|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Creeps
Which UK cities are the cults homes in? | from mas - Thursday, August 02, 2007
accessed 1619 times Important Does anyone know which British cities and Irish cities the cult has homes in???
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from neez
Tuesday, August 07, 2007 - 23:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mas: I'd also be cautious about which emails you reply to.
(reply to this comment)
| from fragiletiger
Saturday, August 04, 2007 - 04:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.boredstop.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135&Itemid=32
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from cheeks
Friday, August 03, 2007 - 09:35
 (Agree/Disagree?)
As a mother with children I feel for other mothers with children. I hope this is not an expose' sort of thing. I see little reason to out small family homes that are struggling to make it as it is and who have small children in them. Lets go after the leadership and not the peons.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Fish
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 01:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
What pure and utter rubbish! “As a mother” (with children) you “feel for other mothers” (with children), even if those “other mothers” (with children) are raising their children to be brainwashed “brides of Christ”?(with children?) What are you thinking? Would it not be better for these cult children to be raised by the state? It would doubtless be traumatic for them in the short term, but in the long term they would have a proper education, enabling them to enter university and granting them a better adult life than any they would likely obtain by virtue of the “key promises” they committed to memory in place of a formal education. As for these “other mothers” (with children) that you so empathize with, they waived any right to raise their own children when they selfishly decided to do so in a cult. And not just any cult, but one with a well documented history of child abuse, which many of them likely witnessed during their own childhoods.
Point number two: The statement “As a mother with children” is both redundant and moronic.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From cheeks
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 11:48
 (Agree/Disagree?)
The answer to your question is no. It would not be better for those children to be raised by the state. You obviously have little idea of what that means. I think it is safe to assume that most mothers in the family now are SGA's at least the ones with younger children. They do have a right to raise their children according to their faith as delusional as it is. I also happen to think that most SGA's have made efforts to make sure that what happened to us does not happen to their children. As a teenager that went through the raids in the Family I happen to know how very damaging that can be. Anyhow I don't think your occupation qualifies you for rational thought in this or any other area.(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Tuesday, August 07, 2007, 07:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, as another "teenager that went through the raids(in a non 3rd-world country ie the UK) in the Family", I happen to know how eye opening and helpful in the long term that experience was.
Sure it was a bit scary, but that was only because we were taught police and social workers were satans little helpers who wanted to kill us.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Wednesday, August 08, 2007, 10:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I went through one of the most violent raids the Family had and it was not scary because of our fear of the police. I don't know what home you were in that taught you that. In the long run we did end up with a lot more freedom than we had before that, but that was more because the Family was coming to terms that they could no longer control us and we were our own person. I still do not believe that any home would benefit from a raid of any sort. If the social workers wanted to see what was going on in the home all they have to do is knock with a warrant. I fail to see the point in going in there with guns drawn.
Too many times on this site I think we get carried away with our emotions and fail to use logic when thinking about the Family.
The reality of the situation is for the most part we will never have our Justice. We will never see the persons who harmed us sitting across from us in court. And somehow we need to come to terms with that. We have to make peace with our past so that we can move on to our present and our future. While I understand that for most of us on this site right now that is not an option. The anger and the pain are too much a part of us. But there comes a time when you really do find an acceptance of who you are and what you have been through and that you are no longer a victim you are now a survivor.(reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Thursday, August 09, 2007, 03:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes we also had a lot more freedom after the raids. But they certainly didn't change because they were "coming to terms that they could no longer control us", they changed because they got busted and had no choice.
And I was obviously in one of those weird homes that had a 'lit trunk' filled with rare gems like 'Heavens Girl'(you don't remember the whole AC soldiers out to kill heavens' children crap etc?)
I do agree with you on one point however. There isn't any reason for them to go in with guns blazing, but that just wouldn't happen in most of the civilised world. And I'm pretty sure any current investigations are concerning crimes committed in the past which would make such a scenario hard to imagine.
