in this quote?   When he says Organised Abuse he means Satanic Abuse]
Daily Mirror pushed Dianne Core'sBut this is a downright inversion of the truth.  The Media were conspicuously on the side of believers in Satanic Ritual Abuse and Organised Rings from 1988 until October 1991 when the Rochdale false Satanic Ritual Abuse case exposed the utter nonsense being peddled by believers in SRA.   And the SAFF Research Library can prove it without question.

Hull, where Dianne Core's Childwatch group was based is a good example. The Hull Daily Star published over FORTY (40) articles promoting the idea of SRA in a single 6 month period in 1988 to back up her mad allegations, even though none of them were true. 

The Daily Mirror supported Core's claims unquestioningly in several hard-hitting double page articles, (see image to the right for an example).
That case was false too!

Most other tabloids and many of the broadsheets did the same and supported the idea of a threat to children from Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. The entire population was shocked with the idea of SRA and headlines about it it gave newspapers a circulation boost.   Why wouldn't they push the idea for all it was worth?   The SAFF Research library can produce literally thousands of examples of the British Media supporting the idea of SRA.  The SAFF has logged and filed ALL of these articles and many thousands more. 

Anyone who tries to suggest that the media were not on the side of believers in SRA either don't know what they are talking about or they are fabricating.

If anyone tries to suggest that the media were not supportive of believers in SRA they're fabricating.

Even after the corrupt excesses of the social workers in Rochdale had been exposed and the facts showed there was no SRA in the case,  some key news outlets and national newspapers still continued to follow their previous line and act as though SRA existed and should be hunted down. They still supported RAINS and other SRA believers in many articles promoting the idea of SRA.   SAFF have all of those articles on file.

Satanic Abuse Claims A Myth - Rohdale Observer 4
                may 1994Even when the government's own official 1994 inquiry concluded that there was no such thing as Satanic Ritual Child Abuse, the newspapers and broadcast media who had hitched their wagons to the SRA myth still bent over backwards to give RAINS members and SRA activists like Nelson, Sinason, Campbell and others opportunities to state their case. 

So the idea that believers in SRA were 'silenced' or 'censored' by the media is an utter fabrication.  The cutting 'Satanic Abuse Claims a Myth' (see image right) was a typical example of how the British Press played-down the La Fontaine report - the media LOVED the SRA claims. The more outlandish the better.

The idea that believers in SRA were 'silenced' or 'censored' by the media is an utter fabrication.

Bogus SRA Videos and Victim Impersonators.

On page 8 of his paper Salter says:

When conflated with “bizarreness”, as it so often has been in
criminological and other scholarly literature (Cheit, 2014), knowledge of organised abuse is easily confused with its opposite: a form of non-knowledge, such as a fraud, hoax or confabulation.

The Truth About
                Jennifer Daily Mail Andrew BoydAbsolute Rubbish!  Critics of the idea of Organised Abuse linked to SRA did not confuse anything, it was clear after police investigations and public inquiries that the claims being made by people in the caucus of SRA believers WERE hoaxes or confabulations and could be easily disproved.

Such as with 'Jenny' the woman interviewed on prime time television for an influential documentary titled, 'Beyond Belief'. Jennifer testified that she had been used as a 'brood mare' in a Satanic Ritual to give birth to a baby which she  had been made to kill during a sacrificial rite.  Wow!

This is the type of first-hand testimony which makes up most of the responses Salter is working on from C3P.  In Jennifer's case it was all LIES and it is clear that many, if not all the self-designated cases in C3Ps data bank may be similar fantasies. There is absolutely no way of knowing, one way or the other.

When police questioned Jennifer she turned out to be Louise Errington, an ordinary woman with mental issues. She admitted that she had been encouraged to make up those lies and indoctrinated into believing it in counselling sessions performed by a group of fundamentalist Christians. This group, Ellel Grange, near Lancaster,  had spent years trying to find an example of Satanic Ritual Abuse to confirm their belief in it. They had conspired with other fundie activists such as the infamous Reachout Trust ( ) Ellel Grange ran weekend SRA training courses so counsellers could 'identify' SRA victims. They organised exorcisms of people diagnosed as having been Satanically Abused to rid the 'patient' of Devils.  Their  counselling questionnaires were so all-encompassing that nobody who went to them for help could escape without being designated an SRA victim.  But in Louise Errington's case what they put into her head was a completely fictitious story designed to provide naysayers with 'evidence' of the existence of Satanic Ritual Abuse.  In reality she was found to have already had two children who were both healthy.  It was all an absolute and unadulterated incontrovertible fabrication. The Full story of the Devil Video Hoax is here :

Now if Salter is such an expert on these things why didn't he know of Jennifer's true story?  After all it's been on the SAFF website since the late 1990s.
How can he posit the unfact that people are wrong to believe in hoaxes when hoaxes patently existed?  
There are many other people like Jennifer who have been outed as compulsive liars, dozens of them in fact.
Why is Salter blurring the fact that people, MANY people, lie about Satanic Abuse?
Why is he ready to accept the outpourings of all the unvalidated on-line comments in C3P's survey? 
Why does Salter imply that ALL instances of disbelief in SRA are some kind of cognitive dissonance, ignorance or motivated by criminality?  

Well, presumably he's spinning every reader of the British Journal of Criminology for a start when he writes:
Somewhat paradoxically, the sceptical position on organised abuse was cemented in the
1990s even as the popularisation of the internet made visible the scale of demand for CSAM, and the propensity of child abusers to network with one another (Jenkins, 2001) - page 8
As the SAFF has just proven, there was no sceptical position on Organised Abuse in the early 1990s. Everyone was hunting for it.
Care for ALL the Children Daily Mail attacks
                Channel 4 says Satanic Abuse Won't Go Away It was not paradox which created a majority sceptical position on SRA, it was the fact that by 1994 every case promoted as SRA by the people Salter is here using as authorities had fallen apart.  There was no paradox.
There was only reality.
The reality is that not a single case of suspected SRA was actually true.

