'Darren' admits his allegations were fantasies!

SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE

Brief Recent History - Part 1

By Dr Joan Coleman 

Legal Cases

Despite frequent claims that there has never been any evidence of satanic crime and that no cases have been convicted, this is far from the truth. This article was compiled in 1998 since then, there is less scepticism and more organisations supporting therapists and survivors. Even though in the 1990s the (DoH) Department of Health in England released a dimissive book entitled Speak of the Devil: Tales of Satanic Abuse in Contempory England published in 1998 by Cambride University Press in an attempt to undermine and quash any belief in the existence of ritual abuse. Ritual abuse has been going on for centuries. Shockingly though it may seem, it has been reported that many prominent and influential people are involved in such activities......

........Many survivors have provided names of abusers. Often they have clear and consistent memories to back these claims. Some of these are prominent in their professions. The disclosure of these names could be an embarrassment to any government and it is infinitely more convenient to deny the existence of such abuse....

......Some courageous journalists such as Tim Tate, Bea Campbell, Sarah Nelson and Jean Rafferty have tried to expose ritual abuse, but they are a minority. ........

So here we have Coleman, in at the start of the 1990 Satan Scare trafficking with internet loonies and inferring that their is some substance to their manic belief that people in powerful places who control our society are part of a paedophile network.  Presumably anyone who reads this and asks for more proof will be sent the RAINS Satanic Abuse VIP Suspects List?

Note well her acknowledgement of Tim Tate, Beatrix Campbell, Sarah Nelson etc.

The article then goes on to include a Satanic Festival Dates calendar (completely and utterly fictitious as it was complied by American fundamentalists to be able to designate any crime as a Satanic crime) and libelously defames a dozen or so academics, who have in the past ridiculed the idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Read about the Gang of Five who have spent 30 years perpetuating a myth.

Tim Tate, the SRA lobby's friend in the Media

Is Tate still chatting to the police?

as late as 2013/14  he was meeting with and had input into  Operation Fairbank/Fernbridge.

• The media man who first 'broke' the Satanic Ritual Child Abuse scare in the U.K.,
• Whose own book on the subject was withdrawn and pulped for libelous inaccuracies,
• Whose twenty claimed cases of SRA in the Cook Report all failed, 
• Who trafficked with extremist Christian fundamentalist agitators
• Who worked with, and lectured at RAINS Satan Seminars, leaders of which compiled the RAINS Satanic Abuse VIP Suspects List  shown here
  
• Who regularly writes for Needleblog, the counterpart to ExaroNews which obsesses about Westminster VIP paedophiles and includes comments from many lunatic conspiracy theorists..... 

On 17 July 1989 - prompted by the Cook Report programme detailing evidence of a number of such cases - the NSPCC issued its first public statement of the problem.  (pp268)

"The report found that social workers used 'interrogation pressure' to make the children believe they had been involved in satanic rites... the method was described as a 'typical psychological ploy to induce confession' which actually worsened the children's emotional upset....After three months of 'therapy' one girl alleged acts of cannibalism and claimed to have seen seven murders. But she later admitted fabricating the story under pressure..."

"You ask if I am still happy with the term 'Satanic Ritual Abuse'. The answer is yes: for your enlightenment I refer you to my letter in the Guardian of 22 February 1991 detailing six successful prosecutions in Britain and to my forthcoming book 'Children for The Devil' due to be published in August"

 

On 19th June 1990, Jean Ritchie (author of many books on crime and the psychology of crime) wrote for information for a new book she had been commissioned to write. This was how her letter went.

I initially made contact with Tim Tate (I did not see the Cook Report, but had heard about it and was referred by their office to Tim Tate.) He agreed to see me, and gave me several names connected with two religions, paganism and satanism. He explained to me that there had been a problem with the programme, in that it did not differentiate between the two sufficiently. 

 

The Feminist Connection: Information you will find nowhere else but here:

"Suppose 5% of the adult population over 16 have a childhood history of sexual abuse. Suppose only one in ten of these abused people experienced SRA. In the adult greater Edinburgh population of about 333,000, more than 1650 people would have been involved in SRA,"

