EDITORIAL POLICY STATEMENT
ORCRO MAGAZINE - 6th May 1990
As readers will be aware there was quite a gap between ORCRO#4 and
ORCRO#5. During that time the editor, Ms North and the rest of the
ORCRO team had a considerable amount of time at their disposal, some
of which was used to formulate a more coherent position as regards the
many and several Christian groups who oppose Occultism in any shape or
form. The following is a summation of these many discussions.
The intent behind the foundation of ORCRO was non trivial and twofold:
1/. To provide hard evidence where none had previously been cited as
to the truth, or no, of the many allegations of child abuse related to
2/. To determine the source of these allegations.
The initial position of those associated with ORCRO was that the
allegations made about occultism were the result of over enthusiastic
amateurs letting their faith overbalance their capacity to reason and
Such events, after all, are not uncommon, and in time they tend to
When ORCRO was founded it was clear that:
Many of the Christian experts comments as regards occultism indicated
that they simply were not experts on occultism. That is their material
was in many cases second hand, inaccurate, misquoted, and in general
so full of holes that one could drive a bus through it.
Court cases cited as examples of occult inspired crime turned out,
upon investigation to be no such thing.
Promised court cases somehow never materialised, and continue not to
Much of the "evidence" against occultism finally depended upon the
Bible for its validity.
In short, those most frequently quoted in the media, and who made the
allegations against occultism, were considered to be an interesting
aberration, worth looking into, but not to be regarded seriously.
This attitude was to some extent reinforced by several conversations
with the likes of Maureen Davies, Kevin Logan, Dianne Core as well as
with more mainstream representatives of the Christian religion.
Without doubt they were sincere, but bright and well informed they
were not, as the odd transcript or two would show.
The question that remained was how could such people give out such
inaccurate information, which just happened, to further their case?
There were three possibilities:
They might be plain stupid. That is, they refuse to consider evidence
that will cast doubt upon their case, i.e. what does not fit their a
priori theories is ignored.
They might be deliberately lying in pursuit of religious / political /
monetary / philosophical goals.
They might be so persuaded of a particular religious framework that
they have no difficulty in accepting anecdotal evidence that fits the
framework, and acting on it.
Lies about Occultism eminating from Christians are nothing new. In
general every religion misrepresents every other religion. If one is
given to charity one might say that this is because each religion
tends to, indeed in exoteric religion, must, believe that it has the
only handle on truth and thus is quite entitled to interpret any other
religion from the context of that truth.
It is however a different thing to move from the area of theological
debate to that of criminal accusation and to set oneself up as judge,
jury and executioner.
ORCRO then began to look into the American situation. That is, what
had happened in America as regards allegations of satanic abuse, court
cases, movers and shakers etc. The theory being that the American
situation would to some degree reflect what has happened here and what
is going to happen. When America sneezes, Europe catches the black
As luck would have it this proved to be possible. Most of the ORCRO
team work in the computer industry. This in turn means that some of us
visit the States frequently, and that we have the facilities and the
resources to have extensive data contacts with the States.
What we discovered was not very nice.
In America the satanic child abuse scare began in 1980, with the
publication of the book "Michelle Remembers", and to some degree
culminated with the McMartin child abuse trial. In the period between
many stories have emerged along with many "anti-satanist" groups, many
of whom will save your child, for a fee.
It is very important to note that prior to the publication of
"Michelle Remembers" there is not one documented account of
religiously organised and motivated child abuse similar to the
allegations now made by the "anti-satanist" lobby. There are no
"satanic survivor" accounts prior to the publication of that book.
It is also important to note that there have been several "occult
scares" prior to the emergence of such allegations, most notedly in
the U.S.A. by one John Todd Collins. In the United Kingdom, pre-1980
revelations can be found eminating from, amongst others, Doreen
John, is still widely accepted, despite overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, by many of the "anti-satanist" lobby as an ex-witch and
ex-mover and shaker in the "occult world takeover plan". Yet John,
during the 70s never once mentioned "ritual child abuse". Neither did
any "escapee" from Occultism mention it prior to 1980/81, including
Because a thing has not happened before, does of course not mean that
it cannot happen. Yet the probabilities decrease. Think of what is
implied by what the likes of Maureen Davies says.
The general public is being asked to believe that there is a world
wide conspiracy of occultists, who world wide sacrifice something of
the order of 75,000 people a year, who are behind a number of major
drug operations, have fingers in the entertainments industry, banking,
and just about every powerful area of human activity. This conspiracy
is, even as we speak, recruiting children and adults into its ranks.