Does Salter really want to write out of history the scandal of false claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse which occurred in the UK during the period 1988 to 1994 when the government's own definitive and thorough report by Prof. Jean La Fontaine concluded that it did not exist? 

There was no 'sceptical position'. The allegations fell flat on their face.  The cadre of believers in SRA who had held the headlines for two years and had dozens of chances of proving their mad ideas were discredited.  They then went underground to continue a rearguard action away from public scrutiny until a new generation of Satan Hunters could take up the torch again. Someone like Salter, who appears ready to try to open a closed book and mount dangerous and harmful ideas again 32 years after they first beset the country. 

Only when , time after time, the accusations proved to be false and built on the shifting sands of bigotry and prejudice did the Media and the public, turn against the mad idea of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse.   The cutting on the right from the Daily Mail shows how newspapers turned away from false allegations of SRA only after it became obvious that they were lies.

From being 100% responsive and supportive of the first SRA accusations the Media and the Public realised they had been had and turned against the idea.
Salter cannot know this otherwise he would have mentioned it surely?
Is Mike Salter rewriting history to suit himself or is he just ill-informed?
Is he trying to convince British Journal of Criminology readers of something that did not happen? 
That's not what Criminology is about surely?

From being 100% responsive and supportive of the first SRA accusations the Media and the Public realised they had been had and turned against the idea in 1991.

Mike Salter calls in the FBI

 So far in Salter's paper we have been treated to a string of references from people who have tried, and failed, to establish SRA as a real threat in the UK over the years.  Where are the quotes from independent observers and researchers?  Does Salter mention any of those?  Well kind of, Salter throws in the authority of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by quoting :
One of the first Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) operations into the use of technology in CSAM was the investigation of online criminal networks in 1994 called “Operation Innocent Images”. They found that organised child exploitation groups had moved their activities online to message boards and chat rooms, both to share CSAM and groom victims. The FBI concluded that they had uncovered an ‘...alarming new trend: sexual exploitation of children via computers’ (FBI History, n. d.). Today, contemporary research into CSAM reveals dynamics that are remarkably similar to organised abuse allegations:  p10.

Kenneth Lanning 1992 report on SRA for the FBIAware readers may find it strange to see Salter refer to 'the first' 1994 FBI report on Organised Abuse on-line, whilst completely ignoring THE FIRST report by the FBI on Satanic Ritual Child Abuse which was actually done by them two years earlier in January 1992 (The Lanning Report)

The Lanning Report concluded that SRA DID NOT EXIST. 

In 1994 the FBI did indeed point out that child exploitation groups had moved their activities on-line but of course this was not Satanic Organised Abuse. It had nothing to do with Satanism and the deceitful trick of trying to hi-jack the Operation Innocent Images report as proof of Satanic Ritual Abuse by tacking on a conclusion which the report did NOT contain is truly unprofessional considering that Lanning's report that SRA does not exist is still valid in FBI annals! 

Is it fair then for Salter to offer up the FBI's 1994 report without mentioning the 1992 report which said that Satanic Ritual Abuse did not exist and then add a clincher tailpiece that 'contemporary research reveals dynamics that are remarkaly similar to organised abuse allegations?'  when the FBI had already said in 1992 that there was no organised Satanic Abuse.  Of course not. 

Why does Salter not mention the La Fontaine report?

Just as Salter omitted to mention the FBI's Lanning Report which disproved SRA in the U.S., nowhere in his paper is there any mention of the UK government's definitive and most important report on Satanic Ritual Abuse compiled by Prof. Jean La Fontaine in 1994, titled The Extent and Nature of Organised and Ritual  Abuse.   

Prof. La Fontaine had unique access to full details of ALL the 84 cases ( those that had been defined as Satanic during the years 1988-1992 by people Salter seems to respect and credit). La Fontaine was given governmental permission to see inside and extract data from these confidential child cases which others, like Salter, and RAINS could not legally access. She knows things they don't. 

Frequency of SRA cases in years 1987-1994You will see from the table alongside, reproduced from La Fontaine's report, that cases of claimed SRA before 1988 were non-existent and that they started to rise in 1988, reached an apogee in 1989 and then dwindled to nothing in 1992.   This curve directly relates to the activities of RAINS and most of the people whom Salter promotes as authorities on this issue. 

The Satan hysteria began in the UK on 15 April 1988 when Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens made an announcement in Parliament about his belief that there was a hidden network of abusers killing and abusing children in Satanic and Witchcraft Ceremonies. 

Dickens was the parliamentary representative of Child-Watch, a small child-charity based in Hull and run by Dianne Core who claimed to have evidence that cults were abusing children.   This was a sectarian lie which was subsequently exposed by the SAFF when Core went on record saying that 4,000 children a year were sacrificed in Satanic Rituals in the UK in a conclave of right-wing political activists in Rome.   Her claim illustrated the fact that her 'evidence' was simply bigotry and suspicion cultivated by a growing political right-wing religious-based campaign in the Western world which was repopularising the historic blood-libel myths and which would eventually evolve into the harmful QAnon movement.

How did the SRA Panic start?: The Broxtowe SRA Case.

In the autumn of 1987 a case of inter-familial abuse had been unearthed in Nottingham (The Broxtowe case, see here for full story: )  Core, Dickens and the social workers involved in the Broxtowe case coalesced around a now discredited uber-sensational TV programme, in the Cook Report series called, The Devil's Work, whose claims did much to power the hysteria of fear over SRA.  Core was a paid advisor on the programme.  ( See extracts from that mockumentary here:  courtesy of the SAFFutube Channel.)

The video ably captures the hysteria and madness of the initial allegations which Salter is today claiming that he can validate.

