Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2005 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

'04 - '05 mail

LATER Wrongs! Rights? LINKS? Conscious? DOGMA?
HELP! Emotion Frame-ups Brains B. judges Digging
anti-Abuse Katherine New Global? MPs? Perceptions? Martha
Marquilla Nun appeal Retreat Help? Jonah News EARLIER


plse use "MAIL PERCEPTIONS" to input

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:53:42 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Hi, i was wondering might you place the enclosed article on you're site for all to read, Re; Child Abuse Enquirey (Irish Style) ; RYANWASH?

An OPEN LETTER to Mr Justice Sean Ryan from a former inmate of a licensed industrial school in regard to the performance to date, of the Ryan Investigation Commission into Child Abuse.

Mr Ryan,

It seems odd to me that the first official acknowledgement that a range of chronically damaging abuse had been inflicted on children in the care of the State's industrial schools by a sizable number of - take your pick - employees / associates/ members of `unincorporated bodies' of Religious Orders, run under the - take your pick 2 - stewardship/ agency / direct instructions of, naturally, previous dumber and dumber Governments emerged only in 1999 when the Taoiseach addressed a public apology to the then unnumbered, widely dispersed and tragically reduced (largely by suicide or by so-called `self-destructive' lifestyles) surviving victims long after the general public was boggled with, if not already bored with the whole subject.

After all, there have been decades of ever-more-graphic details in newspapers and magazines about cases of sexual abuse against children in religious-order-managed institutions, as well as a steady output of books, plays and movies depicting the scary regimes behind the misnomer that `religious childcare' neatly concealed.

While it is fair to say that the Taoiseach's apology was generally welcomed by victims at the time (We felt that, at last, we would have a chance of being believed instead of, as we were used to, being blamed, physically punished or, at best, pushed away when we ventured to complain) in the light of the recent Jesuitical-style `apologies' articulated by spokespersons for the institutions to the Ryan Committee, the whole concept of apology has now soured, for this victim at least, from being a spark of hope on the road to discovery - essentially Why did this happen to me? - to what I now regard as just part of a cynical damage limitation exercise - a characteristically cold and calculated reaction by the Church Establishment in order to appease outraged feelings among its flock while, with the same sly stroke, framing victims as incurable bad-egg chancers who, by coming forward and making claims, are merely expanding on the criminality that had us institutionalised in the first place.

`We apologise. We admit that we did have the odd bad apple among our staff, but it was largely the children who committed the abuse on each other.'

`We apologise for the wrongs done; but we're concerned at the numbers of alleged victims coming forward only after they saw the possibility of monetary awards.

For the record - dismiss all images of car-joy-riding Dangers-to-Society lusting for Lotto-like awards - the `crime' that had me institutionalised at four years of age was an Order of the Court, with the reluctant acceptance of my mother, because she was unmarried and in no financial position to continue caring for me; the Court specifying that I be taken care of by a particular order of nuns in a specific convent. She did not agree, however, and was not consulted about my later transfer to the hellhole industrial school that put an abrupt stop to my education; transforming me from being an infant with a future - top of my class in reading and writing at my old convent - into a depressed child, terrified to close my eyes in the dormitory lest the abusers catch me unawares; reduced in my labours (yes, for all but a chosen few boys, this `school' was effectively a child labour camp) in ever-reducing steps to working, like some brute animal, on the school dump; or to me being transferred for periods of correction, following the alternative disciplinary strategies of this school, into mental hospitals; all of which led to my mother losing track of my whereabouts and to me being told by the psychiatric nurses the unhinging lie that she was dead.

My first reaction to the performance of the Ryan Committee is, therefore, astonishment and real anger that your response to the shameless PR attack by the religious powers-that-be on the past victims of their concerted abuse amounted to an overly deferential Thank you very much Father / Brother / Sister.

As for the Taoiseach's kick-off apology, one journalist (Bruce Arnold in The Irish Independent), on the very day that Mr Ahern was due to speak to the Ryan Committee, used his Column to urge him to come clean about the real reasons (He hinted at secret departmental documents) that had nudged him to apologise. In the event, the Taoiseach rearticulated his original stance to the Committee that what had prompted him was his personal conviction that it was the right thing to do following his face to face meeting with a group of alleged victims.