A CHILD'S SKULL HAS BEEN FOUND!  The Jersey Satanic Ritual Abuse Case: Lenny Harper, Sarah Nelson and the Satan Hunters of Haut de la Garenne. 2008 was a busy year for believers in Satanic Ritual Abuse.  Late in 2007 Deputy Jersey Police chief Lenny Harper had inaugurated an investigation into allegations of mass child abuse at the Haut de La Garenne childrens' home in Jersey. By early 2008 a succession of sensational 'finds' had occurred including 'torture chambers', metal 'restraint' cuffs, underground cells, 'immersion baths' and, most heinous of all, in February 2008  the now infamous 'child's skull',  reported in sensational terms by the hysterical British Media ( see Guardian report above  right)   Just a week or so later on 4th March 2008 Sarah Nelson pro-actively contacted  Lenny Harper to offer her 'expertise' on Ritual Abuse. She gave him further suggestions as to where he might look for 'evidence' of it in the case, including trawling psychiatric hospitals for 'victims'. In a follow up email on 21st May, Nelson provided Harper with biased,  misleading and pejorative information about a number of highly-regarded journalists who had at one time or another published articles denying the existence of Ritualised Abuse. Nelson took it upon herself to blacken the work of these top-level journalists and denigrate their hunt for the truth. In the process she encouraged Harper in his suspicions that ritual abuse had occurred at Haut de la Garenne.  Amongst other things she stated that  'Richard Webster, author and Bob Woffinden investigative journalist are very well known apologists for accused adults who have spent many years rubbishing allegations of sexual abuse and accusing adult survivors of doing it for the money and of being criminals and psychiatric cases.' .... Nelson then went on to accuse Bob Woffinden of orchestrating personal attacks on herself in Private Eye magazine. Not content with this litany of bias, she then criticised award winning journalist David Rose for 'specialising in claiming that allegations are witch-hunts and moral panics'.  What Nelson did not do was admit that the writings of these people had been tested and found truthful and factual in every instance. In writing to Harper was it Nelson's intention to   focus his mind on the conspiracy of ritual and satanic abuse which she believes exists and to devalue the work and opinions of those who have found that it is all a myth?  Well yes. This is how she put it:  'Webster and Woffinden are part of what we would call the 'flying circus' who go round every single case trying to rubbish it or appear as so-called expert witnesses." The Haut de la Garenne case had quickly turned into another phantom sex abuse scandal. It was initially seized upon by the usual players in the Child-Scare-industry and hyped for all it was worth as being THE case which would vindicate their 25 year failed accusations.   When the hysteria died down, the lack of hard evidence brought into question the professionalism of the police running the investigation and, as always happens, the battle lines were then drawn in a PR war between those whose had believed and those who saw that it was all bunkum. We at the SAFF have seen this procedure played out in every single case in which allegations of ritual or satanic abuse have featured over the past 30 years. They all descend into a vehicle to protect the initial mistakes made by professionals who inaugurated the case.  To do that they have to insist, against all realities, that the first (false) claims of Satanic or Ritual Abuse were true, but, as time and our detailed  expose of the Haut de la Garenne case here shows, it was just another false case of SRA There is no doubt that  Lenny Harper considered Nelson's 'input' because he quoted her in his long affidavit for the subsequent Jersey Inquiry which heavily criticised the way he handled the HDLG case.  However the main point we are making is this.  Harper was an accomplished and experienced policeman. His investigation into HDLG should have been on the simple facts, but here we are at the start of the case, finding Nelson, with her career-long history of links with RAINS and other key believers in Satanic Ritual Abuse, trying to influence and offer 'expert' support to a policeman under pressure to confirm a belief in Satanic Ritual Abuse.   Here you see this normally hidden process working in all its clarity.

Campbell's background:

"What's clear is that there is an assumption right through which leads eventually to the killing of the child"

"Yet there has been remarkably little curiosity about this crusade to stifle professional debate. Judith Dawson is the child protection consultant who was involved in Britain's first satanic abuse case in Nottingham, which, despite its success in the courts in 1989, has been the object of a critical crusade. She says: 'Never in my career have I been subjected to such an organised and personal campaign of disinformation and discrediting, by occult groups, supported by advocates of paedophilia, and given authority by academics who are so disrespectful of carers and specialists struggling with this problem."

Beatrix Campbell and Tom Watson MP

which may indicate that Beatrix was already in contact with Watson and lending a hand.  

She was also given an unprecedented opportunity to defend Watson on BBC News. In both instances there was no mention of Satanic Ritual Child Abuse which both RAINS and Campbell still insist exists. 

But just five days later Watson was called to explain his actions in front of the Commons Home Affairs Committee and suddenly was less bullish.  At last he bowed to the inevitable and  officially apologised to Leon Brittan's widow for calling her dying husband

 "As close to evil as any man can get".

when there was no evidence to suggest he had done anything wrong.  Disappointingly Watson tried to squirm out of a full apology by blaming the quote on a 'survivor' who had said it to him! Of course the fact that ALL of the many serious allegations about the Westminster VIP paedophile ring which Watson had made in the media over the past year were from self-styled survivors whose words and allegations which he repeated without apparently ever bothering to check or challenge, seemed lost on the crusading Labour MP. In a bid to protect himself Watson had in fact brought into question  all of the survivors' stories he used to smear the Tories in the lead up to the general election.

So much for Beatrix Campbell's efforts to justify Watson's statements and actions.

Campbell's influence in the uber-feminist world is undoubted but her actions and effects in the allegations of Satanic Abuse are not so well known. The SAFF outlined some of them here:
 http://saff.nfshost.com/bcamp.htm

 and here: http://saff.nfshost.com/jjones.htm  .

Conclusions:

The Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth and the Westminster VIP paedophile ring myth will never go away because after 30 years of them conspiring to create it there is now a very large caucus of believers within social work and the social sciences. All of these people have now enmeshed their careers with this new industry of SRA victimhood.  The government should have seized the opportunity to discredit these people professionally in 1994 when their definitive report came out but instead the weakness of the liberal-elite allowed them to work unhindred behind the scenes. Actually gave them grants and money to do it.  Now the weight of their demands and their interference is so great it is not now possible for them to be erradicated from modern society.   Their propaganda is irreversible and has in fact won the war.   It will continue to infect our society for decades.   But is that a surprise?   Don't we all still remember today that Herod ordered the slaughter of all children in Bethlehem?