Researchers for the Cook Report (Tim Tate) had seen that claims of SRA were already occurring in the U.S. and, according to the JET report (see for full details) , imported information about Satanic Abuse from the U.S. and injected them into the Broxtowe case by sharing documents and case-histories from the U.S. with the abused children's new foster parents who, suitably guided by RAINS and Radfems involved in the case, soon got the kids to make up stories about Satanism. 
'Speak of the Devil and he will appear!'

Although the child victims in the Broxtowe case had been in care for months and had already given statements to police and social workers without mentioning satanists or witches, after the Cook Report infected social workers with the idea, the kids began talking about ghosts and witches, capes and pointy hats. (The foster carers were later castigated in the JET report for indoctrinating the children with Satanic images and ideas. ) 

This appalling case of genuine familial abuse was then 'elevated' by Satan Hunters in RAINS to become Britain's first claimed case of SRA.  The 5 cases which La Fontaine notes as 'pre 1988' in the table were the children in this Broxtowe case.  Note that prior to redefining the Broxtowe case as a case of Satanic Abuse it was a perfect example of non-Satanic 'Organised Abuse'

The Broxtowe case was the igniter of the Satanic Panic, which gathered steam as numerous (false) cases were 'discovered' by SRA believers in child-protection, until in 1991 the Rochdale Satanic Ritual Abuse case hit the headlines and was the apogee of all SRA claims in the panic. The SRA bubble became too big to sustain and lengthy inquiries and court battles exposed the fact that it was all a figment of the minds of witch-hunters in social work all of whom had been indoctrinated at Satan Seminars held by RAINS and other players in the cadre which Salter is still in touch with today.  

One of the founder members of RAINS was Valerie Sinason you can see an image of her at the top of this web-page - Mike Salter is shown embracing her.   Salter did not mention Sinason's work in his paper even though she has been a prime-source in pushing the idea of SRA in the past three decades.  She even produced a 'spoiler' report to contradict La Fontaine's government report findings.  Sinason's own report turned out to be a travesty of the scientific method and it has since been mercilessly criticised.  SAFF term Sinason's report ' The Devil Report' but it's official title was   Pilot Study on Organised Ritual Abuse.  Thus you would have thought that as Salter was perhaps trying to convince the British Journal of Criminology about the existence of Organised Ritual Abuse he might have mentioned his mentor's paper?   For your delectation you can read it in full here: :
Rochdale kids set free Daily MirrorIt is an even worse academic paper than Salter's. It was so bad and partial that the Department of Health who commissioned it didn't even put it out to peer review. 

After the errors in Rochdale became known across the nation confidence in social work dived to an all-time low. The Social Services Inspectorate investigated Rochdale Social Services department and slammed them for continuous mistakes on methodology and for ignoring social work rules set down long before the SRA hysteria began. 

The Rochdale Social workers had in fact twisted and perverted every social work dictum to victimise 17 children lifted from their innocent parents in now banned 'dawn lifts' and forcibly taken into care like military storm-troopers. These  obsessed people actually doubled-down on what they had done, misrepresenting it, censoring evidence and using questionable legal tactics to cover-up their conspiracy.

Both the Director of Rochdale social services, Gordon Littlemore and two of the social workers in the case, Susan Hammersley and  Jill France had been indoctrinated into believing in the non-existent Satanic conspiracy to abuse and kill children at now infamous Satan Seminars. Gordon Littlemore resigned and the two social workers left to take up positions elsewhere.

After Rochdale, as La Fontaine's table shows, claims of SRA dwindled to nothing because the people who created the Satanic Panic with false claims were not now listened to.   Over the next few years more inside information came out in articles exposing the activities of key promoters of the SRA witch-hunt and it could be seen for what it was, an utter misdirection by prejudiced bigots who knew nothing about Satanism and, it would appear, even less about child-protection, but who were manifesting their own exaggerated fears over the extent of child-abuse.

The Child-Abuse Industry - how it lies to get funding.

This 'Antiepistemology' paper of Salter's is based on statistical work done by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which has carved a niche for itself and gained massive government funding to police child-porn on the internet. 

The main activity of C3P is the use of a Web Crawler (Project Arachnid) an automatic bot which searches websites across the internet using algorithms to automatically discover child pornography.  Such bots are notoriously unreliable and can return many false positives, including non-pornographic pics of kids on holiday which abound on Facebook and other social media sites. (algorithms can seek out flesh tones in photographs but mostly Arachnid downloads images into a giant database to rate against a mega-database of known abusive images provided by law enforcement).  Other web crawlers do a similar job without all the fanfare. The first was the Internet Watch Foundation which duplicates what Arachnid does. Google have themselves now set up a Web Crawler to do the same job in a slightly different way. 

Because of these and other difficulties any images automatically identified as child-porn have to be checked by humans and then passed to the appropriate authorities.  Apparently several staff members may have to rate an image to classify it as pornographic. Although C3P loudly proclaims astonishing 'hit' numbers of over a million images and videos of 'child sexual exploitation' each year we cannot find any stats on how many of those are actually transferred to the police and result in prosecutions. 

Clearly there aren't a million cases of children being abused on the internet each year. Once the false positives have been weeded out, many of the rest  will be historic abuse images, and duplicates ( which are apparently traded and uploaded and shared multiple times by paedophiles) but these all go down as separate instances of child pornography in the statistics. This exaggerates the perceived threat from on-line kiddie-porn and will result in a suitable rise in funding for C3P so they can 'catch more abusers'. But SAFF research shows that catching current abusers from on-line evidence like this is neglibible.  Whilst Arachnid will probably do a good job of extirpating kiddie-porn and is therefore worthwhile, saving children who are being abused will probably be a fraction of one percent of the traffic they deal with.

How NSPCC misuses statistics to exaggerate the
                threat of child abuseExperience with other child-protection organisations such as the NSPCC in the UK show that they are not averse to 'optimising' sensational figures.

One social commentator referred to the NSPCC as 'the organisation which never knowingly undersells a statistic'. 

SAFF have found examples of the NSPCC self-servingly exaggerating risk and other investigators have confirmed it (see image right) . 

