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 occultism.

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 ask questions.

Such  events,  after all, are not uncommon, and in time they  tend  to pass.

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 materialise.

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 death etc..

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 Irvine.

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 Doreen Irvine.

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 "satanic" conspiracy.

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 California.

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 worrying.

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 door.

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.