The truth is that these campaigners have spent 30 years hunting down supposedly abusing satanists and found nothing.  Their activity and propaganda in the media is frequent and influential. Their advocacy has convinced millions of people across the world.  Hundreds of thousands of feminists and social workers, thousands of doctors and teachers, hundreds of policemen and thousands of Christian fundamentalists across the world have been on the lookout for any slight instance of Satanic Ritual Abuse FOR THIRTY YEARS.  During this period we have had childrens' home abuse,  paedophile ring abuse, celebrity abuse,  Asian gangs abuse, trafficked sex-slaves abuse and have also uncovered the most extensive network of thousands of abusing priests -  yet there has not been even ONE case in thirty years where RAINS' SRA allegations have come true or been substantiated.

And could it be that the thing which is most responsible for creating this quagmire is not the ideology of the crusading feminists, or the crusading fundamentalists, or the crusading media, or the crusading child charities but the simple fact that IT PAYS.  Money on the backs of other peoples' suffering.  That is certainly the case in the instance of ambulance-chasing lawyers who help historical abuse victims' get compensation yet whose disbursement bills are larger than what the victim gets. And those conference lecturers who speak on SRA (going to listen to their rot can set you back £400.00 pounds a day.) 

As the SAFF has pointed out many times before. The only thing which will stop these people from expanding their empire is the removal of professional indemnity for malpractice by Hospitals, professional associations and unions.  If each one of these troublemakers were legally accountable there would be some rationality. As it is they can do and say almost anything they like; create a scandal which ruins the lives of others and are never brought to book over it.  If they are brought to court their costs and damage payments are covered by the indemnities. They pay nothing themselves.  Ten years down the line the Hospital or Council they worked for pays YOUR money over to the victims in damages, further denuding strapped-for-cash authorities.

Those who perpetrate the damage just move on to cause more trouble; because they can.  Those who campaign to bring Satanists to account are themselves unaccountable.



By Tony Rhodes and John Freedom: Samhain 2015

--------------------

"Pathological lying, also called pseudologia fantastica and mythomania,  and closely related to compulsive lying, was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck. Pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view. It may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime". The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies."  Wikipedia

-------------------------------------------------------

STOP PRESS:  The latest surprise in the continuing conspiracy to undermine our democracy occurred before we had chance to finish this article: Here it is:

The farce continues as the British People suck it in: Watch this space!

---

Tim Tate and The Paedophile Information Exchange List

A few days after this SAFF webpage on Panorama was published Tim Tate added to his personal Blog his most powerful evidence yet to convince observers (and his loyal supporters in the conspiracy theory melee) of the existence of a ring of abusers within Westminster. 

Switching from his recent childish obsession in trying to discredit David Aaronovitch's professionalism he at last, most probably in response to the SAFF's complaints about his trafficking with the police (above) , begins to justify his 30 year stance with news that he had secret information on PIE going back to 1987. 

The first question to ask of course is "Why didn't he reveal this earlier?"

And the second is;

 "If he knew all this in 1987 why did he spend the next 20 years chasing mythical Satanic abusers?"

 To the outsider Tate's detailed rendition of The PIE list appears convincing and , at last, concrete evidence of the fact that the authorities turned a blind eye to child-abuse. Yet observers may not be as experienced in detecting Tate's slick misdirections, learned from his  years demonising people on the Cook Report. 

You can read Tate's full evidence in his blog here:  

Our response is this:

(1) PIE existed: Nobody is desputing that an organisation called PIE (The Paedophile Information Exchange) existed, nor that some of those involved in it were close to the Westminster Clique - we underlined as much in our timeline of Geoffrey Dickens campaign to highlight it in our webpage here.

Nor do we disagree that in those far-off days child-protection was not considered a priority by police or politicians.  The law itself which Tate assiduously avoids a discussion about, was highly ambivalent.  It was not a great crime then to possess child pornography,  but it was illegal to be involved in the abuse which produced and distributed it.  Indeed with the advent of the distribution of kiddie-porn on the Internet the government  updated the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it illegal to possess child pornography as well as produce it.

The distinction between production and possession was difficult to prove unless the perpetrator was actually in the pictures. This is why, in his open response to Dickens' formal questions to the Home Office about Sir Peter Hayman's possession of child-pornography Leon Brittan wrote on 20th March 1984:

"I should explain that, whilst the importation of indecent or obscene articles is prohibited, a criminal offence only arises when there is a deliberate attempt to evade prohibition. Customs and Excise policy with regard to cases such as those involving indecent or obscene articles depicting children in sexual situations is to institute criminal proceedings where there is sufficient evidence. There have been at least six such prosecutions in 1983 all successful, some of which were against people in responsible positions. If, however, there is not sufficient evidence, they confine their actions to seizure of the articles concerned.  That most often is the case with postal Importation; simply to be the addressee of a postal package is not evidence of an offence.  This is what happened in the case referred to by your correspondent where customs seized and destroyed the photographs and slides but did not have the necessary evidence to prosecute."

Undoubtedly people who today would have been sent to prison then weren't. But ignoring the actions of people working under the unenlightened prespective of those days is a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding.