For instance, in 2018/19 Childline (run by the NSPCC) headlined 109,136 calls from children but digging into the statistics only 4% (Four percent) actually concerned sexual abuse.
This amounts to 4,365 calls throughout the year.
Is that a lot?
Well these are calls of course, not cases.
As the inset graphic shows many of them may be instances of child-on-child experimentation.
Many others may be false stories or pranks.
Others may be calls to get back at parents or teachers.

We do not know how many of these calls were serious enough to pass on to the police for investigation but in March 2019 the Office of National Statistics stats show that 2,230 children were the subject of a child protection plan (covers physical as well as sexual abuse), which means that the NSPCC/Childline apparently found twice as many victims as the police and entire social work system in the UK combined.  
Yet these horrific sounding headline grabbing statistics are the ones that the charities use to gain attention and funding either from the public or from central government. 

Based on similar NSPCC statistics the ONS mistakenly states on it's website that:
'Sexual abuse has become the most common type of abuse counselled by Childline in recent years'

 when Childline's own stats show it to be only 4% of all calls registered with them. 

What the ONS meant to say was that the NSPCC has recently increased it's counselling services to children whom they describe as sexually abused.  The ONS should have written:  Childline has prioritised its counselling services to children whom they categorise as at risk from being sexually abused.
A completley different thing to the idea given in the statement above that sexual abuse is now the commonest form of abuse the NSPCC is having to deal with .  It isn't. Mental and Emotional Health is the highest call rate on Childline by far. 

Statistica table showing childline categories of
                calls for nspccStatistica's analysis of the NSPCC's own report shows that the most common type of call they had was for 'mental and emotional health' at 30% closely followed by problems with family relationships. (click on the image for a larger version to read).

Thus statistics of actual victims found as a result of the trawling methods of charities and NGOs involved in child-protection are usually highly distorted and exaggerated.  Charities and NGO's specifically optimise the reporting of statistics to exaggerate the incidence of abuse and threat to children to get public and media support and to press government into giving them more funding.

To assume that all of the calls are actual cases of abuse, and to compound that error by assuming they are all sexual abuse cases is unscientific and grossly in error. 

Statistics on Operation HydrantIt is the manipulation of statistics like this which has caused the sexual abuse witch-hunts of the past two decades. 'Statistica's' review of Operation Hydrant, the multi-million pound police operation into historical claims of abuse spanning 2015 to 2019  makes the exaggeration and false claims of abuse from the child-protection charities crystal clear.  Out of 1749 accusations only 14 successful prosecutions occurred and 20 other people who went to trial were found not guilty. 

That is astonishingly low. The police worked with the NSPCC who was involved in trawling (advertising) for historical abuse accusations for Hydrant and other inquiries.  The cost to the British taxpayer of the several police operations  into imagined child sexual abuse under the Hydrant panoply was over £11M (eleven million pounds). We keep thinking of the vulnerable kids that could've been helped with resources amounting to eleven million pounds when the child-protection industry is always carping about being short of funds.

The problem in accepting all accusations as true is highlighted when the statistics are third and second hand.
For instance the Office of National Statistics uses NAPAC's (National Association of People Abused in Childhood) estimate of abused children, yet NAPAC does not deal directly with children, it concerns itself with helping adult 'survivors' who self-describe as having been abused  as  children. This is very much what Salter is doing in his analysis in this paper. NAPAC takes every word a 'survivor' says as gospel whether or not a police investigation or trial has occurred.  

Carl Beech Poem printed in NAPACS newsletterAs we can see from this image on the right, of a Poem by the notorious child victim-imposter and paedophile Carl Beech, NAPAC accepted as real his back-story without question.

Beech posed as a child survivor of Satanic Ritual Abuse.  His false story set in train one of the biggest man-hunts in British policing and resulted in him being imprisoned in July 2019 for 18 years for lying to police and perverting the course of justice as well as obtaining £22,000 by fraud from the Victims Fund.  

There have been MANY cases of people pretending to be survivor of Satanic Abuse which turned out to be untrue and no matter how much we may sympathise with genuine cases or with vulnerable people who exhibit compulsive lying, it is imperative that researchers realise that  many people SAYING they have been satanically abused are lying for a variety of reasons and that non-validated stories of abuse are statistically worthless.

One American study found that half of all rape allegations may be false. 
Radical feminist propaganda over the past few decades has established in the public's mind that only 2% of rape allegations are false. 
This statistic is continually repeated by the media, yet  SAFF research shows a much higher incidence of between 28% and 45%.   
In fact the  2% figure is FALSE as this document explains (   )
Thus since the eary 1990s perceptions of the incidence of people lying about being abused has been corrupted by the feminist lobby to serve its own ends.  
Lying about abuse is endemic and it is done for a variety of reasons one of which is creating an Alibi to escape shame.  It is ludicrous to accept the story of any accuser without having it validated by a police investigation as Salter has done in his paper. 

it is imperative that researchers realise that  many people SAYING they have been satanically abused are lying for a variety of reasons and that non-validated stories of abuse are statistically worthless.

The research for Salter's 'Antiepistemology' paper, ( which is here being employed to convince British Criminologists who read the BJC, that a network of organised satanic abusers exists)  is based on the statistical trawling of the Canadian Centre for Child protection.  

Whilst Salter was a resident scholar at C3P during 2019 he says he was asked to undertake an analysis of the data from a self-diagnosed on-line abuse study done in 2017. 

