reply to post by budski
In my opinion, you're hooking your cart to the wrong horse, and getting entirely too invested in it while at it.
Even if Kevin Annett were spot on dead accurate, there's no real evidence, plus he has absolutely ZERO legal authority, and equates to the likes of a
very small, but annoyingly loud and obnoxious little dog that can't do anything regardless the noise it makes.
Beyond that, he's a known nutter, conman, and fraud that's taken advantage of too many already for his own profit, gain, and purposes.
Any "witnesses" this fellow digs up regarding any purported crime are suspect via association, and likely followers of Annett attempting to (falsely)
validate his claims, if, that is, the "witnesses" aren't entirely fictional creations of Annett via online foolery.
Find some sources entirely independent of ITCCS that can make independent claim of the former Pope murdering children, eating babies, whatever, and
there might be something valid to discuss.
You're placing far too much importance on the man himself, and not enough on the issue.
In fact so much so that it seems personal.
It's not about the man, it's about finding the truth about what he quite clearly believes, and that requires an open mind and an ability to look at
evidence dispassionately, which is something I have seen little evidence of here.
Suffice to say that his "witnesses" are a lot more credible than they appear on first glance, and information about them is actually not that hard to
It requires a bit of work, but so does everything worthwhile.
What really piqued my interest in this was that I recognised Annetts name from when he was refused entry into the UK in 2011, at a time when
allegations into sexual abuse by high profile people was starting to become known in the UK. There have been rumours for many, many years of a
peadophile ring involving well known personalities, politicians and the aristocracy, and it turns out that those rumours were actually true.
If I were to guess, I'd say that Annett was refused entry because of the books that he had previously written, and this adds up because the reasons
given for the refusal of entry was that "giving public lectures was not an appropriate activity for visitors to the UK".
Now I don't know about you, but that immediately rings alarm bells for me, especially as he was due to speak about child abuse by the church and
state. It's also deemed appropriate for many other people, but not someone who was going to address the issue of child abuse by the church and
These things are tied together, and the involvement of some clergy in child abuse is well known, as is Ratzingers involvement in the enforcement of
Crimen sollicitationis, which points to a certain mindset when it comes to abuse. This mindset is one of contempt for the abused, and silencing them
for "the greater good".
The silencing of victims of abuse can take many forms; from Crimen sollicitationis itself, to willfully ignoring persistent rumours ( as happened at
the BBC), to invoking friendship with authority figures (Saville, Smith etc) and so forth.
Abuse, sexual or otherwise, is rarely about sex, rather it is about power and control which is why we see a disproportionate rate of abusers amongst
people who actively seek out positions of power.
This is important to understand not only for victims of abuse, but also democracy itself, because we should, as societies, be looking much more
closely at people who actively seek power over others, no matter what form that power takes, and there are many forms of power; from the person who
climbs the ladder of promotion in social care right through to the clergy and politicians.
People born to power are different, but some choose to exercise the power they have been born into in different ways.
In order to stop these hideous people, we should be making every effort to scrutinise them, from their motives to the actual execution of twisted
desires, and in order to do that we need to examine carefully, and in as much detail as possible, every allegation we come across.
I've read on here posters who were totally dismissive of the UK peadophile ring, but this dismissive behaviour actually does nothing more than enable
It is far better to look into allegations properly, rather than dismiss them out of hand simply because of a belief that it can't happen, or "seems"
The ITCCS as a vehicle for bringing these allegations to light is a good idea if it raises awareness, regardless of whether it is a one man show, or
whether it engages in publicity stunts such as tribunals.
It is the message that counts, not how it is presented.
edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)