No political agendas or hidden pressures then? To irreverent sceptics tempted to counter with `Bollix' I can only add that now we may never get a more comprehensive perspective, because the apparently disinterested Ryan Committee failed to ask the Taoiseach either the subtle questions we'd expect of investigating professionals, or even the blunt, straightforward ones we victims were aching to ask.


This perverse reluctance to probe shrouded events of the not-so-distant past continued in what can only be deemed another limp performance by the Committee on the day that ex-Minister of Education, Michael Woods, appeared before you.

This was the Minister, representing all Jack and Jill citizens, remember, who - correct me where I'm inaccurate - signed the promptly labelled `dirty deal' between the Catholic Church and the State ensuring that the Church authorities would escape from paying any amounts awarded against them for deeds they are found responsible for over and above their agreed limit of 128 million euros (less than a fifth of the current estimated cost of Dublin's Port Tunnel); the unholy slack to be taken up by unlucky Jill and Jack.

Saintly or otherwise, Woods surely owed his constituents more than the `shotgun-wedding' type justification that he had up-to-then confined himself. But your Committee failed to ask the questions that might have elicited an explanation for his arguably mutinous - inarguably furtive - behaviour in departing from standards demanded of a Minister in Government by meeting Church representatives in secret and emerging with the fait-accompli of this highly-questionable indemnity deal; or, for that matter, how he ended up being so overwhelmed in negotiation by Church Suits armed with such a - enlighten me if otherwise - feeble defence to argue.

The Committee's continuing failure to do what's universally expected of investigation committees - to investigate beyond the given `lines' and Public Relations handouts - is particularly puzzling in the light of the recent, albeit late-in-the-day revelation by the then Attorney General, Michael McDowell that, as far as the said Indemnity Deal was concerned, we must count him out of Mr Wood's cute depiction of cabinet accord since he had never even been consulted on the issue.

In the absence of such `mature reflections' being further revised, and setting aside one cranky citizen's gripe that, as a Minister of Government, he was surely obliged to consult the free in-house legal services of the State's Attorney General first, we can only surmise that the then Minister-on-the-point-of-leaving-Office, for reason or reasons undisclosed - take your pick 3 - forgot / eschewed/ chose not to ask McDowell the key questions and, instead, acquired the doubtful wisdom he ended up with from Lawyers Unknown in regard to a matter of Constitutional essence, on which subject the State's official legal guru is - correct me where I'm losing the plot - none other than the self same studiously bypassed Attorney General.

No cosy cabinet accord then, and a clear, though retrospective, inference from the then Minister's stance that, by not consulting the Attorney General on such a crucial matter he had thereby relegated McDowell to the less-than-best in the legal advice stakes; which in turn begs the question: Why was Mr Second-Best appointed Attorney General in the first place, and why was he later promoted to Minister of Justice? Not for his constitutional perspicacity, apparently; so we can only guess that it must have been for his cunning and silence - however unforthcoming and short-lived.

In any case, Mr Wood's one and only justification of the indemnity deal as having been an inescapable consequence of the best legal advice on the day (to the effect that the Government had no other choice open to it but to settle for whatever was being offered since the Courts were likely to find the State itself, as the ultimate employer of the miscreant abusers, liable for all amounts awarded against them) astonished many people - lawyers among them - in the light of the Government's existing stringent guidelines for those whom they had entrusted to keep children in care and given also the layers of individual managers bearing a more obvious direct responsibility.

And although the Government was inarguably guilty of inadequate policing of these managers, this sin of omission hardly equates with the litany of gross crimes perpetrated by the carers directly on the children or to the negligence of the school managers who allowed the culture of abuse and brutality to flourish and perpetuate in flagrant defiance of the self same ultimate employer's dictates.


Those of us plagued with mid-investigation ruminations may be forgiven for asking What if? And for then imagining a scenario that tells it like it might have been.


We follow in the confident strides of TALL, a gangly, fair-headed man as he approaches a urinal where SMALL, a diminutive, dark-haired man stands, doing what a man does. Small reacts nervously, splashing his shoes in the process.

TALL: How's it going, Woodie?

SMALL: Oh, piss. A.G. Lovely to see - -

Tall positions himself in the urinal beside Small, and points percy at the porcelain.