(2) PIE was not a secret organisation: Despite Tate's intrigue PIE was not an elite secret organisation hiding away in the shadows.  Tate fails to mention that it was overtly political and made attempts to get the homosexual age of consent in line with the age of consent for heterosexuals.   At the time liberal-elite politicians from all sides (and yes, probably many of them were homosexuals) gave PIE credence.  Certainly one leftist London Borough gave them funding and lesser politicians, including some women were supportive of some of their intentions.

Of course at the time many other politicians disagreed with what PIE was doing including Barbara Castle.  During PIE's hayday in the early 1980s she claimed that she knew of 16 politicians who were

'sympathetic to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE)'. source

Today of course the word 'sympathetic' would be seen as dynamite and taken to be evidence of involvement in paedophillia ( indeed that was what happened as you can see by the link) , but in the early 1980s it meant  'politically supportive'.  Even the word Paedophile did not have the dastardly connotations of today but rather was defined as a little known psychological syndrome; which is why a clique of homosexuals with paedophilic tendencies chose the name for their pressure group.  

In 1983 Geoffrey Dickens threatened to 'name names' connected with PIE and said:

'eight public figures were on his list of shame and one of them had been a personal friend' 

Presumably referring to someone he knew from Parliament.  Today this is taken to be evidence that MPs were actually abusing children but as we have pointed out some members of the liberal-elite supported the attempt by PIE to reduce the age of consent for gay sex to that of heterosexual sex.  Bound up in PIE was a push for equal homosexual rights.

Were some politicians of the time gay? YES of course.
Did they hide their homosexuality and have clandestine sex? 
Yes; because for years before the legalisation of homosexuality casual, secret, anonymous, no-questions-asked sex was the only way they could follow their natural proclivities.
Does being a homosexual mean you have an urge to sexually abuse children?
Obviously not.

So of what does the PIE list actually consist?  How many of the people on it were users of child pornography or abusers of children and how many were homosexuals wanting equal rights? 


(3) How reliable is the  PIE list:

Tate's inferences are multitudinous.  He writes:

There are no recognizable politicians’ names on the list.

 Is he claiming that politicians ARE on the list but were using pseudonyms?

Tate  goes on to state that spy Geoffrey Prime who was 'rumoured to be a member of PIE' was not on the list.  Was Prime then a member at all?  Is Tate suggesting that the absence of his name is proof that he is on the list?  If not why mention Prime? 

Is Tate saying Prime used a pseudonym or is Tate admitting that the list is unreliable? 

Firstly we are lead to believe that many of the names are pseudonyms; then that some are real names;  then Tate says no politicians names are included and, most strange of all, that Sir Peter Hayman's name ( who we know from the October 1980 Old Bailey committal proceedings WAS a member of PIE ) was not on the original PIE list but written onto it afterwards.

You will see from SAFF research here that in relation to PIE Hayman used the pseudonym R Henderson.  Was R Henderson on the original list?  

Tate explains that the original list had 1,000 names but that:

The original full register was, in those pre-computer days, cut up and parceled to several police forces. This remaining list – the only one, to my knowledge, still in existence – is the result of that process.

Tate makes Scotland Yard look like fools.  They may not have had computers Tim, but they certainly had photo-copiers in almost every office. Is Tate really suggesting that the police cut up the original PIE membership list (crucial evidence) and pasted it on paper to suit the geographic needs of various police forces?   Absurd. A photocopy of the original list may have been distributed and local police forces may have cut and pasted those addresses under their jurisdiction. Tate obviously has access to one of those.

Tate mentions none of this, though he does admit that " Four of the members were women.". He has the list in front of him yet what he doesn't do is tell us whether any of these women were known politicians.

Tate also acknowledges that because of the 'public' nature of PIE other people were on the membership list who weren't paedophiles. 

"There are three University academics, two in the UK: one, Ken Plummer of Essex University, said last year that he had only joined PIE to facilitate his research. "

Now it is not the SAFF's job to protect or apologise for paedophiles.  Anyone abusing children is a pariah who should be prosecuted and sent to prison. What we are attempting to do is to show how Scare Illogic works in producing apocryphal rumour and contort the truth.


(3) PIE was first exposed by Private Eye in 1980:  Tate writes about his list in whodunit style as though he was instrumental in exposing something secret but as our timeline here shows the PIE + Hayman scandal was exposed to public scruitiny by Private Eye magazine in November 1980.  The public knew all about PIE in 1980.  By the time Tate became involved, six years later, the controversy had abated. 

As usual Tates makes a meal of interpreting facts to suit himself.

Watch this space!

The Hidden Political intentions you Need to Know

"THE POLITICS OF GENDER:  Or how feminists plan to create a scare which brands all male authorities as rapists to bring down a patriarchal government Otherwise known as the Westminster Paedo Allegations: With the added frisson of the truth about why Butler-Sloss was hounded out of the Government Child Abuse Inquiry.

