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.
ORIGINS
OF THE TERM 'ORGANISED ABUSE'
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
Abuse'.
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:
THE
DANGERS POSED TO CHILDREN
IF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
ALLOW THE TERM
'RITUAL ABUSE'
TO BE INCORPORATED
WITHIN PROPOSED NEW
WORKING TOGETHER
GUIDELINES
FOR SOCIAL WORKERS
Full copies of this paper can be seen here:
http://saff.nfshost.com/organisedabusepresentationtodepartmentofhealth1998.pdf
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 http://saff.nfshost.com/reachout.htm
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 ( http://saff.nfshost.com/rochdale.htm
)and the false Orkney SRA case (
http://saff.nfshost.com/orkney.htm ) 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. ( http://saff.nfshost.com/nspcc.htm
)
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 - http://saff.nfshost.com/fontaine.htm
) 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...
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?
 Despite 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.'
 Impressive. 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.
 I would
like Mike Salter to view this 2006 documentary by
Fiona Bruce for the BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OVyAPrHNWA
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.
 One 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.
 The 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: http://saff.nfshost.com/nspcc.htm
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 less. Salter'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.
 When 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; http://saff.nfshost.com/satanseminar2009.htm
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:
https://greyfaction.org/resources/proponents/salter-michael-i/
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:
http://saff.nfshost.com/eyefelsteadmyers.htm
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: http://www.bfms.org.uk
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: http://saff.nfshost.com/bcamp.htm
and here: http://saff.nfshost.com/shieldfl.htm
 Mike 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'
 Sometime 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 BASPCAN. BASPCAN 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 http://saff.nfshost.com/sickvics.htm
and here
http://saff.nfshost.com/blackmus2.htm
made the mainstream media sit up and take notice
resulting in a series of documentaries and articles
on the problem.
 The 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.
 '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.
 The 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'
 The 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: http://saff.nfshost.com/organisedabusepresentationtodepartmentofhealth1998.pdf
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
. and they found 10,000
victims in the Rotherham area alone.
 Abuse 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
ORGANISED ABUSE FOUND SO FAR.
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]
 But
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.
 Even 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.
 Absolute
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 ( http://saff.nfshost.com/reachout.htm
) 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 : http://saff.nfshost.com/devilvid.htm
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.
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.
 Aware 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.
 You 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: http://saff.nfshost.com/broxtowe.htm
) 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37FlWtg0Kzo
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 http://saff.nfshost.com/broxtowe.htm
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: : http://saff.nfshost.com/devilreport.htm
 It 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.
 Experience 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'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.
 It 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.
 As 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. ( https://floridaactioncommittee.org/about-half-of-rape-allegations-are-false-research-shows/
)
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 ( https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=2216&context=llr
)
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.
 Although 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: http://saff.nfshost.com/rans.htm
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:
http://saff.nfshost.com/DIDpsychiatricvoodoo.htm
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
 The 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: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_1_6.htm
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: http://saff.nfshost.com/rikkineave.htm
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: http://saff.nfshost.com/DIDpsychiatricvoodoo.htm#estd
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.
 Oude 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:
https://ritualabuse.us/smart/michael-salter/
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: https://greyfaction.org/resources/proponents/brick-neil/
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 http://saff.nfshost.com/devilvid.htm
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:
http://saff.nfshost.com/footprin.htm
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: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358044669_The_antiepistemology_of_organised_abuse_Ignorance_exploitation_inaction
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
Mortlake,
Summer Solstice 2022
|