TALL: Cut the smarm, Woodie; I'm not one of your pathetic constituents. I saw you skulking around with that bunch of I.R.A. types - bad haircuts and suits from the Fifties. Are you having talks about talks where you shouldn't?

SMALL: Suits? No - well - kind-of. That would be the holy Sisters and priests and

TALL: Holy my tail. Don't tell me. What about Cabinet responsibility?

SMALL: Well, what about it, A.G.? You're confusing me. Are we being bugged?

Tall stares back blankly as Small jiggles the dew off his jewel, closes his flies, and walks to a washbasin. Unnerved at the silence, he turns on the tap and blurts out:

SMALL: All right A.G., I was going to tell you. Honest I was; even though they said "keep that Jesuitical Gonzaga Smartarse out of it. Why would they say that?

TALL: Don't ask!

SMALL: What?

Tall finishes he business at the urinal and joins Small at the washbasins.

TALL: Never ask a direct question unless you know precisely what the answer is going to be. That way, you avoid getting caught short.

SMALL: Short? But - -

TALL: Try `If I was to ask you - - .'

SMALL: Okay, A.G., if I was to ask you what would you do if you were faced with an unholy quandary about institutional abuse - -

TALL: Don't ask!

SMALL: What? Okay. Well, on another not wholly disconnected issue, what if I were to tell you that I heard a whisper about a Senior Counsel with a fondness for downloading underage you-know-what from you know where - -

TALL: Am I my brother's keeper?

SMALL: Well, in this case arguably, yes, AG. You see, this creepy crawly is also an accepted candidate for the Circuit Court Bench, so it could be curtains unless you - -

TALL: Shh! What did I just tell you?

SMALL: What? `Don't ask?'

TALL: No, you eegit. `Don't tell me'.

SMALL: Sorry, AG, but aren't you - - ?

TALL: Tempus fugit.

Without further ado, Tall wipes his wet hands on the arse of his trousers and exits at some speed, leaving Small mouth-agape, preparing to whitewash his.


Lest the Committee regard my scepticism as symptomatic of victim paranoia and conclude that we are irredeemably distrustful of authority, I say, give us a reason to trust you and we'll at least try, given the damaged goods some of us undoubtedly are after the succession of betrayals inflicted on us by establishment figures in the past. But the Ryan Committee has to do its part to win our trust by being impeccable in all matters. And in this regard, with respect due only where due, you have not, to my knowledge, been entirely scrupulous. I refer here to the fact that, from the outset, the membership of the committee has included individuals who are named as alleged abusers in at least one serious case (my own) due to be heard in the High Court.

No doubt, the Committee's Report will recommend ultimately that any body or institution empowered to take care of children in the future must have an ultra-strict system for screening its care workers. But why should we trust a man who is seemingly so cavalier about screening his own Committee? If your strategy (by allowing alleged abusers to sit on the Committee) is that such individuals could bring their particular perspective to bear on proceedings, we need to know; so please, Judge Ryan, make the effort and share your thoughts with us - however wacky.


Thought-through thoughts would be preferable, though. One moment of near hilarity that I witnessed at the hearings involved a lawyer complaining that he couldn't make sense of the Application Form that the Committee had sent out for alleged victims to fill-in if they wanted to make a submission; the other notable feature of the day's proceedings being your remarkable penchant for negativity when questioned; `not allowed', `not relevant', `not now' being the constant pop-ups of choice.

Not funny, but incendiary for the victims present was the element of coded messages being exchanged sotto voce between the Committee and Church leaders while they were giving evidence in public sessions. Gobsmacked journalists and members of the public alike turned to each other: Did you hear that? What are they playing at? Why the subtext? - before some of us came to the only conclusion that seemed to make sense i.e. that the Committee must have had pre-session discussions with Church leaders about the preordained submissions that they intended to present.

So why the whole sham of an investigation if the Committee's participation amounts to little more than a Roll It Collette routine?


Unacceptable too is the Ryan Committee's decision to hear submissions from the Church authorities in public, but to confine victims to closed, private sessions.

How is one to avoid the conclusion that in this discriminatory decision lies an outrageous pre-judgement by the Committee that what the Church leaders will say is bound to be truthful and fit for public ears, while what the victims come out with will be dodgy, unexpurgated and inherently unsuitable for impressionable Jack and Jill Public until such time as the Committee have selected their purged versions of the already-cherry-picked and published them in due course as sanitised `case studies' in the next Ryan Report; that `due course' - convince us of otherwise - involving further editing-down to fit the particular taste of Persons Unknown?