To be honest, your last paragraph sounds to me like more excuses why we shouldn't bother pursuing legal action against known sexual abusers. What happened to your plight of the SGA mothers(with children)?(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Thursday, August 09, 2007, 05:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it depended on when you were raided. It sounds like you were in a TS home more than anything else if you still had all that lit. All the other homes had been purged by the time we were raided. As a matter of fact I believe Heavens Girl was gone about the same time as the Dito book, and yes I certainly am old enough to remember both. If you still had that lit than you most probably were in the raids in Spain. In which case it was before the TNs and YA's revolted and basically stood up and said screw you to the adults. Once again if you were in a TS home you would not have had this information. Also you are almost five years younger than I am so you probably were a JETT at the time and had no idea of what the older tns and YA's were doing in Europe and other parts of the world to secure what basically was our freedom. I can tell you the raids in Australia and SA did nothing to stop us from being in spiritual quarantine and all the rest of the crap they did to us.
On the latter issue. I was one of the kids that was sexually abuse in the Family both as a child and as teenager. So don't sit there and assume for a minute that that is what I am saying. The reality of the situation is I will never be able to sit across from the adults who molested me and have my justice, the statute of limitations has run out, and it happened overseas. I don't have to sit here and tell you what I have done as far as current investigations into the Family are concerned needless to say I have done my share. As far as the SGA mothers are concerned what have they ever done to you? Leave them alone and let them raise their families in peace. (reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Thursday, August 09, 2007, 06:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I was in a 100% genuine cult home in Australia at the time. Those books had already been destroyed, but they didn't run black markers over our memories so I fail to see your point. The fact is that's what we were taught.
I can tell you that the raids here in Aus made a huge difference on the "amount of crap they did to us", or more like 'the amount of crap they could get away with'. Short story, it basically started to make us more aware of the outside world, and just how much we were missing out on. Well for me anyway. Obviously the adults still tried to keep us much control over us as possible. But it was a lot harder for them after the raids.
I'm truly sorry that you're convinced that trying to bring your abusers to justice is futile. But why do you think everyone should feel the same way? And I never asked what you have done concerning investigations. But if you have done anything at all, then thank you.
SGA mothers have done nothing to me. Your original argument was about SGA mothers, but after I pointed out that they've done nothing wrong so they have nothing to worry about(not
to mention no one's going after them in the first place), you changed your tune.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Thursday, August 09, 2007, 10:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
What the hell are you talking about I changed my tune? Did you or did you not say you had a lit trunk filled with those old gems? Did you or did you not say that you were taught the police and social workers were Satan's little helpers? What were you nine in the raids or so. Because while your raids may have given you a little more freedom they did nothing to help us on the other side of the world. That was won through the sweat and tears and pain of the other tns up in the EE and England. (reply to this comment) |
| | From neez
Monday, August 13, 2007, 02:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
When I said you 'changed your tune', I was refering to the fact that your initial argument was about the innocent sgas mums being needlessly harrassed. But once that argument was proven invalid, you slipped into a more comfortable one. Your 'I can't personally take legal action against anyone, so other people shouldn't bother' argument.
And we've already established the fact that I had(HAD..as in past tense) a lit trunk. And yes that lit trunk was filled with shit like Heavens Girl. And yes we were taught that the police(etc) were all working for the great satan. And that they, in conjunction with the imaginary AC forces, were ultimately out to kill us chosen ones.
Ok now, did they edit these teachings out of all their publications at some stage? Yes.
Does that somehow change the fact that we had already been taught those ridiculous ideas? No of course not, don't be silly.
My age at the time of the raids is neither here nor there. And I never said anything about the raids in Aus having an effect on the rest of the world. I wouldn't know if it did or not.
I was simply responding to this blanket statement from you: "As a teenager that went through the raids in the Family I happen to know how very damaging that can be." To summarise; I happily disagree with your opinion(you do realise that's all it is right?).(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vix can't log in
Wednesday, August 08, 2007, 11:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
^^^ Correct. In fact the OP has already made it clear that his request has nothing at all to do with an expose. I know him and can vouch for his character and while I'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics of the reason for the request, I can say that it has nothing remotely to do with raids. I really would like there to be a swift ending to this subject because even the fact that it's being seriously discussed here gives far too much credence to the ridiculous notion that ANY of the people (that I know of, at least) who are working on any 'initiatives' in respect of the cult would be in favour of such an approach.