........................ Following the publication of the Cleveland Butler Sloss report in 1988, public meetings were held which included journalist Beatrix Campbell and the disgraced professionals. Campbell had taken a stand of supporting the professionals early on in the scandal in 1987. Rallying to their cause, she had monitored the inquiry and published the first edition of her book Unofficial Secrets on publication of the report ( which basically attempted to repudiate the entire inquiry.) As a feminist Marxist who frequently wrote for the Guardian, Campbell was an influential propagandist with a large following among left-leaning welfare professionals. Her platform throughout the Cleveland saga and beyond, was not the traditional class warfare but the new politics of gender. This became translated into a theory where men were substituted for the capitalist ruling class as the oppressors with women and children their captives. In this world vision sexual abuse was posited as a universal means of control of women and children (with boys as well as girls abused by their fathers as a method of induction into patriarchy). This perversion of dogma was not new. It had begun in the 1970s and became closely aligned with what would come to be known as "repressed memory" theory. This methodology of abuse "disclosure" became linked with the family dysfunction model of child sexual abuse that had taken root in the UK in the early 1980s at Great Ormond St Hospital, the Tavistock Clinic and the NSPCC. ........  (source: http://saff.nfshost.com/shieldfl.htm)

The venom of the long distance Satanic Accuser?

SAFF experience shows that believers in SRA can become exceedingly bitter when challenged. There have been instances when Tate has remonstrated with his fellow journalists.  His professional pique at Mark Watts at Exaro News being the latest example here . 

One of the first journalists to question the SRA myth in 1989 was Rosie Waterhouse, now professor of journalism at the LSE.  Her work over the years in puncturing the SRA lies involved querying a lot of Tate's conclusions and there followed a number of clashes in print.  Tate's book 'Children for the Devil' was compiled from the research he did into SRA for the Cook Report and as he was at the centre of the cyclone everyone expected to find incontrovertible proof of his SRA allegations in there.

Unfortunately the book was ill-conceived and ill-fated. It met a hail of derision and was eventually pulped because of libelous inaccuracies 

Ms Waterhouse's review of Tate's 'Children for The Devil' in the New Statesmen undermines his research and reveals that many of Tate's SRA allegations are suspect. We reprint it here:

Witch Hunt:

Children for the Devil: Ritual Abuse and Satanic Crime: Tim Tate (Methuen, 16.99)

By Rosie Waterhouse 

In September 1987, Tim Tate, a journalist researching a book on child pornography, was first introduced to the notion that a worldwide network of Satanists was sexually abusing children, breeding babies for sacrifice and sometimes eating them during depraved black-magic rituals. He was sent literature from the US, where stories were beginning to circulate that a phenomenon called Satanic or ritual abuse ; was rife. Tate, then a researcher for Central Television's Cook Report, began working on a film and his next book.

Since then, the Satanic abuse scare has come to Britain. Tate's role in spreading it is not insignificant. He was active behind the scenes, helping social workers in Nottingham, where one of the earliest full scale panics began.

There have been other sensational investigations, most notably in  Rochdale and the Orkney Islands. But, so  far, police have found no evidence. Spelling it out on radio in March this year, Sir John Woodcock, chief inspector of constabulary, said:

 "Police have no evidence of rituals or Satanic abuse inflicted on children anywhere in England and Wales. A lot of well-intentioned hype has got out of control."

Tate's latest book, Children for the Devil, is positively dangerous hype, which he is about to peddle on the conference circuit to unsuspecting social workers and other child-care professionals, frightened of remaining ignorant of a supposed new form of child abuse.

Tate claims to have succeeded, where police forces in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain have failed, in finding evidence of Satanic abuse. He claims it is "abundant and convincing" and that it is revealed in his book.

There is not one shred of the physical, concrete, corroborative sort of evidence that stands up in court. Apart from its historical research, the book contains nothing new. It is largely a rehash of The Devils Work, the Cook Report of two years ago that was criticised by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and panned by critics as "tabloid television".

Tate has been promising me for months that the book would reveal six proven court cases of Satanic or ritual abuse in Britain. I thought it would be worth reading for these cases alone. But I was astonished to find that just eight pages were devoted to these potentially important revelations.

It soon became obvious why. In each case, the police, prosecuting lawyers or judge decided that the Satanism or rituals were a pretence, "a mere trick", as Tate puts it, used by sex offenders to frighten their victims into silence or submission. I'm amazed that the publishers fell for it: eight pages that destroy his own thesis.

Tate devotes much more space to the Nottingham affair: an indisputably vile case of incest, in which ten adults were jailed for sexually abusing 23 children from one extended family. He quotes from ` the diaries written by their foster mothers, based on things the children said. They were clearly describing unspeakable acts; but these acts also appeared to have an occult context. But, as a confidential report on the Nottingham case reveals, the children began talking of witches, snakes, babies and blood only after they were given such toys as witches' costumes, snakes, dolls and syringes to play with during therapy with social workers from the NSPCC.

Tate states that the children's stories were corroborated by three older members of the family. Again, the Nottingham report said that two of them retracted their stories, and that all three "have been found to be lying in every respect that could actually be checked".  According to the report, social workers had inadvertently led the children into making disclosures with leading questions.

Tate is very knowledgeable about historic witch hunts. At first sight, the research is impressive, but he has been cunningly selective, especially in his use of witness "evidence" gained through torture during the witch trials of the 15th and 16th centuries. For instance, he quotes from records showing that a rich Frenchman, Gilles de Rais, admitted murdering 800 children in devil-worshipping ceremonies. He does not mention that two servants were tortured into making allegations against him; nor that his inquisitors offered him the choice of death by being burned alive at the stake or, if he confessed, the "mercy" of being strangled first. '

The book quotes from the autobiography of Magdalein Bavent, a "Satanist nun" who confessed to all manner of atrocities, including eating children. Tate omits the fact that she also claimed to have had sex with a ghost, that she was raped by the Devil in the form of a black cat, saw blood trickling from a holy wafer and consorted with half human demons.

