Bea Campbell on Challenors, Greens and more

If anyone is interested in SRA I recommend Satan’s Silence which is a comprehensive look at the origins of Satanic Panic in the US.

Aspie is right, there are clear parallels with that madness and what is going on today.

I must say that I don't know much about Bea Campbell, but it is interesting what you say AspieandProud and I have just done a bit of reading up.

I think though that the template you speak of in the opposite though.

As someone who knows that MPD/DID is not bogus, and has known and heard and read enough of the horrific abuse that happens to too many children, I do not find it a leap to think that men organised in 'clubs' to sexually abuse children and torture in ways that seem almost unbelievable.

Is it so hard to imagine that a man like David Challenor wouldn't be able to find, or would not want to find other men with similar habits? That a ring of adult nappy wearing, baby clothed and/or furry fetishists could not gather and organise to abuse and torture children? It would sound absurd and 'hysterical' except that we have the internet proof that tells us this adult nappy wearing and furry fetish exists, and not in small numbers, as do gangs of depraved men operating to abuse children.

Do we have to believe that what appeared as or is described as SRA was a sincere religion when perhaps it was more a shared guise that shaped and facilitated the expression of depraved ideas and behaviours? An expression of identity even, that reveals something of the warped psychology and inner world of the abusers.

With Saville we know that conducive contexts and the like existed.

We also know that abusers routinely seek to discredit their victims, to mock and ridicule and ostracise them and any whistleblowers or investigators, and have the power to do that, having carefully built up their veneer of respectability, and a web of power and contacts.

Were there issues with the way SRA claims were investigated? Very probably. But also women and children suffer every day from he said, she said situations where they cannot prove what happened to them, and societal structures that put them at the disadvantage . Do I automatically disbelieve their accounts? No of course not. Experience tells me that it is only too plausible.

But obviously there is a harmful backlash if the discrediting succeeds - but that is the point of attempting it. To protect the abusers and enable them to continue. To put us back in our box and make it harder to speak out.

I saw how the Greens handled the Challenors and how concerns for safeguarding and the failures to learn from Saville etc., proved justified right before our eyes. We have seen how the network of the trans ideology is organised and works behind the scenes with people in power, to avoid the public gaze - they admitted it. I have seen some very questionable figures involved in it.

I have no problem with what Bea Campbell has written, the opposite, and am glad she wrote it.

sometimes behaved like the Inquisition, hunting and harassing trans heretics and feminists.

That's rich, coming from one of the prime movers in the 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' hoax.

I don't see Campbell as an ally.

The SRA hoax has many of the same elements we are seeing the TRAs use. In fact it seems to have set the template.

There is the unchallenged belief in anything children say, even when it flies in the face of physical reality; the bogus psychology (recovered memories and multiple personality disorder) and promotion of crank medical 'science'; the quasi-religious denunciations and persecution of unbelievers; the manipulation and collaboration of social services, schools and the media; the way the whole issue went global overnight; and the way everyone now looks back and thinks, what the hell where we thinking? just the way we will when society wakes up from this current wave of bullshit.

There were hundreds of claims that children were impregnated to provide babies for cannibalistic rites just as there are equally outrageous claims about murders of transwomen and suicide rates.

Thousands of children where taken from their parents, just as they would if TRAs get there way and children are snatched from their 'unsupporting' and therefore 'abusive' parents.

Campbell helped destroy families and made it more difficult to prove genuine cases of (non-Satanic) abuse. It doesn't do us credit to have her in our corner.

Brilliant,thank you Bea

THANK YOU Bea! 💐

That is a good read from Bea Campbell.

I learned something useful about "conducive context".

The party should ask itself whether the party’s hard-line pro-trans policies and associated bullying provided what sexual violence scholar Prof Liz Kelly calls a ‘conducive context’ that shielded the Challenors from scrutiny.

It might also ask itself whether it lost its marbles about gender and sexual politics, so much so that this proudly open and democratic party sometimes behaved like the Inquisition, hunting and harassing trans heretics and feminists.

Her closing lines are interesting tho' I have to wonder if she'd ever have spoken up if there were not, now, a permissive attitude that allows her to say these things.

Some of us will give evidence to the Parliamentary committee on the Gender Recognition Act. Given the fate of others, and aside from my own decisions about whether I remain in the Green Party, we need to know whether this will this result in disciplinary action, and whether the Green Party is prepared to forfeit seasoned and intelligent activists because of misogyny and cultish trans dogma.

Members of other organisations should be asking themselves the same questions.