No doubt the Committee would justify it's singular discrimination by claiming that it is bound by legal constraints in that if victims give their submissions in public they could inadvertently blurt out details that could, in turn, compromise their forthcoming Court cases. A flaw in this argument is that only a tiny number of victims are actually High Court bound (the vast majority, following their failure to extract their personal histories from the schools concerned, or from unconscionable record-holders within the Departments of Education and of Health settling - however reluctantly - for the Redress Board route) and that, further, there is nothing to stop that Court bound minority from making submissions to the Committee after their cases are heard; all that it would require being that you Judge Ryan (a) declare that you are prepared to keep the investigation open until after those cases are dealt with and (b) you declare the `gagging-order' confidentiality restrictions! which, I gather, the Church authorities insist on with every Court case settlement as `non-binding', thereby enabling the by then ex-Plaintiff victims to speak out once and for all.

The Court cases that the Committee seem so concerned to leave untainted by damaging blurts are, in any case, two-sided affairs; on the one side Plaintiff/ alleged victims and on the other Defendant/ alleged abusers, among which latter group are the Church leaders who (between convenient bouts of `amnesia') have been - take your pick 4 - improvising/ regurgitating / reading-out their submissions at your public hearings without any discernible hints of incontinent `blurts' emerging; or is that what your Committee's coded messaging has been determined to contain?

The way I see it, what's good for the goose should also benefit the gander, and so I see no reason why victims cannot be afforded the same public arena for their submissions, along with the same bizarre - take your pick 5 - coaching/ leading/ muzzling by your Committee to keep us out of trouble. In the absence of such facilities being extended to victims, the claim of unwarranted discrimination stands.

And please don't give us the hairy excuse that, by confining the victims' submissions behind closed doors your intention is to spare their delicate feelings from the effects of having their individual stories exposed. I've been round this mulberry bush many times - I've never yet met a victim who disagrees - so please let me snip it in the bud. We victims want, need, ARE SCREAMING OUT TO BE HEARD. Any further attempts to confine or otherwise shut us up will be interpreted, as part and parcel of an establishment cover-up that we have come to expect is inevitable.


The Redress Board, by dealing with the non-Court-bound, vast majority of victims in its own brusque fashion - no naming and shaming the perpetrators; no hearing of the victims' evidence - does absolutely nothing for them - beyond the `blood money' awards - to start them on the road to `closure' on their psychological injuries.

For those determined to have a proper hearing, the High Court has been held out as the only real chance. In stark contradiction to the holy baloney being peddled by Church leaders that they are taking a `non- adversarial' approach to the cases against them, their chosen Defence lawyers have, regardless, been frustrating cases from being heard by the High Court for up to ten years; many Plaintiff/ alleged victims giving up in despair and settling instead for the puny potato awards being doled out - testimony conveniently unheard - by the Redress Board.

For the heroically-patient few Plaintiff victims who manage to hold out till the bitter (Don't get me started) end, what invariably faces them on the steps of the Court is the ritual of opposing legal Counsels in last-minute negotiations and, once the bluffing and counter-bluffing is played out, real pressure from the Plaintiff's own legal team to accept the last of the `final' offers of compensation; the downside being that by so accepting, the victims thereby scupper their longed-for `day in Court.

A less obvious, but more sinister consequence of such assiduous culling is that there is no hearing of the issues that were to be tried; no evidence presented and, as a consequence there is not a single case of specific industrial school abuse on record; the loss, not only for the frustrated victims who settled, but also for students of Law, History and Social Studies being that the totality of testimonies from victims of industrial school abuse remains unproven and thus forever `anecdotal'.


The Ryan Investigation may therefore be the last chance we have for official exposure of these so ruthlessly expunged case histories. But how can we trust a team that seems so oriented towards confining and so reluctant to expose; your efforts to appease seemingly aimed at Authorities Unknown - certainly not at victims? The test, of course, is how low the Committee's bottom line is likely to be i.e. how broadly or narrowly you interpret your terms of reference. And in this, Judge Ryan, you seem to have - if you'll pardon the expression - lowered that bottom in recent times.