I, as a mother with children, have to say that my main concern in any situation is for the children and their best interests. In that respect I agree with some of what you all have said. But I actually think that there is CERTAINLY much that can (and should!) be done on grassroots, home level (at least in a country like the UK), as opposed to initiatives that involve pursuit of justice at leadership level. I'm more hopeful of the possibility for some level of success with a (hypothetical, for now) effort to provide outside influences for the children of SGAs than I am of any substantial court victory against family leadership, so to my mind the former actually represents a more time- and cost-effective endeavour (to address the ol' resources aspect) with potentially far-reaching positive effects. I think that there would definitely be much advantage for children in the cult in some kind of ongoing dialogue with social services and other such bodies, something in the same vein as what was set in place in Australia for example, with guidelines for socialisation and greater scrutiny of educational standards as top priorities. This is just my personal opinion, btw, and has nothing to do with the OP, so don't make any inferences as regards the article.
I'm writing this off the cuff and I'm aware that it's muddled. It also doesn't address everything I want to say on the topic of how social services works in this country and what their approach to vulnerable parties actually entails. But I can assure you that 'raids' of the sort that those in France experienced would just not happen here. Police would not barge into the house with machine guns. Neither would children be haphazardly ripped from their mothers to be 'raised by the state' (except in cases of serious abuse, of course). Wherever possible emphasis is on keeping children and parents together and working in partnership with parents in order to provide them with better skills to manage whatever difficulties they and their children are facing.
I am visiting with friends so I can't get into a full-blown exchange here, so please excuse me if i don't reply to any comments for a day or so, just had to get this off my chest.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 06:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse me? I agree with Cheeks on this one. What are you thinking, dude? Cheeks is saying that as a mother, she can relate, and does not want to see exposes on individual homes that are trying to feed children. I don't either. I think that to do that while Family leadership is still running around loose, would be cruel and a waste of resources that could be spent tracking Family leadership. I do not agree with you that a mother can waive her right to own children.
Another thing, are you suggesting that a mother is selfish if she decides to remain in the cult that she was raised in? Did it ever occur to you that the mother might not know anything else, or might not even realize that the cult is bad, or might buy the cult's line that mistakes were made long ago in the past and the cult is different now? Which is better, for a mother to raise her child in The Family, or for a mother to leave with her child and place that child in danger living on the streets? Which is better, for a mother to leave The Family with her child still in, or for her to at least be there in the home with that child and make sure that the child is not abused? Unless you are a mother, and judging by your profile I am assuming that you are not ;), you cannot understand the difficult decisions that a mother must face, so why judge them?
" A mother with children" may be redundant, but I do not find it to be moronic.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Randi
Saturday, April 05, 2008, 03:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know this is an old thread but......Are you guys actually implying that anyone cares? Even if you "exposed" the where abouts of the various homes in England who you say are trying to feed their young etc.... do you really think anyone is gonna give a damn? NO. That is giving them waaaaay to much credit!! They are not that important in anyones eyes anymore!! Its like the cult novelty is gone...If you were to give some proof of a currant situation of aledged child abuse, then yes something might happen... but authorities really couldnt care less about wierdos living in some SELAH colony, eating bird food and chicken liver... TF believes they're special, that they are a threat to the Antichrist's new world order... and that that is why people are after them... They love the thought... it gives them a sense of unique and sacred identity. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Fish
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 07:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
You’re excused. There are only a few participants on this site whose opinions remotely concern me, and you are far from being one of them. I considered pointing out that when you first wallowed onto this site you posted a picture of yourself “with a girl from church”. I might also point out that you bag groceries for a living. I would rest my case at this point, but since I’m waiting for something to download, Ill honor you with a bit more undeserved attention.
Firstly I’d like to ask the location and composition of these vital “resources” you implied would be “cruelly wasted” on “exposés of individual homes”. Are you the executive of some kind of multinational corporation brimming with “resources”, or do you bag groceries? If the former, by all means conserve your “resources”; if the latter, shut up.
You made the bizarre assertion: “I do not agree with you that a mother can waive her right to own children.” In this rash statement you imply several things.
1. No matter what a parent (or at least a mother) does, she retains some kind of “divine right” to “own” children. This means a parent can essentially do whatever the hell they wish to their unfortunate offspring (or any other child they happen to “own”). While this mentality may be de-rigure in Thailand (where one can sell their child to be killed for sport by Japanese tourists) or sub-Saharan Africa (use your limited imagination), I don’t believe it is viable in your country.
