How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?

[angelraven]

Speaking as “a professional psychologist” why exactly do you believe that it “hardly seems implausible” that Ian Watkins is a satanist, in lieu of any actual evidence?

For the reason I stated above, viz., that it would have provided a way of internally legitimating his horrendous pattern of behaviour. The main alternative explanation for why people do such obviously evil things is that they dissociate from the part of themselves that does it. This is often the case (it's pretty typical with war crimes such as those that occurred in the Holocaust, for example) but I'm not sure that it applies to everyone. Cases such as Watkins and Savile seem to have built so much of their lives around the evil that they did that it seems to me rather to have been an integral part of their selves. Perhaps they saw a religious dimension to that, perhaps not. But as I say, to me it is not at first glance implausible that there might have been a religious dimension.

In the case of Savile the allegations may well be down to dodgy 'recovered memories' but in the case of Watkins there seems a bit more to it: allegations that girls were persuaded (or perhaps just offered) to do 'satanic stuff' for him; that a satanist organisation made threats against Peaches Geldof for naming the two women sentenced alongside him; and just the general imagery that he used, including his band name (I realise that this is pretty common with rock musicians though!).

Turning your question on its head, do you think that it is implausible that Watkins is a satanist? If so, why? Do you believe there is no such thing as satanists?

I certainly don't believe that all, or even most child abuse cases involve satanism, or something like it; but I do think it might be worth asking whether it is genuinely a factor in some of these cases, rather than assuming that the allegations are always invented.

 

[Blagsta]

On a similar, though not precisely relevant note I have been idly curious about allegations of satanism. I haven't seen that mentioned much (if at all) on urban75 forums - though I only came to them recently - but elsewhere I have heard tell of allegations from at least one of Savile's victims that they saw him in robes and mask officiating in some kind of ritual. This has made me wonder if the "Satanic Panic" of the late 80s / early 90s was quite as overblown as people have generally assumed, or if there might not have been a kernel of truth to it.
I mean, as a professional psychologist it strikes me that if one is a serial violent child molestor, perhaps even child murderer (and as we know there are plenty of allegations of kids being thrown off boats etc.), then with the inversion of typical morality required to have that lifestyle, perhaps in one's head it is not all that far to satanism. Perhaps satanism might even provide a way of legitimating what one is doing (humans do seem to have this weird need to do this). Just throwing the idea out there really. In fact I'm assuming it is likely to have been addressed already somewhere on these forums and would appreciate a pointer for the n00b.

When you say "professional psychologist", what do you mean? Research? Clinical?

 

[Red Cat]

I don't think that suggesting that it's not implausibe that Ian Watkins was a satanist is that helpful really, but the suggestion that it's not implausible that a minority of people who abuse children unconsciously justify their actions with a fantasy of some kind of inverted religious worship doesn't seem too far out to me. Perhaps a thread which is dedicated to gathering evidence isn't the best place for such musings though.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If we're going to do SRA, which as you may recall was an accusation directed at primarily working class families rather than at 'high-level' paedophile rings, can I suggest that we do it on a separate thread rather than shitting this one up with it?

 

[Red Cat]

If that's a response to me, I don't recall much about it at all and it's not something I've given any thought to. It's not something I want to 'do'. But I agree with you it should go elsewhere for those that do.

 

[angelraven]

I don't think that suggesting that it's not implausibe that Ian Watkins was a satanist is that helpful really, but the suggestion that it's not implausible that a minority of people who abuse children unconsciously justify their actions with a fantasy of some kind of inverted religious worship doesn't seem too far out to me. Perhaps a thread which is dedicated to gathering evidence isn't the best place for such musings though.

If we're going to do SRA, which as you may recall was an accusation directed at primarily working class families rather than at 'high-level' paedophile rings, can I suggest that we do it on a separate thread rather than shitting this one up with it?

Yes I think you're both right, and I've been thinking myself that this wasn't the best thread for this (it was late ). Don't particularly feel like starting a new thread though. I'll just keep an eye on the dripfeed of allegations and see if there's anything that could be linked to occult practices, broadly defined. As I said I was mainly just wondering if it had been discussed seriously anywhere else on these forums, but it seems no-one is able to point out a location for that.

 

[angelraven]

When you say "professional psychologist", what do you mean? Research? Clinical?

Does it make a big difference? I don't really expect to be quizzed about my exact job role on a more-or-less anonymous internet forum. What job do you do?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm very willing to have the SRA discussion on a separate thread and to provide evidence to support my views on SRA, David Icke etc.

Just not on this one because I think any extended discussion here would be a derail.

 

[Blagsta]

Does it make a big difference? I don't really expect to be quizzed about my exact job role on a more-or-less anonymous internet forum. What job do you do?

You raised the subject of your job as pertinent to your point. If I raise mine, then feel free to quiz me on it.

 

[Red Cat]

You raised the subject of your job as pertinent to your point. If I raise mine, then feel free to quiz me on it.

Oh come on, as a psychologist s/he thinks about people for a living. There's no need for such prodding.

 

[angelraven]

You raised the subject of your job as pertinent to your point. If I raise mine, then feel free to quiz me on it.

Sorry, I was just using my position as a psychologist as a cheap way to add a bit of weight to my random musings. Nothing more. I wasn't too sure of the point of your question to be honest, and I found it a little hostile. Perhaps if you clarify why you were asking it I might give you more details!