In January 2002, as a then Senior Counsel and new Chair of The Compensation Advisory Committee you published after only four and a half months preparation a much admired Report `Towards Redress And Recovery', that incorporated stunningly perceptive insights on the plight of victims of abuse. By early 2004, in the wake of your former Chair, Judge Laffoy's, resignation in disgust and frustration at the very Government Department of Education which had appointed her, you had lowered your readability - if not your standards - by publishing, in advance of Laffoy's angry Report, your first interim Report as newly appointed Judge and Chair of the Investigation Committee; the bulk of the report amounting to, in my opinion, a lot of mystifying blather (echoes of your Application Form?) about terms of reference and plans to implement them (Don't ask me!)

Some journalists have already decided that your role is essentially that of trouble-shooter, and that your brief from the dreaded Department of Education (ref. Laffoy Report) is to adopt Parkinson's Law, curb any tendency towards expansion, reduce numbers, shorten the time frame and to above all save money. And if that entails cherry-picking of victims so that precious few will get on the road to closure, then tough; that's expediency Ryan-style. Your more sharp-edged detractors claim that you and your Committee are merely `the Church's firemen'; but since your Investigation is by no means close to completion, let's not go quite that far - yet.

Judging your Committee by its actions to date rather than by its stated aspirations, I nevertheless regret that I have to concur with the victim's popular perception of you as being unhealthily absorbed in accounting rather than in accountability; too quick to cut off the fractious outpourings from damaged victims and too indulgent of listening to any old crap from Religious leaders in denial of their complicity.

A key point that you seem to be missing is that, by what we see as your connivance in reneging from earlier promises to let every victim have his or her chance to face their abusers, articulate their hurt and to name and blame the perpetrators, you are perceived as having been compromised from the outset of this investigation and, as a result, you may have chronic difficulties in achieving credibility with victims. The growing impression that accommodating victims is the least of your priorities, of course, only consolidates that distrust.

You should know better than most that the Redress Board doesn't do `naming and shaming' and that anyone dissatisfied with its short-shrift no-testimony-award system and who is still determined to have his or her testimony heard is forced along a route whereby he or she first has to refuse the monetary compensation on offer and then to appeal it. The catch to that appeal then comes into play in that the Board can use its discretion to charge him or her for the costs of the entire process by, in turn, reducing the figure of compensation below the level of that which had originally been awarded. It took a widely publicised hunger strike by a victim who had been thus treated before this Ryan-style catch was exposed for the disgrace that it is.

Now, posing in the Last Chance Saloon, we have your Ryan Investigation Committee who, from the vast list of effectively silenced inmates from industrial school that have come forward, have now chosen a token number of notably anonymous individuals that you condescend to grant a hearing to, but even then only in closed session, safe from inquisitive and analytic minds.

In the words of an ex-tennis champ who played at a rather higher standard than your Committee apparently investigates `Can you be serious?'


It has long since been common knowledge that many Civil Servants in the Department of Education responded to the Taoiseach's apology to victims with, in effect, an impertinent `Count us out!' As Justice Laffoy confirmed in what turned out to be her last Report, this department, in particular, by obstructive tactics and by inordinate delays, has been defiantly uncooperative in providing key information to the victims who are entitled to it.

What have they to hide and, more to the point, what are the Ryan Committee going to do about it? A lack of courage in this regard could clinch the suspicion that you are loathe to confront the authority who - we're not forgetting - appointed you and your Committee in the first place.

I have been lucky, I know, in pursuing many facts about my life and incarceration in that I was quick and relentless in benefiting from the Freedom of Information Act; and I got an astonishing amount of pertinent details in the process. I'm also aware, however, that I am very much in the minority in this respect. Most of the alleged victims that I have spoken to have had little or no success in researching their pasts via the government departments who were at least nominally in charge of them. Some have received only the shrivelling response that the department cannot acknowledge that they were ever in an institution or even, in some cases, that the department effectively denies knowledge of their very existence.

Your Committee, being made up of people in professions where your name is your bond and your good name is yours by right, should have no difficulty in empathising with those who have had their names and personal histories so cruelly denied. It would show that the Committee has at least some affiliation with basic decency if it let both the Departments of Education and of Health know that they must stop hindering the victims in their searches. And in the event of them continuing to fail in meeting those demands, it would be nice to see the Committee showing some righteous mettle by kicking some uncivil asses or, failing that - deep breath now - naming and shaming the culprits concerned.