2. Parents “own children”? Seriously? A while ago there was a conflict know as the “civil war”. Really. Look it up.
3. That I care whether or not you “agree with me”.
Finally, perhaps the reason you didn’t “find it to be” moronic is because you yourself are a moron.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From fragiletiger
Monday, August 06, 2007, 02:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is the third time; I’ve heard you use incest as an insult. On a site created expressly for children raised in a sexually abusive environment, I find it and you intolerable. I realise that you may be suffering from memories of incestuous abuse, and so, feel the need for your empty swaggering to help you escape your feelings of powerlessness. Or at least that’s what I hope you’re doing, because if your not you’re just a silly little boy, who thinks that swearing and smoking will make him appear tough.
Your wannabe yakuza bluster and try hard boasting about your car and how much money you make, inspire only pity. Your laughable attempts at counselling us as to how we can all stop being losers and make something of ourselves like you, aren’t even coherent enough to be insulting.
You are a sad example of Family kids who come out thinking that the world is like the movies, and that they rule it. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From smashingrrl
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 09:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I rarely find cause to agree with Samuel. I don't care if someone has children and find it odd that only mothers seem capable of being parents in the minds of some. I don't care to defend anyone who remains in the family, regardless of their circumstances, fears, and obstacles.
The very fact that we have few resources and less recourse against the family is what makes those resources valuable. This isn't a case wherein the little fish can be harrassed to expose the bigger fish. These aren't petty pot dealers who can be busted and then offered deals to rat out their suppliers. So no, I don't think harrassing the smaller homes does anyone any good. From my experience, the smaller homes never really were much of a problem anyway. Most of the abuse, with exceptions, occured in the larger homes. I doubt that's changed.
But now to my real problem. Why get personal? Samuel didn't attack you. He made an argument he believed to be valid just as everyone else has done. Whether or not you value his opinion is up to you. That he posted a picture from church, bags groceries, or any other details of his life have absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Nothing. No, he's not the most well-spoken member of this site. Does that matter? You may believe him to be a moron. I now believe you to be an egotistical fuckwit without any sense of common decency. That was an attack to which you can be justified to respond in kind. If you can't argue the facts, fine. If you don't want to argue the points of an idea, fine. Don't insult someone who's given you no cause to do so. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 10:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good god! Now someone else is doing it. Will some sympathetic soul please explain exactly what “resources” the village idiots of this community keep rambling on about? It annoys me when morons bandy about important sounding yet nebulous words like “resources”. Now this individual claims “we have few resources”. What? I have no “resources”. What “resources” (aimed at “catching” family leadership) do you possess? How bout our church going pal?
In any case, I would like an inventory of said “resources” on my desk by 12 noon tomorrow, or you’re both fired. (for wasting company resources)(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 17:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Back off, Fish! Will some equally sympathetic soul please explain to Fish that I did not attack him? I gave you my opinion, and I really could care less what you think of it, do with it, or say about it. If you like, you can print iit out and wipe your ass with it for all I care! Why are you taking this so personally?
Resources would be things like:
money, ex. for lawyers, cult experts, legal advice, travel if necessary for media caampaigns
police. If the police are busy investigating the Home on Park Street, they aren't looking for CROs, or Maria and Peter, or Family leadership, or anyone that has information about where said people might be found.
computer skills. It's better to have a qualified expert going after Maria and Peter's money trail, than to have a qualified expert going after the Park Street homes' money trail.
Another problem that I thought about just today, is if we are going after these homes individually, where are members going to turn when they want to leave the cult? Not us, we're the enemy now.
Another thing, there are people that are brave enough to speak out, and they should be supported.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 18:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
He speaks! So, am I to understand that between you and “Smash” you have “money for lawyers”, “police” and/or “a computer expert” (capable of following a “money trail”) stashed somewhere in you basement? If not, will the two of you kindly desist in the exercise of ego stroking by referring to these “resources” as if you posses them, or somehow control their allocation and use.
You asked “where are members going to turn when they want to leave the cult?”
How many people have “turned to you” after leaving the family? I doubt droves of needy and destitute ex-members are avoiding your door “because you are the enemy”. More likely it’s because you are an insignificant moron whom they’ve never had the misfortune to hear of, yet who retains bizarre delusions of grandeur.