It would take a tome twice as long as Tate's to give the full story behind his historic "evidence".

Tate attacks police officers for their incompetence, judges for their blindness, lawyers for twisting evidence, and journalists for ignoring it.

The accusations and snide innuendo he reserves for me, because of my sceptical articles in the Independent an Sunday, are defamatory, misleading and false. For the record: I left the Sunday Times on a point of principle that would be lost on a journalist such as Tim Tate; for most of the time I worked on the Insight team, not under a by-line, so he could not possibly know what I produced there; and I have never appeared on a television chat show. l wonder how many he will be appearing on to sell his book?

New Statesman: pp36: 6th September 1991

The 1990 Satan Hunters and their links to The UK Child Sexual Abuse People's Tribunal  (UKCSAPT) The grandiose-sounding UKCSAPT  represents itself as an authoritative body set up to care for people who claim to be 'survivors' of sexual abuse in the U.K. but is in fact yet another vehicle for the clique of therapists, journalists, feminists, fundamentalists and lobby groups which created the Satan Scare of the 1990s. UKCSAPT was inaugurated following the tsunami of publicity over the Westminster VIP paedo, and Celebrity Abuse allegations which began in 2011. Hidden Agenda If you read theUKCSAPT website there is hardly any mention of Satanic Ritual Abuse but don't let that fool you - their first 'paper' on the state of child-protection in the U.K. which extended to 36 pages actually contained 32 mentions of SRA!  See here:   UKCSAPT's  intent  is undoubtedly to attenuate the government's own Goddard Inquiry into historic abuse and gain more control over the direction of child-protection in the U.K. so Satan Hunters can pursue their fanatical feminist pogroms against Men and the Nuclear Family.   The links between the 'old crowd' of Satan Hunters and UKCSAPT is clear and we will reveal them below, however , is it their stated intention to undermine, manipulate or replace the National Independent Inquiry Into Organised Child Abuse (IICSA) ? "UKCSAPT is a unique volunteer-based attempt to examine cases of institutional child sex abuse.  It runs in parallel (and in some contrast) to the official enquiry led by Justice Lowell Goddard: it has none of that body’s inquisitorial powers, nor its vast budget. But it is nonetheless carefully organised on sound legal principles and has the benefit of expert advice from a reputable firm of solicitors. Its panel of judges include a former UN War Crimes prosecutor and a highly experienced clinical psychologist specialising in child protection. Their findings will, in time, be presented to the Home Secretary."  Source: Is it UKCSAPT plan to bypass Lowell Goddard's Inquiry with a spoiler report of it's own? History Repeats Itself That's more or less what the Satan Hunters did in 1994 when the government published the La Fontaine Report on the 1990 SRA scare.   Valerie Sinason, founder member of RAINS obtained a commission and £20,000.00 from the Department of Health to look into SRA and eventually wrote a research paper so worthless that it has never been published for public gaze.  (see full story here) However her biased conclusions prejudiced towards the existence of SRA by years of prior campaigning found, surprise, surprise, that SRA was 'real'. Those conclusions were published and recycled ad infinitum by the Satan Hunter clique and gullible media to smother the government's definitive report which said that SRA did not exist. It must have worked, because even though the official conclusion then was that SRA was a figment of the imagination of activists in social work here we are  22 years later with thousands more therapists on the SRA bandwagon and another vastly more expensive and more extensive Goddard Inquiry looking into it again!  SRA extremists who fooled the Met The legal advisor to the steering committee of UKCSAPT is  Alan Collins a director of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers (ACAL). ACAL was started by Lee Moore, an ex-barrister who claims to have herself been satanically abused.  It was Lee Moore who organised the first Satan Seminars for police in the Met. along with then DI Peter Spindler who a short time later went on to head Operation Yewtree which more or less hyper-ventilated the British Press about Jimmy Savile and other celebrities many of whom were falsely accused of abuse and later exonerated. In May 2005 Lee Moore wrote a detailed article about her own supposed Satanic Abuse for Community Care, a magazine for social workers which played a major part in spreading the lies about the 1990 SRA myth.  The article's hysterical tone is immediately apparent: "These are familiar dynamics to me for I was raised by individuals who practised satanic rituals, which entailed the killing, torture and sacrifice of human and animal life. Silence was crucial to avoid criminal convictions. I have no proof of my experiences. I have no witnesses to the atrocities I suffered, save for the perpetrators who will never disclose and children who were tortured with me. Some of those children are now dead. Others do not enquire into the reasons for their troubled and joyless lives. ... ...So there was no one there to help me on the numerous occasions when, as a child, my ankles were tied with rope and I was hung upside down from large hooks; nor when I was compelled to ingest bodily fluids and substances and forced to take part in acts of bestiality; nor to release me when I was buried alive in coffins with snakes slithering over me." The idea that anyone who underwent such horrible experiences could (a) not remember any of it for 12 years until Moore was 'therapised' following a breakdown and (b) not be able to recall any single thing which would give police a lead on hunting down her claimed attackers, is absolute nonsense. Are these now the standards by which all other 'survivors' are judged in UKCSAPT ?   In June 2015 following the uproar over the Hampstead Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations, ( a case of alleged SRA which turned out to be provably false and which was ruled on by Justice Pauffley), one of those making the allegations  did a bunk to Europe to escape the legal ramifications of her lies.   