 

[angelraven]

I admit that I certainly have no specialist insight into the minds of child abusers, if that's what you were trying to imply.

 

[Frances Lengel]

I admit that I certainly have no specialist insight into the minds of child abusers, if that's what you were trying to imply.

Yeah you say that. I'm saying nothing.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Oh come on, as a psychologist s/he thinks about people for a living. There's no need for such prodding.

Clinical, experimental, social, based in health care practice, working in HE, researched focused; each of these would have a substantial impact on the skills and knowledge that a professional psychologist would bring to the discussion. In other words, once the original poster brought it up, it became a legitimate question...one that has since been answered.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[brogdale]

"...speaking as a..."

Mumsnet thataway----------->

 

[DotCommunist]

Yeah you say that. I'm saying nothing.

shouldn't laugh.

 

[angelraven]

Yeah you say that. I'm saying nothing.

Clinical, experimental, social, based in health care practice, working in HE, researched focused; each of these would have a substantial impact on the skills and knowledge that a professional psychologist would bring to the discussion. In other words, once the original poster brought it up, it became a legitimate question...one that has since been answered.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

"...speaking as a..."

Mumsnet thataway----------->

shouldn't laugh.

Oh sure, let's all haze the noob. Very mature. I apologise for the slight derail to the thread, and I hope that more experienced members can keep it on topic. Back to lurking now. Peace out.

 

[Blagsta]

Oh come on, as a psychologist s/he thinks about people for a living. There's no need for such prodding.

Which is fine. I just thought the defensiveness weird when it was them that raised the subject.

 

[angelraven]

Which is fine. I just thought the defensiveness weird when it was them that raised the subject.

OK, I can't resist one more reply, sorry...

The defensiveness was mainly because you completely ignored the rest of my post and just asked me what kind of psychologist I was. Seemed a bit passive-aggressive to me.

But also I don't want to be too specific because I don't really want to be identified (I have a fairly significant web presence as a psychologist). On a forum dealing with very sensitive allegations, you will surely be aware that people don't particularly want to be identified, no?

 

[teqniq]

Then why claim to be a psychologist in the first place?

 

[angelraven]

Then why claim to be a psychologist in the first place?

I explained that above. Read the thread.

 

[teqniq]

I have

 

[butchersapron]

Go away Phil.

 

[angelraven]

I have

Sorry, I was just using my position as a psychologist as a cheap way to add a bit of weight to my random musings. Nothing more. I wasn't too sure of the point of your question to be honest, and I found it a little hostile. Perhaps if you clarify why you were asking it I might give you more details!

Mea culpa. As I said, it was late

 

[DaveCinzano]

For the reason I stated above, viz., that it would have provided a way of internally legitimating his horrendous pattern of behaviour...This is often the case (it's pretty typical with war crimes such as those that occurred in the Holocaust, for example)

There's an awful lot of ground to cover between the generalised claim above and the specific claim that ‘it's not implausible’ that Ian Watkins was a satanist. As I asked before, what evidence to fit the latter into the former do you have?

After all, I could note that it's not implausible that Ian Watkins is left-handed and a vegetarian. I have no special knowledge of what his dominant side is or nutritional preferences are, but as a keen reader of stuff on the internet I note also that Jack the Ripper, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Boston Strangler and Jimmy Savile's close friend Uri Geller are all reputed to have been left-handed - and I am sure we can think of a certain notable Austrian with a meat-free diet.

But seeing as I have neither defined ‘left-handed’ or ‘vegetarian’ nor suggested why either might be relevant, it's all just sand in the desert.

 

[Blagsta]

OK, I can't resist one more reply, sorry...

The defensiveness was mainly because you completely ignored the rest of my post and just asked me what kind of psychologist I was. Seemed a bit passive-aggressive to me.

But also I don't want to be too specific because I don't really want to be identified (I have a fairly significant web presence as a psychologist). On a forum dealing with very sensitive allegations, you will surely be aware that people don't particularly want to be identified, no?

It seemed relevant to ask. You brought up the fact you're a psychologist, I assumed you'd be ok talking about it. If you're a clinical psychologist working with abusers or victims of abuse then I'd pay more attention to what you say. If you're a research psychologist looking at, say, visual perception, then less so.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think the satanism stuff is probably complete nonsense and has only served to discredit serious people trying to expose high level paedophilia. Bernie Gunther 's posts on the topic on this thread are very good IMO

 

[angelraven]

There's an awful lot of ground to cover between the generalised claim above and the specific claim that ‘it's not implausible’ that Ian Watkins was a satanist. As I asked before, what evidence to fit the latter into the former do you have?

I gave three pieces of evidence (admittedly very circumstantial - but we are talking about plausibility here, not proof) above.

You haven't explained why you find it implausible that he is a satanist (assuming that you do find it implausible).

Why ask for evidence for one and not the other?

 

[bluescreen]

I apologise for triggering the derail. FWIW, IMHO Icke is never going to be a source of reliable information, though sometimes may lead to leads.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's a new thread created specifically for the Satanic Ritual Abuse stuff.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/satanic-ritual-abuse-fundie-horseshit-or-troof.325799/

May I suggest again that it would be good to deal with this potentially contentious subject separately from this mostly excellent thread.