Respondents who voluntarily filled in the on-line questionnaire were allowed to answer the questions in her/his own words and language. No checking of content or validity was done. Although the project accepted input from people across the globe it was available in Dutch, French, German and English language versions.  This now infamous Survivor's Survey resulted in only 150 respondents filling in the form.  As far as internet  trials go this sample of 150 respondents was very, very poor and hardly sufficient to draw statistical conclusions but astonishingly the C3P managed to publish a 385 page report based on it, The Survivor's Survey , in 2017

In 2019 Salter took that sparse data, split it again by analysing it for indications/proof of SRA.  He did it this way:
'The survey responses were then subject to a thematic analysis which aimed to identify similarities and differences between participant experiences and descriptions'
In other words Salter picked out those from the data set which seemed to him to confirm the conclusions he was seeking to establish about Satanic Ritual Abuse.  That is, any that mentioned bizarre things, Satanism or Ritual based on the widest set of definitions.  But as can be seen from the original 385 page report, many of these were clearly false. For example:
'My family is not influenced by it. But it drives me crazy to know that the recordings still exist and circulate (among other things snuff videos) and that they cannot be retrieved ever. It creates a feeling of being powerless and at someone's mercy. P184. 

Izzy's Promise
                Snuff Movies 18 and underAlthough a widely accepted apocryphal rumour, often covered in the press, no snuff videos have ever been found in this case or any other - in short the respondent is confabulating.

In 2014 a Scottish children's charity 'Izzy's Promise' made the most recent 'snuff-movie' claims to the Daily Express (see image right). These were also a lie from the mouth of a fantisising victim and no such videos were ever produced. 

Interestingly the director of Izzy's Promise is Laurie Matthews who also runs RANS (Ritual Abuse Network Scotland). Yes, that's right, the counterpart to RAINS in England.  RAINS and RANS are intimately linked.  Not only does Matthews believe in full-blown SRA but for many years she has also travelled to the U.S. to lecture on the dangers of Satanic Abuse at S.M.A.R.T. annual conferences.  We wonder if she met Salter there?

Despite SAFF attempts to alert the Scottish media and the Scotts Government very few people in Scotland know or understand that there is a clique of Satan Hunters being funded by the Scottish government in their midst; nor that their comments when in the U.S. on SRA would shock to the core child-protectionists in Scotland.   You can see more of Matthews' story here:

To complete his paper Mike Salter skimmed off those 74 respondents whose free-style replies SEEMED to include a reference to SRA.  Note that the on-line form was not the usual data form with multiple choice categories but a list of questions asking the respondent to tell their own story in their own words.  Instead of being given a tick box for SRA or Organised Abuse, or Family Abuse and letting the data experts categorise the data, the C3P allowed the respondents to set their own agenda.

Clearly, from their comments, many of these respondents were in therapy and had undergone treatment for DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) a therapy which Salter is closely connected with.  Some respondents appeared to be members of survivor groups or forums. In short activists out to convince others of their SRA stories.  So from the original meagre 150 respondents  Salter analysed just 74 people from across the world to get to his conclusions in this questionable research. 

Most notably in the published report by C3P there were 331 mentions of DID (an unproven and controversial syndrome linked to the discredited Multiple Personality Disorder diagnosis which caused many of the false SRA cases in the 1990 Satanic Panic). In the 385 pages of the full report there was some reference to DID on almost every page and all of it assumed DID was a genuine syndrome when it is not, as the SAFF proved here:
DID is big business in Canada and the damage it can do to patients has resulted in quite a few legal actions against RMT therapists.  Nevertheless here are some conclusions from Salter's sample.

The majority of organised abuse participants (87%) identified as female, with 9% identifying as male while 4% did not respond to the question about gender. 49% of participants lived in the Netherlands at the time of abuse, 24% lived in Germany, 10% identified more than one European country, 8% lived in the United States and the remainder identified other.

So three-quarters of the respondents for this CP3 study were Europeans.  For readers who are unaware, there is a large phalanx of believers in SRA in the Netherlands and Germany along with a thriving DID therapeutic industry to service it, mostly coordinated by the ESSTD (The European Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation which is a member of the ISSTD. Salter declares in his bio that he is on the  Board of Directors  of the ISSTD - we think he should have made this clear in his paper) . 

Oude Pekela SRA Scare

Official Dutch Social Services view of the Oude
                Pekela scareThe Dutch experience stems from the Oude Pekela SRA case in 1987. That year leading-edge believers in SRA had cooperated with RAINS and other activist believers in the UK, amongst which was Dr Frederick Jonker, a key player in the identifiction of SRA in Oude Pekela, who traveled to London to speak at Satan Seminars to convince British activists and RAINS members that SRA existed in the Netherlands when it didn't.  The gist was that if SRA existed in the Netherlands this would also show that it probably existed in the UK too and therefore back up the worst fears of RAINS.

These SRA activists told the British press that an undeniable case of SRA had occurred in Oude Pekela, a sink estate near Groningen in Holland. This was supposed to convince doubters in UK social services and the UK police and it succeeded in many instances, but like all the British cases the Oude Pekela case also turned out to be hysteria and no child-abuse ever occurred there. The Satanic connections were utterly fictitious.  The current official guide to Social Services training in the Netherlands succinctly condemns the entire farago as a scare and no abuse occurred, Satanic or otherwise - see image on the right.  

This link gives access to an academic paper which reveals the true background  to the hysteria:

In short backing the Oude Pekela claims would be very risky for any researcher but astonishingly that is exactly what Salter appears to have done, as you will see below:

Salter the Radio Star

Although off the radar since the 1990s false claims of Satanic Abuse have occured sporadically.  From time to time hard-core believers in SRA would fool some wet-behind-the-ears journalist or charity into thinking they had 'new evidence' about the existence of the chimera of SRA and get publicity. 

One of these cyclic occurrences happened in the autumn of 2020 when the Dutch radio programme ARGOS produced a documentary called Shards of Glass with the subtitle, 'Argos Investigates Satanic Abuse'. No equivocation there!   During the research for this documentary Argos interviewed many believers in Satanic Abuse, including Mike Salter.  Unlike his measured approach in this paper to the British Journal of Criminology Salter pulled no punches on Satanic Ritual Abuse in the interview he gave to Argos, which was broadcast thus:

Michael Salter:  I’m Associate Professor Michael Salter. I’m a criminologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney Australia.