Private Eye magazine (issue 1395) carried an article connected with this and lambasted ACAL and it's leaders. "  But the total lack of physical evidence does not deter the compensation chasers. At a child abuse training day in London last week run by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, delegates were told that satanic abuse was a reality. Barrister Lee Moore – a self-proclaimed satanic abuse survivor – and solicitor Peter Garsden, who are respectively the past and current president of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, “kept going on about satanic ritual abuse”, according to a barrister who was present.     “Lee Moore got quite agitated when one social work expert who was presenting a paper, Dr Bernard Gallagher from Huddersfield University, politely pointed out that these days no one believes in satanic abuse,” the barrister told the Eye. She went on: “Peter Garsden told the assembled band of lawyers that SRA was prevalent and would be accepted as such, ‘given time’. Garsden is the senior partner of the Cheshire-based Quality Solicitors Abney Garsden. In a controversial blog in October 2014, he declared his belief in the existence of satanic abuse. “My own belief is that there are several hidden societies in England and Wales which practise ritualistic abuse to the present day, which includes the sacrifice of children… It will be interesting to look back at this blog in years to come, when maybe there have been a glut of satanic abuse prosecutions in this country, and we have uncovered secret societies operating right under our noses… the broadmindedness of the police appears to be limitless, which is gratifying… watch this space.” I wouldn't hold your breath Garsden.  So far the people who started the SRA myth have been hunting Satanic Ritual Abusers full-tilt for nearly 30 years and have failed to find even ONE case of SRA to prove their allegations. Collins and the Jersey SRA non-event. ACAL is now lead by Alan Collins. UKCSAPT bills him as having been involved in the Jersey Haut-de-la-Garrene SRA case, as if this increases his expertise! The Jersey SRA case was 99.9% scare. It was proved to be a fiction from start to finish. Does Collins believe otherwise because UKCASAPT obviously thinks it was real?  Newcomers can read the true background to Haut-de-la-Garrene here: What does Tim Tate, doyenne of  failed SRA allegations,  say about UKCSAPT: "For two days the UK Child Sexual Abuse People's Tribunal heard testimony from those who had endured rape and molestation in childhood. UKCSAPT is a unique volunteer-based attempt to examine cases of institutional child sex abuse.  It runs in parallel (and in some contrast) to the official enquiry led by Justice Lowell Goddard: it has none of that body’s inquisitorial powers, nor its vast budget. But it is nonetheless carefully organised on sound legal principles and has the benefit of expert advice from a reputable firm of solicitors. [Ed he's talking about Collins]  Its panel of judges include a former UN War Crimes prosecutor and a highly experienced clinical psychologist specialising in child protection. Their findings will, in time, be presented to the Home Secretary. I was privileged to be asked to film the Tribunal’s proceedings, to make a record for future understanding, of the testimony given by its witnesses.... .... I was asked to film the Tribunal because I have a long history (as a journalist) of investigating organised child sexual abuse. ....  Posted on October 5, 2015 here: Yet the failure of Tate's allegations and predictions on the subject is extensive. There is no mention here of his work with the Cook Report  of wrongly accusing a bookshop owner, of listing 21 cases of SRA which failed,  of incriminating a USA man who had already been exonerated, of writing a book on SRA which had to be pulped for inaccuracies, or of being the one who 'exposed' the very first SRA claims in 1989 in his documentary The Devil's Work.  Tate  also does not mention his continued support for the social workers who took children away from innocent parents in Britain's first Mass Child Lifts scandal in Cleveland in 1987. Many believers in Cleveland still maintain the children HAD  been abused, even though they are now all adults and say they werent!  Even though the official government enquiry said they weren't.  Tate is still pushing the idea that Cleveland was somehow 'covered-up' here: There is always a 'cover-up' in the SRA bandwagon. There are always claims of conspiracies in high places and of being 'silenced' by threatening forces. It's one of the hallmarks of the SRA myth and it is of course bunkum.  Tate has been prattling on about SRA for 30 years, in TV programs, documentaries, lectures, seminars, books, radio programs and newspaper articles.  Silenced?  I wish someone would get him to take a breath! This is an important point when you realise that, in his own words the ' highly experienced clinical psychologist specialising in child protection.' who is advising UKCSAPT is Heather Bacon, a child-protection academic who was peripherally involved in the Cleveland Scandal and mentioned in the official enquiry report.  Yes dear reader, the tentacles of the myth goes back that far.  (click on the image below to see what the child victims of Cleveland had to say when they grew up) The Cleveland public enquiry was overseen by Justice Butler-sloss. It concluded that mass lifts had been a result of the caucus of activist social workers and therapists involved in it. The children had not been abused in any way.  The pack of cards had fallen following the use of 'trick' anal-dilation checks by Higgs and Wynne. Included amongst those activists was Sue Richardson, another SRA colleague of Tate's  who in 1988 started a lobby group called CAUSE to support and vindicate those the Inquiry found responsible for the Cleveland scandal.   Richardson had earlier lectured at the The Dark Side of the Rainbow, a  RAINS Satanic Abuse conference on 22nd September 2001.   