It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
wishes
Kevin Arnnett is a United Church Minster.
Okay, so he 'was' a United Church Minister - and got thrown out for speaking out against the indecencies committed and condoned by the church.
His former supervisor, then Executive Director of the Fred Victor Mission in Toronto, states that the minister frequently manipulated the weak and the vulnerable:
From the beginning, Kevin's relationship with other staff was problematic and conflictual. He was not a team player, did not like staff meetings and at times was impossible to find or reach. I had indicated to Kevin that a few staff were skeptical about this project and a couple were hostile but there was a readiness to accept the idea of a community ministry and a willingness on the part of other staff to find ways of working out difficulties. He claimed he was not supported but he did not seem willing to accept the support he was offered or make any efforts to work with other staff.
His relationships with street people were entirely different. Quickly, he gathered a group of the most vulnerable people around himself; they thought he could do no wrong. Not long after his departure, most of these people seemed unmoved by his resignation. We learned gradually that he was giving out cash and goods to needy individuals (by using petty cash inappropriately) and making promises to them that were impossible to keep. While he had the rhetoric of "social justice" (which was this Mission's approach) he behaved in a traditional charity hand-out way. He had an incredible way of making vulnerable people feel entirely supported and others terribly guilty and uncomfortable. I understood the above behaviour as extremely clever and manipulative.
I'm also not convinced that relying on the testimony of someone in a politicised organisation amounts to proof that he is what some claim him to be.
AliceBleachWhite
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.
uncommitted
TKDRL
reply to post by budski
At least you are looking into actual facts here. I see a lot of "debunking" going on lately, that amounts to little more than insults and character assassination, it's pretty sad. It's too bad this person is not a member here, or it would be against T+C and people would actually have to dispute the facts instead of trying to drag a name though the mud. Just my opinion of course.
Too bad which person isn't a member - the Idiot Annet who clearly - clearly is a self publicising person (I use the term loosley) who makes outrageous claims against whoever he likes with ridiculously laughable 'evidence', or the person who is accused of carrying the alleged crime without a shred of any substantive evidence or proof to stand by it? An actor in a YT video is not worth anything.
If you mean the former, then I think you need to have a long hard think about the logic of that.
DrunkYogi
Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.
Carreau
reply to post by budski
I'm also not convinced that relying on the testimony of someone in a politicised organisation amounts to proof that he is what some claim him to be.
But uncorroborated testimony of a witness is proof enough for you to slander? You believe this story because you WANT to believe it and lack of proof be damned except when it comes to someone in opposition to it. You have not provided any other news, information, person, agency, organization, media, ect that is also reporting it.
Now it may be because there is nothing there and this is all a lie or there is a grand conspiracy to protect the church. Which is highly unlikely considering the amount of public thirst for juicy stories concerning Catholic church clergy and children and the hundreds of stories already been reported and CONFIRMED as true.
My vote is for HOAX bin.
adjensen
DrunkYogi
Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.
I would consider forgery to be fraud.
Kevin Annett Doesn’t Only Steal Survivor’s Stories (He steals their signatures too…)
budski
adjensen
DrunkYogi
Have you any proof that Annett is conman or fraudster? Please post.
I would consider forgery to be fraud.
Kevin Annett Doesn’t Only Steal Survivor’s Stories (He steals their signatures too…)
I don't see any proof - I see a hit piece based on nothing in particular except one persons opinion.
It seems to me (opinion only) that there is a clear campaign to discredit this guy (Annett).
Now whether it is deserved or not, I can't say - I don't know him personally, nor do I know his personal history apart from what is posted online, but the blogs bear all the hallmarks of (bad) hatchet jobs.
It also seems to me (opinion only) that most of the attacks, both here and on blogs, are about protecting religious and/or personal opinion.
I've yet to see anything of substance, and I haven't found anything myself even though I've been looking quite hard, but the fact is I'm not a great researcher.
When I skype with the other people later I'll ask if anyone has anything concrete.
Again though, it seems people think it's very clever to attack a source rather than trying to get to the truth of the matter.
It's not, it's actually dishonest, but if people are fine with lying to themselves, that's their business.edit on 1/11/2013 by budski because: (no reason given)
I don't see any proof - I see a hit piece based on nothing in particular except one persons opinion.
budski
reply to post by TKDRL
Here's a fact: at no time has Toos Nijenhuis been a member of any actors union or guild in Europe.
So that puts the paid actress theory to bed.
Doubtless someone will try and move the goalposts by saying she was an amateur actress, but the above is a fact, pure and simple.