Talking of foul deeds and of chickens come home to roost brings to mind the question of Ministerial culpability in the shameful exclusion of hospitals from the remit of the Redress Board thereby making it all but impossible for inmates of mental hospitals in particular to achieve equal status with industrial school victims in their struggle for some level of recompense.

The Redress Board have been upfront and clear in declaring that they would only deal with cases relating to institutions that were on a specific list provided by Government; this cut-off stroke leaving hospital inmates conveniently-for-some outside the loop.

On February 20th, 2002, The Irish Independent published an article by Gene McKenna under the headline `People Abused in Hospitals To Be Compensated'; the piece stating that the then Minister of Education was about to extend the ambit of the Residential Institutions Redress Bill. It went on: `Dr Woods has said the compensation scheme will also apply to those who suffered abuse while they were resident in orthopaedic or psychiatric hospitals'.

Two years, several months and two changes of Ministers on and mental hospitals are somehow still noticeable by their absence from that essential list despite the fact that I, for one, had landed Mr Wood's successor, Mr Dempsey, with constant faxes imploring him to include specific hospitals that I had suffered abuse in, and despite the fact that I received continuous promises from his secretariat by telephone that those named hospitals would indeed be listed within a short time. By the time Minister Dempsey was finally shifted from his job, his Department of Education could add a reputation for misleading leaks to its more longstanding notoriety for non-cooperation and incompetence; the Minister himself being remarkable merely for his talent for blather and evasion as evidenced by his managing to quit office leaving his undertaking to victims who suffered abuse in mental hospitals one hundred per cent unfulfilled. His replacement as Minister of Education, Mary Hanafin, wasn't shy about nailing this State-choreographed thuggery to the post. Within a fortnight of taking up Office, she announced an extended list in the number of institutions that can now be dealt with by the Redress Board; not one of which was a mental hospital.

With Mary Harney now in place as the new Minister of Health, those who can swallow the new image of her as a compassionate reformer may hold out hope that she will finally deal with what Minister Hanafin has so cruelly dodged. The rest of us will, of course, continue looking out for flying elephants.

Ministerial oblivion and departmental disorders notwithstanding, there is no way that you can convince me that the studious exclusion of the most vulnerable and least voluble of our citizens from the possibility of getting some monetary compensation from the Redress Board is anything less than a conspiracy.

Irish Crime magazine's (Oct-Nov 2004) heartbreaking cover story about Elizabeth Keegan (who sadly died after publication day) described a childlike victim of appalling circumstances; damaged by her early incarceration in industrial schools and all but destroyed by a series of abuse, rapes and consequent self-mutilation while being `cared for' within a mental hospital which was - lest we forget - founded, funded and entrusted to keep her safe. What should be troubling the consciences of the dodging Ministers is the fact that poor Elizabeth, had she lived, would not have been entitled to seek compensation for her suffering in mental hospitals as these are the very institutions so callously banned from the Redress Board route.


The issue of child abuse is hardly a subject for cherry picking, or for pussy-footing around for that matter. Pardon me if I venture to avail of this rare opportunity to turn the tables for a bit and to patronise you with my advise for getting the Investigation Committee back on tracks before it's too late. For the benefit of past victims and with a view to the future protection of children, please try to detach yourselves from your establishment instincts and persuasions. Don't settle for the low standards some would try to impose on you. Lift the sheets and face the appalling vista. Ask the hard questions. And don't let the perpetrators off the hook by allowing their ludicrous `happy stories' of life in their industrial schools to stand as anything but the cynical distortions that they amount to. Just as the PR people for the Church have excised the images of the worst abusers from some of their `happy story' videos, please keep your Report free of the well-worn John Watery refrain that it was the climate of society at the time (What `time'? Child abuse never ceases.) which was at fault; these being normal industrial schools - typical of their times - that just happened to have a disproportionate amount of suicidal and runaway children; the lasting damage to their personas quite disconnected from the variety of perverse abuses and brutal treatment meted out to them by specific religious staff.