"The world conspiracy of Occultists". That means you and me. To them
the fact that ORCRO has taken the time and trouble to find out how
fundies here are linked to fundies over the pond (and can prove it to
the tune of names, places, dates, documents, tapes & videos) is
evidence that they are right. The fact that you dear reader, are
reading this, is also evidence of the conspiracy. I mean, anyone who
casts doubt upon the word of the sword of the lord just has to be a
minion of old Nick. Stands to reason, doesn't it?
In the States Ken Lanning (Head of child-abuse investigations for the
F.B.I.) who pointed out the lack of evidence and sloppy logic in the
"anti-satanist" arguments has been accused of being a satanist, as has
Robert Hicks (criminal justice analyst) of the Virginia Department of
Justice. Anyone who doesn't agree is a tool of the Devil.
Several anti-satanist bodies have produced detailed run downs of the
aims and methods of these imaginary, all powerful, satanists. Maureen
Davies herself has produced one, (see p18, ORCRO this issue), which
despite the lack of facts and documentary evidence is even as we speak
being used in the United States as "evidence" of a world-wide
Yet despite all this, uh, information, the "anti-satanists" all
continue to produce no real evidence. They have yet to attempt a
serious infiltration, they have yet to name one name that demonstrates
the veracity of their case.
We have absolutely no hesitation in stating that that the vast
majority of the "anti-satanist" movement are liars and distorters of
facts. We also have no hesitation in stating that they are liable to
become responsible for starting more child abuse than they stop.
In short the "anti-satanists" are dangerous. They are the new
inquisition. Their victims are not (in the main) occultists, but
children, and the poor disturbed "adult survivors" who have the ill
fortune to fall into their hands.
The New Inquisition? Sure. No torture, but keep on asking questions
until you get the answer you want to hear, the answer you know is the
truth, the answer you have already decided is the truth.
The McMartin trial in the U.S.A. cost $30,000,000. Nobody was
convicted. Some of the children were interviewed by police and social
workers and "private interested agencies" upwards of 30 times. The
only good thing to come out of the McMartin trial was a close
examination of the legal procedures relating to child-abuse in
The seven defendants have had their lives wrecked. The publicity was
such that they will NEVER be able to loose the stigma of the accused.
Mud, as they say, once thrown, sticks.
Reachout are fond of stating that the accounts of "ritualistic" abuse
they have dragged out of children are too awful not to be believed.
One wonders where these people have been this last century or so, and
what contact they have had with professionals, indeed what contact
they have had with the world.
"Too awful not to be believed". One presumes they have never heard of
the Somme, Belsen, Riga, Pol Pot, Stalin, the popularity of child
prostitution in Victorian England and a thousand other things. Nothing
is too awful to be believed. Some things are though too awfully short
of evidence to be believed.
Reachout also use the glib phrase "believe the children", a deliberate
distortion of the N.S.P.C.C. "listen to children" slogan. The
presumption being that children never lie about abuse. Yet when, in
"ritual abuse" cases, children are interviewed by interested parties
upwards of 30 times, interested parties who use a mixture of
persuasion and reinforcement and a presumption that abuse took place,
is it any wonder that the children end up saying what the therapist
wants them to say?
ORCROs opinion? We refer you to the British legal system.
From the decision of Mr Justice Scott Baker in the family division in
"re E (a minor)", March 27 1990, in a matter relating to a particular
child abuse court case:
"The underlying theme permeating this investigation had been that the
child must be believed. While it was crucial that children should be
listened to, it was equally important that what they say should be
examined critically. Blind acceptance of what a child said was liable
to have a snowballing effect and generate a presumption that the
alleged perpetrators were guilty. That had happened here."
"It was difficult to analyse what had happened and why the children
had said these things. There had been opportunity for transmission of
ideas among the children. From the moment when the first child was
questioned, E's parents were implanted in the childrens minds as "bad
people". The line between fact and fantasy in a child's mind was a
fine one, easily blurred. Anatomically explicit dolls were
inappropriately used, and leading questions were asked by interviewers
who were convinced the children had been abused."
"Believe the children." Would that it were that simple. But is not,
and when untrained, religiously based amateurs read a few books,
attend a few conferences, and set themselves up as experts in a field
that may not even exist and then start counselling children and adults
who may have severe mental problems, it is time to start seriously
They believed the children in Salem and I forget how many died because
of that. Listen to children, but for the sake of the children and for
the sake of the innocent do not check your critical faculties at the
So, after all that, what is ORCROs position?
Simple, stop them by any legitimate means. Stop them before we in the
United Kingdom begin to relive the American experience. Stop them
before they do someone serious harm. Stop them before they gain such a
beach head they will never be finished.
All well and good, but how?
Well that dear reader is up to you.