NARRATOR: Salter specializes in organized crime networks. He has conducted in-depth
interviews with over fifty survivors of organized sexual abuse. The police often ask
his advice...

Michael Salter:  It’s best to think of it almost as a subculture, in the same way that drug
trafficking is a subculture.

NARRATOR: Stating that no proof of ritual abuse has ever been found anywhere in the world is complete nonsense, he says.

Michael Salter: I have seen crime scenes where animal blood had been splashed all over the walls, where offenders had drawn strange occult symbols on the walls.

NARRATOR: Occult symbols and blood on the walls. He saw those same symbols branded into victims’ bodies.

Michael Salter: There is nothing incredible about these allegations.'

Interesting contrast to his measured opinions for the British Journal of Criminology

Signs and Symbols of Satanism or rather people looking for sings and symbols of Satanism, was a key part of the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth in the late 1980s when 'cult cops' (policemen who were fundamentalist agitators and modern missionaries) produced Satanic Cult Crime Profile Detection Sheets and distributed them to thousands of other hyper-religious people so they could re-designate 'ordinary' crimes as Satanic.

Don't laugh, this is more or less what the NSPCC did before igniting SRA in Britain. They sent out questionnaires with 'indicators' (based on US indicators) of what they ignorantly thought was 'Satanism' and 14 of their branches (most probably run by fundies) ticked off enough for the NSPCC to announce to the British public that hundreds of children were being Satanically Sacrificed in the UK when they weren't!   SAFF is used to seeing what such Satan Hunters consider is 'Satanic' and every single one of them has turned out to be false.  

You can see how dangerous this can be in the case of the 'Sacrificial Murder of Rikki Neave' This poor boy was murdered in 1996 and his mother was fitted-up by the police for it. The trial was replete with claims of Satanic Sacrifice, no ifs or buts.  SAFF told police (and everyone else) at the time that it was bunkum.  Twenty six years later new DNA cold-crime techniques revealed that the murder was just an ordinary vicious killer and had nothing whatsoever to do with Satanism, the perpetrator was caught and given life in prison.  Full story including the analysis of 'occult symbols' the prosecution used to try to frame Ruth Neave is here:

Whenever pro-SRAMists start making claims about symbols and signs, the SAFF always challenges them to produce photos of the 'occult symbols' or 'Satanic carvings' for us to see and analyse but whenever we do they frequently fall silent.  In the few cases where they have produced illustrations of such 'symbols' they turn out to be dependent upon thoroughly biased definitions.  For instance in one case a 'voodoo doll' turned out to be one of those knitted Guatemalan worry-dolls.  In another a 'child's skull' turned out to be a piece of coconut shell.  We ain't gonna take Salter's word on this.  What he must do is share the photos of the symbols and carvings. 

How would Salter be able to detect and identify what is and what is not an occult symbol or carving anyway?  If he really did have photos of occult symbols and carvings he would publish them as proof surely?  We challenge him to publish those signs..

Back to the Argos documentary:   The Dutch prime minister responded instantly to the hail of publicity following broadcast of Shards of Glass.  Mark Rutte immediately ordered a parliamentary inquiry, even though they'd already had one and installed LEBZ after the investigation into Oude Pekela in 1988.  LEBZ, is a Dutch government body which analyses claims of ritual abuse ( which have been recovered during therapy). During the 1990s it was the saviour of the Netherlands, protecting it's innocent inhabitants from the wave of ludicrous false-allegations which swept Britain in the same decade. LEBZ short-circuited the false SRA claims, avoided imprisoning innocent people, destroying lives and careers and wasting child-protection resources on the wild-goose-chase of SRA, but by 2020 LEBZ was old-hat and Rutte played to the gallery with yet another SRA inquiry to pacify Dutch Radical Feminists and therapists on the make.  We are still waiting to hear the enquiry's conclusions.

So it is interesting to note from Salter's stats that, even though the UK has been a world centre for belief and promotion of the false idea of SRA since 1987, and currently has a thriving SRA homegrown survivor network of thousands of self-identified SRA 'victims' only 7 (seven) of the respondents in his sample were British. Nearly half ( 49% ) of C3P respondents were from the Netherlands.  Respondents from the UK where you would have expected a large response, amounted to just 10%.(i.e. 7 people).  
In other words there is a disproportionate number of respondents from the Netherlands.
Is that linked to the activity of the ESSTD?
Has this distorted the response statistics? 
Salter's own sensational statements in the Argos documentary 'Shards of Glass' could have added to that hysteria could they not? 

For all we know the respondents to C3P may be wholly the patients of therapists in the  ESSTD (The European Society for the Study of  Trauma and Dissociation) which is a scion of the very same ISSTD (International Society for the Study of Trauma & Dissociation) which Salter is a Director of.

The Argos programme was researched with therapists from the ESSTD.
The ESSTD is HIGHLY active in the Netherlands and behind most of the SRA cases there. 
Could  this really be self-fulfilling prophecy?  

Note how the ARGOS production team DID NOT interview any experts who said that SRA was bunkum.
They DID NOT interview any Satanists or Satanic group to get their explanations or denials. 
This is very much what happened in the 1990 Satanic Panic.
The media almost totally blanked any experts who had an opposing view and never ever consulted, inquired or listened to any person or group from the occult subculture who wanted to show that the SRA allegations were false.  

You can see the SAFF's expose of ESSTD activity in the past few years and its influence on belief of SRA in Europe here:   where we discuss a recent push from the ESSTD to repopularise lunatic beliefs about SRA by printing an article in their journal by  Suzette Boon-Langen, headed: The treatment of victims reporting ritual abuse by organised networks; a reflection on 30 years of clinical experience. Note well that Boon Langen is referring to the discredited Oude Pekela Satanic Abuse case which she was apparently involved with way back in 1987. 

S.M.A.R.T. - the most inappropriate acronym in history - Daft as a Brick.