It was infuriating to witness your Committee indulging leaders of Religious Orders at your hearings in their perpetuation of the legend that ignorance of sexual abuse is somehow an explanation for its evident popularity among their members and, by limp extension, as an excuse for the Church's remarkable history for concealing and protecting known abusers from the forces of Law and Order.

A memorable Profile of the then Archbishop McConnell in The Irish Times was a classic defence of the three monkeys (See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) genre. McConnell had spent a life so deeply engrossed in books and in lofty thoughts, we were told, that he would never have become aware that such dreadful goings on could occur; which prompts the query Why would the Church appoint as one of its leaders a man so ignorant (not least of Canon Law which specifically condemns child abuse; or of the Scriptures which proscribes that a corrupter of children should have `a millstone tied around his neck etc.) that he is rendered incapable of even the most fundamental insights concerning the activities of flesh and blood men and women?

The lawyers defending the similarly afflicted Religious managers of schools where they, likewise, could apparently perceive only lofty thoughts while the `unimaginable' was a nightly experience for us victims now rub salt in our wounds by littering their defence documents with similar lofty - surely sarcastic - responses.

`Our client is a stranger to - - these independent frolics'.

Which, of course, begs the rhyming response - all together now: Bollix.

No, this defence isn't worthy of serious consideration - even by Judges who wear seventeenth century horsehair wigs. It would take insane bouts of denial and self-delusion not to notice that, just as the bees will follow honey, so too will the paedophile gravitate towards a `Religious' life where he or she can have easy access to trapped children.


And as to the allegation by the Religious Orders that most of the sexual abuse going on in the schools was committed by the boys on each other, I must say, that such a slur is rich coming, as it does, from managers of religious institutions who - you better believe it - managed to control each and every movement of their child inmates during the day with fists of iron, only to go conveniently blind, deaf, dumb (and lofty?) after dark thus enabling the perverted members of staff to stalk the boys' dormitories, picking out victims for their sexual gratification with the brazen assuredness of authority figures confident of their license to roam unchecked.

It was intriguing, therefore, to hear the head priest at our school telling the Investigation Committee that he had always punished boys who were caught having sexual relations together, and that he had always stressed the importance of the commandment Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

Well, quite apart from the fact that I have no memory of the latter emphasis on avoiding adultery (Isn't that the one about not having sex with other men's wives? Not a heap of use in our dormitory.)

I would have thought that a more pertinent question for your Committee to ask was How much actual sex education did you supply at the time - the mid-Seventies - to the boys in your care? The answer I can supply was none, nothing, zilch - unless you choose to count the forced sex by staff members on the children as sex education in action.

Is it any wonder that so many of us absorbed fractured concepts of right and wrong in relation to sexual morality; and that when we left the schools we also took away with us the extra-painful baggage of confusion in relation to our natural sexual orientations; the aligned feelings of guilt and worthlessness proving to be all but impossible to shake off.


Another glaring aggravation for us victims present at the live hearings of submissions by the heads of the Religious Orders was the way that they were allowed to perpetuate more or less unchallenged the fond myth of the `odd bad apple' being responsible for most if not all of the adult sexual abuse. For such situations, of course, the term `scapegoat' was invented.

Why on earth were the head priests allowed to rattle on and on, put on a show of righteous anger and even to shed crocodile tears about men already condemned by the Courts of the land, a matter of public record and therefore stale news compared to the fresh allegations your Committee surely should be investigating in their stead?

Given the difficulty of bringing perpetrators of abuse to Justice - don't get me started again - it is too easy - damn silly, in fact, to try and blame a school's entire culture of abuse and ritualistic cover-ups on the few abusers actually convicted. The fact that our school produced several suicides, numerous cases of self-mutilation, the regular transference of boys to mental hospitals and constant runaways cannot be lumbered on a couple of bad apples. It would be a devastating blow for victims if your Committee is seen to be complicit in such daft conceits.

Likewise with the impression given by the Religious-in-charge that it was a rare event for a boy to complain that he had been sexually abused. I find it hard to endure this minimising of the reality, which was that many, many of us tried to complain about what was happening to us only to end up punished for our `illogical accusations'.


I urge the Committee to be brave and delve into taboo territory. Expose the scandals of how the institutions systematically used the mental hospitals of the State as mere extensions of their punishment regimes. And don't accept the easy defence that the boys were just getting the caring treatment that they needed.