As for me “taking your comments personally”, don’t flatter yourself. As “Smash” pointed out above, I am an “arrogant fuckwit”. The fact that someone possessed of such a blatantly abysmal intellect as yourself, would dare to contradict me, and not content with that must include the appellation “dude”, is more than sufficient to raise my ire.
This being said, I feel must give you a grudging applause for your colorful ideas with regards to toilet paper “resources”. If only my printer wasn’t out of ink.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 21:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your idiotic comment is not worthy of an answer. But since I'm in a good mood, here goes. I can't speak for Smash, but if her financial situation is anything like mine the two of us together do not have enough money for lawyers. I think you know that by now, and I am under the impression that you have figured out already that you were wrong, but are too proud to admit it. Hence, you resort to the same "ego stroking" that you accuse us of. Now, I believe you are smart enough to figure out what I was trying to say, but in case you aren't, in my original comment I was referring to the kind of resources that we can have if everyone here contributes what they can.
Here's a no brainer. The Safe Passage Foundation was established to offer help to those who want to leave TF. But if the Safe Passage Foundation gets involved in a raid against individual homes in San Miami, what are the chances that the young mother in that home that wants out is going to go there for the help she needs? Great job, Fish, under your direction, SPF just alienated that woman. "Help! It's the damned AC's, they're conspiring with the police to persecute us! (This is a witch hunt! Tell the world that there is religious persecution!)"
Smash was dead on in calling you an arrogant fuckwit. One person thousands of miles away disagrees with you, contradicts you, and calls you "dude", and you get all riled up. Get over yourself, you superficial, empty-headed, one-dimensional, puffed-up, concieted, egotistical prick!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Sunday, August 05, 2007, 01:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
“the two of us together do not have enough money for lawyers…”
If this is the case, then as per my completely reasonable request above, shut up about “resources”.
"if the Safe Passage Foundation gets involved in a raid against individual homes in San Miami..."
What world do you live in?
“Great job, Fish, under your direction, SPF just alienated that woman”
This just keeps getting better. Unbeknownst to me, I’ve been made the director of “SPF”. I know I’m brilliant, but really, this is too much. Do I get a company car, and perhaps an attractive secretary? What’s the retirement plan? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Sunday, August 05, 2007, 05:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not going to continue this arguement with you, as it is obvious from what you typed above that you probably wouldn't understand it anyway. if you actually believe that the gibberish you just wrote under my comment is a reasonable, well thought out, and intelligent answer, then you are thicker than shit, dumb as an ox, and more dense than radium.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From thatata
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 10:44
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Though I dont agree with your ideas.I find your remarks funny.And I am somewhat fastidious when it comes to this.
I dont agree with your ideas or where youre coming from,but this kind of arbitary humor is amusing.
By the way Im not kissing your ass,I dont agree with your basic plans but mabye im just in the laughing mood.
And you are kind of fucked up in a way arent you?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Samuel
Saturday, August 04, 2007, 06:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse me? I agree with Cheeks on this one. What are you thinking, dude? Cheeks is saying that as a mother, she can relate, and does not want to see exposes on individual homes that are trying to feed children. I don't either. I think that to do that while Family leadership is still running around loose, would be cruel and a waste of resources that could be spent tracking Family leadership. I do not agree with you that a mother can waive her right to own children.
Another thing, are you suggesting that a mother is selfish if she decides to remain in the cult that she was raised in? Did it ever occur to you that the mother might not know anything else, or might not even realize that the cult is bad, or might buy the cult's line that mistakes were made long ago in the past and the cult is different now? Which is better, for a mother to raise her child in The Family, or for a mother to leave with her child and place that child in danger living on the streets? Which is better, for a mother to leave The Family with her child still in, or for her to at least be there in the home with that child and make sure that the child is not abused? Unless you are a mother, and judging by your profile I am assuming that you are not ;), you cannot understand the difficult decisions that a mother must face, so why judge them?
" A mother with children" may be redundant, but I do not find it to be moronic.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from mas
Friday, August 03, 2007 - 06:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you want to know just email me direct, and Ne Oublie has been emailed about who I am and confirm he has met me and I not a TF member or what not...would be counter-productive to explain exactly why exactly this info is useful I am sure you can understand that...thanks
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from sar
Friday, August 03, 2007 - 06:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why do you want to know?
(reply to this comment)
| from Ne Oublie
Friday, August 03, 2007 - 04:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who are you?
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]