Neil Brick speaking at a S.M.A.R.T. seminar on
                Satanic AbuseOude Pekele isn't Salter's only excursion into the twilight world of the mad Satan hunters. His membership of S.M.A.R.T. is puzzling.  SMART stands for Stop Mind Control And Ritual Abuse Today and it links him with some really stupid troublemakers.  S.M.A.R.T. people believe all the tosh about MKUltra and CIA mind-control and torture experiments on behalf of the 'Satanic plutocracy which controls the world!'  You can see Salter's bio on the S.M.A.R.T. website here: 

S.M.A.R.T.'s website also contains article after article postulating the most untrue and manic psychoses about Satanic Ritual Abuse. 

One founder member's statements, those of Neil Brick, are typical of the first-person accounts of uncorroborated 'Satanic Government Conspiracy' memes. What does Salter think about these claims we wonder?  Does he think they are real. Read the graphic and see if you do.

Brick's back-story is false and we do not intend to waste your time taking it apart here because Grey Faction has already done it in great detail on this webpage:  however you can see from the image (right) how pathetic it all is. What is perhaps just as astonishing is why Salter rubs shoulders with these people.

After the section in Salter's paper which gives his methodology for extracting data , the rest of it seems to be a list of horrific tales of abuse.  This is very much in the style of S.M.A.R.T.'s shock-horror tales. 
The more detail is given, the less real they seem.

For instance take the continual assertion that one of the main motives for satanic abuse is to make pornographic photos and films. This SRA motif has occurred many hundreds of times before in almost all claimed SRA cases over the past 30 years and is obviously of interest to C3P who Salter supports as their main purpose is to expose child-pornography on the internet.  Here's what Salter says about it in reference to his paper:  

Perpetrators were aware of the shame that victims felt about the images and used this shame as a fulcrum of control and manipulation. They threatened to release images if victims didn’t do what they wanted, or if victims disclosed. Burdened by feelings of humiliation and the sense of being implicated in their own abuse, survivors described refusing to disclose and, in some cases, even concealing evidence of their own abuse. This survivor went so far as to delete images of her abuse after the death of her father:

The only problem with these recurrent claims of pornographic videos and photos is that none have ever been found. Not one case defined as Satanic Ritual Abuse which included this as a possible motive has ever turned up any photos, recordings or videos. If there was such videos it would be prime facie evidence of SRA but none have ever been found.   Because this was a crucial part of their profile SRA-believers scoured the world for such things couldn't find any and began falsifying them. 

In 1992 , Andrew Boyd, a Fundie journalist and documentary film maker successfully commissioned a programme in the Channel 4 Dispatches series boasting that they had found video evidence of Satanic Abuse. It caused a country-wide sensation upon broadcast. Within days it was clear that the public had been hoaxed as the film was actually revealed as an old performance art video by a little-known pop-group.  There was absolutely no evidence of SRA or any form of abuse.  This was the first and the last attempt to try to convince independent observers that pornographic films were made by Satanic Abusers. See  for the full story

Of course ORDINARY abusers DO make videos and take photographs.  The fact that no photographs of SATANIC abuse have been found is evidence that the idea of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse is false.

In the example Salter brings forward to try to convince his readers the 'victim' says:
After the main perpetrator passed away and I helped packing away his things I found
the abusive material on his computer - I do not understand to this day why I looked at
his computer. In my panic, I deleted his hard drive but it was clear from then on what
had happened and that it was recorded and distributed. (Woman, late 20s, Germany)
Is this woman telling the truth do you think?
As an obviously untutored user of computers she says she deleted the hard-drive pornographic films 'in panic'.  Yet it is not easy to delete a series of photos or videos on a computer 'by mistake'. It is even harder to delete a complete hard-drive, you certainly can't do it with one mistaken key-stroke.
Most computers have a 'rubbish bin' as a fail-safe and even if she deleted some or all of the files that only removes the SoF and EoF flags, the actual photodata is still there to be recovered by any technician at any time.
Did she sell the computer on?
Did she give it away?
Where did it get to?
Has anyone checked it?
She would have to REALLY work hard to completely destroy any pornography on that computer.
A secure wipe of the entire hard disk using military grade software might do it but she obviously didn't have access to that and it can take hours to complete. 
Clearly it is likely that none of this happened - whether or not the woman was a victim of abuse, she was fantasising or embroidering about this event.

Then Salter admits that;

Half of the sample who answered the question on disclosure first verbally disclosed in
adulthood, however, no participant reported any charges being laid as a result of their reports.

The phrase 'no participant reported any charges being laid as a result of their reports means that, for whatever reason, there has not been any validation of allegations in the sample by police or in the courts.

This fact further draws into question the words of the respondents as evidence. No other forensic evidence is there to confirm what they are saying. Yet Salter treats their stories as though gospel.

  How, for example, could Salter conclude:
Despite significant improvements in knowledge and responses to child sexual abuse, ignorance of organised abuse remains an entrenched global phenomenon. The ignorance that contextualised survey responses were not mere absences of knowledge. Instead, identifiable zones of ignorance and practices of ignorance production could be surmised from survivor experiences.'

Clearly there has been no such evidence, no such logic, and no such definition to support his imagined 'zones of ignorance'.  His conclusions are a confusing mix of psychobabble. Does he know what he's talking about or is he surrounding simple concepts with hyperbole?

What Salter appears to be saying here is that survivors sories aren't believed. Well, the reason for that is not because of any idiotic 'Zones of ignorance' which he has invented, but rather because many of them will be lying to him.

Then Salter goes on to dig this in even further: 
The simultaneous denial of organised abuse by victims, perpetrators and bystanders suggests that the antiepistemology of organised abuse is itself a dissociative structure, designed to delay and fragment recognition of organised abuse at the individual or collective level.'
Readers may be asking themselves what this means? 
It means that even if everyone involved in the abuse, perpetrators, bystanders and victims, says it never happened it did happen because they are all subjectively involved in a dissociative 'spell' which keeps things quiet but which only minds as powerful as Salter's and RAINS can penetrate.  