She also spoke at the notorious 2009 Bowlby Satan Seminar  The leaflet advertising her lecture ends with the words   'This  presentation does not contain any specific images or descriptions of abuse  which might be triggering' . (For the uninitiated the idea of Trigger Words' used by Satanists to silence their victims is  utterly fallacious but was part of the 1990 scare and is a speciality of Ellen Lacter (see later) who attended the same conference alongside Richardson.  Note that Richardson is now listed as a 'trainer' for ACAL.  Who is she training and why? Many of those linked by Cleveland evolved into another group, RAINS (Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support) which during the past quarter of a century has done very much what UKCSAPT is doing today.  Collating a stable of 'SRA victim imposters', nurturing their fantasies into cohesive narratives for conferences and then presenting their subjective experiences as 'evidence' to mainstream child-protection.    (see here for full story) Basically UKCSAPT is, if you like, a wolf in sheep's clothing. An extension of RAINS which is outwardly more palatable to the masses.  It's legacy is CAUSE, RAINS, UKCSAPT. Lunatic Fringe still in the background In their latest  paper on SRA (March 1st 2016) UKCSAPT lists many references, amongst whom is Ellen Lacter.  The SAFF exposed Lacter as an SRA extremist in 2009 when she attended one of the last Satan Seminars held in the U.K.  She believes in demon infestation of the body and exorcism. She is a close aquaintence of recovered memory practitioners who have been sued in the States for twisting patient's minds and a bridge between formal social work and the David Icke type of mind-control conspiracyloon. You can read her bonkers approach to SRA here:   UKCSAPT certainly haven't lost touch with the lunatic fringe if they are recommending Lacter's research as worthy of study! How Satan Hunters tried to control a government Inquiry In 2014 when Butler-sloss was being considered by the home secretary  to head up the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry, her old Cleveland enemies in the CAUSE/RAINS arena began a campaign to unseat her which, due to the despicable nature of the British Press and the kow-towing of government, actually succeeded.    Then Fiona Woolf was also rejected by 'survivor groups' because she was 'too close' to the Establishment.   In a stroke of genius Teresa May brought in New Zealand judge Lowell Goddard, completely detached from any UK VIPs.   The SRA hunters were stymied because one of the KEY  Satan Hunters strategies is to complain of not being able to air their views whilst utterly and completely censoring and silencing any alternative view to their own.  A truly independent inquiry was NOT what they wanted. Believers straight-away began a campaign to side-step the Goddard Inquiry and get control again.  UKCSAPT is clearly part of that move. This is what Sue Richardson and Heather Bacon wrote in October 29th  2014.  'The inquiry is seen by those most likely to benefit from it, victims of abuse and professionals trying to help them, as a cover-up of cover-ups.... The main group of stakeholders are surely those survivors who have been abused then betrayed again via inaction and the concealment of evidence... They have been patronised as a victim community by Woolf... Is it part of a continuing need for containment and denial that acknowledged experts in the field who have thought and learned most about the problems are not being consulted.... In short everyone must accept what the Satan Hunters say and ONLY what they say.  The Satan Hunters will not cease their false allegations and will not desist from bleating about victims until they and only they are given control of the entire arena so that no common-sense or forensic evidence is allowed to contradict their psychotic view of the world.  This is the usual witch-hunt employed by such people. Regardless of how many innocent people are harmed, they consistently cry about the unutterable harm suffered by victims, though rarely explain how that works.  Is sexual abuse worse than murder? Can a victim of sexual abuse EVER recover?  Is sexual abuse more harmful than the evil and danger that concentration camp victims were exposed to? Is it more or less worse than having to put down your pet? Or suffer the death of a loved one? On a scale of harm from 1 to 10 where would they put Sexual Abuse? Why exactly is sexual abuse so harmful that SRA victims can't ever get over it, when most Holocaust Survivors continued to live a full and rewarding life following their much worse trauma?  Why is it that 'SRA survivors' are always crowing about needing to TELL their stories, when Holocaust Survivors prefer not to? And so on. The people who have made a career out of promoting the myth of Satanic Ritual Abuse and it's corollary scares,  Celebrity Abuse and Westminster VIP abuse, have done well out of the hysteria.  So have the self-declared 'victims' some of whom can earn many thousands of pounds in compensation without actually having to produce any actual forensic evidence to prove their case. The people who carry the can for their irresponsible campaigning are the innocents who've had their lives ruined by false allegations.   We feel sure that UKCSAPT people are doing what they think is best and their intention is clearly to help people who are vulnerable. A few of their 'victims' may actually be victims and we suggest that they report their abuse to the police and get closure that way.  Most however are SRA victim imposters; the misguided, the imbalanced and the pathological liars who are encouraged by stronger people to play to their tune in the SRA circus. UKCSAPT has nothing to do with 'the people' and it is preposterous to pretend otherwise.  Neither is it a proper 'Tribunal'. These terms have been chosen to give the group a gravity it does not deserve.  As you have seen from the above, the people behind UKCSAPT are not beyond criticism and have questions to answer.   We believe the organisation is simply another propaganda device in the Satan Hunters campaign to establish SRA.  If Lowell Goddard listens to their oft discredited nonsense then this country will pay dearly for it in the long run.  John Freedom: Mortlake, March 8th 2016