The fact is that there has never been a perpetrator or gang member who has broken ranks and informed on the group. No bodies or human remains or murder weapons or any other form of forensic evidence has ever been found in any SRA case.  In criminological annals that is absolutely unheard of and is one of the best bits of evidence to show that SRA DOES NOT exist.  It does not exist because it is a figment of the minds of victim-imposters. 

  Diving back into his turgid psychobabble Salter continues: 
'Indeed, as previously discussed, the disciplines of criminology, sociology and psychology contain within them multiple structures and discourses through which narratives of organised abuse have been constituted as “beyond belief” and indicative of false memories, moral panic and social contagion. Given the proliferation and popularity of such discourses, participants in this survey were entirely rational in their prediction that making a formal complaint as an adult would likely act as a provocation for further ignorance production.'

Interesting that Salter here uses 'Beyond Belief' the title of the discredited 1992 documentary which tried, and failed, to 'prove' that videos of Satanic Abuse existed.   The rest of this paragraph is utterly confused. This is what I think Salter is getting at:   

When anyone begins to ask questions and demand evidence from Self-identified Satanic Abuse victims they can immediately see that we are not playing their game and they will then refuse to communicate with us.

In SAFF experience this is because they know that anyone truly versed in the occult will be able to discredit their stories as fabrications within minutes.  Is that why Salter won't debate these issues with the SAFF?

Finally Salter comes to his unrelentingly complex selling point:
The first step to overcoming the legacies of ignorance production is the explicit
acknowledgement of organised abuse as a legitimate object of criminological knowledge,
research and action. This acknowledgement should address “negative knowledge”; that is
knowledge of “the limits of knowing, of the mistakes we make in trying to know, of the
things that interfere with our knowing, of what we are not interested in and do not really want to know’ (Cetina, 1999, p. 63). The pursuit of “negative knowledge” includes the explicit recognition that organised abuse has been bracketed out in the pursuit of other areas of inquiry into child sexual abuse, and that action is necessary to repatriate organised abuse as a knowable object of academic discourse and social concern.

What Salter is trying to establish here is intellectually fraudulent. He's trying to institute the idea that people who come to judge SRA are ignorant of the intricacies of how it all works and that it is completely different to 'ordinary' crime and thus most people cannot detect it and will refuse to believe it when presented with it.  Except 'specialists' like himself of course, and all the self-styled experts who believe in SRA that he associates with.  He fails to draw attention to the fact that the child-protection industry has been dissecting claims of SRA and chasing 'Organised Satanic Abusers' since 1987 and never found any. 

This excuse is as old as the hills in the history of SRA.  The truth is that, effectively, there is no no difference between 'ordinary' child abuse and claims of Satanic Child-abuse. Child-abuse is child-abuse. It is abhorrent. It all amounts to the same thing.  There is no Modus Operandi or Motive which is different in claimed SRA cases. 

The SAFF proved this with their 1991 report The Satanic Footprint. We analysed all then current claimed SRA cases to find a common-denominator. The result was clear, Satan Hunters were trying to find a single profile across cases to prove SRA which did NOT exist.       You can read it in full here:  but here's what it amounts to:

"...the details do appear to be very similar across the world. If children all over the world are giving you identical details of bizarre abuse either you have an international conspiracy of toddlers, which seems unlikely, or you have something rather more organised on an adult bais" - Tim Tate, Cook Report Researcher, Outlook Programme, World Service 19.9.89.
Tate was wrong.  The Satanic Footprint shows that the allegations that the children are supposedly making and the known cases DO NOT CO-INCIDE. The content is different. Pro-SRAMists are trying to shoehorn the horrors of child fantasies into cases which have no such indications or crimes.

In contradistinction to Salter's assurances, many people who come to test SRA are far more experienced and knowledgeable about the esoteric than he could possibly be.  Those who challenge it are NOT ignorant of the phenomenon he is trying to establish.   It just doesn't exist.

The difference between those who question and those who simply believe, relies solely upon the religious prejudices of the observer.  People who are religiously inclined and who believe in God will also believe in a Devil figure.  They may see Satan under every sofa. They will include him in their nightmares and their fantasies. Hyperreligiosity increases at times of social stress, the work of Norman Cohn and others proves this. Churches are more active when the concensus of the population shifts away from scientific materialism as it did in the lead up to the Millennium. Vulnerable minds grasp for someone or something to blame for evil in the world.   Feminist therapists seek examples of 'the ultimate male rapist' in the fantasies of mental patients whose outpourrings confabulate to give the therapist what she wants.  Kaboom! Satanic Abuse is born.

Do not believe what Salter is telling you. It is thoroughly and wholly wrong. 

Multiple abusers are a well-known phenomenon. Nobody wants to 'un-know ' them, that suggestion is trite, we want to catch them and bang them up.   Things that interfere with knowledge are untruths and a lack of clarity in language - precisely what Salter is offering us!   Organised Abuse has been a 'knowable object of academic discourse and social concern' for 34 years, long before Salter was involved in trying to prove it.  Salter is trying to reinvent the wheel in the hope that British Journal of Criminology readers will believe him.  

Any student of Criminology or qualified Criminologist who swallows Salter's improperganda should find another profession lest more injustices occur through 'Zones of ignorance' when analysing 'antiepistemology of organised abuse'. Because it's long-hand for Witch-Hunt.

Salter's full article, for what it is worth, can be downloaded from here:

The British Journal of Criminology is the house journal of  the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. You can tell the editors what you think of them having the gall to publishing Salter's work and how it is likely to generate injustice not justice, by tweeting them on @CrimeandJustice 

By John Freedom & Tony Rhodes
Summer Solstice 2022

We want this website to represent a fair cross-section of opinion. Would you like to add more Information, Observations, Personal Experience, Criticisms or Corrections to SAFF files and publications?  Reach us at