In my case, the not-so-sweet old lady who happened to be my allotted unit Psychiatrist reacted to my outburst of anger at her unrelenting questions about my mother (I was then fifteen years of age, and the nurses tortured me with the `news' that my mother was dead) by having me dragged kicking and screaming into the locked adult ward.

The lesson I duly learned - and something I stand by unswervingly to this day - was to never ever trust a psychiatrist. The bedlam Irish-style conditions into which she had so abruptly dumped me into are, no doubt, too grim and scarifying (Believe me, the `Cuckoos Nest' in comparison was a five-star Nursing Home) to inflict on your doubtless delicate, establishment sensibilities - despite the vague possibility that one of you or one of your loved ones - given the law of averages - may end up there.

But given that, I'm told, mental hospital conditions have not changed substantially, and that I did make a promise to the patients before I left that I would try my utmost to let the outside world know what goes on behind the gates, I urge your Committee to at least get a start on what so urgently needs exposure by investigating the testimony of the ex-inmates passed on by the Religious industrial schools as children into adult mental hospitals and what those immature minds were then subjected to. Now that would be a truly heroic first.

And lest you think that it was a rare aberration for these schools to resort to adult mental hospitals, I beg to differ. In my own case, I can testify that over a period of a few months while I was incarcerated as a child in an adult ward, two other boys from the same school were admitted to the same unit following their suicide attempts.

I suppose it would be too much to expect of an Investigation Committee so indisposed towards investigating, but I'm going to ask anyway: please investigate and duly reveal in the detail that it warrants the scandal of the sideline businesses the religious institutions had going for themselves from the 1950's to the1970's whereby, for fees unknown, but doubtless accounted for - Don't make me laugh - they forced their child inmates to be the subjects of medical experiments during which they were injected with then unapproved - some later notorious - drugs.


And talking of wilful denial, and of invisible accounting, the Committee hearings have produced some jaw-dropping moments; not least when the Head Priest of our industrial school added to the hardening collective image of clerics in blissful oblivion by boasting straight-faced of his administration's inability to keep proper records of the pupils, or even Accounts of the moneys that passed through his Order's hands.

Our forgetful educator was adamant that our school had not even started to keep accounts until the Nineteen Nineties.

This about an institution that, to my certain knowledge in the mid-Seventies, had an in-house Bursar; where the boys were hired-out as labourers to local farmers and as workers to the cider factory; where we grew and cooked our own food, made our own clothing and worked in the carpentry shop and on the dump. And this from a Priest who was successful in filling theatres all around the country for his all-boys variety show. All this and a sizable per-head capitation fee too. Methinks the Reverend doth protest his vacuity overmuch.

Anyone listening to this unholy malarkey must have concluded that there is no way that the Bishops of Ireland - let's face it, wicked money handlers - would have allowed the schools to get so lax in the management of funds; and no way also that the Department of Education would just hand over capitation fees without receiving, in return, progress reports on the pupils that the fees applied to. Harsher observers might say that such claims of a paperless regime by the Church authorities simply amount to an unholy pack of lies; and that the bonfires and shredders of the institutional schools must have been kept pretty busy to keep it so.


There has already been a steady trickle of earlier Irish reports (notably The Kennedy Report) on the subject of childcare and child detention, duly ignored by the powers-that-be for the most part, and presumably now reduced to some Civil Service compost heap. Can it be that the Ryan Investigation Committee is content to have their Reports treated in like manner?

As it is, there are ominous signs that your Report will not be as comprehensive or as complete as the public might reasonably expect; not least because (as anyone who was actually present at the hearings can check on the transcripts of the Investigations Public hearings have already been heavily edited. Why, and by whom? We need to know. And lest I be accused of being paranoid by reading such seeming incongruities as signals of betrayal, let me resort to the old joke that just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me and, in the same vein, just because you're part of an official Investigation Committee doesn't mean that you're not prejudiced against us.

With a view towards fair reparation for victims in the monetary terms that you seem to be more comfortable with, I remind the Committee again to keep in mind - my turn to be wacky - the current cost of constructing that Port Tunnel in Dublin, and to ask yourselves how many yards worth would you begrudge people who have been so cruelly deprived of an education, a normal life, even of their rightful names?

As a victim of the industrial school system, my enduring wish is that the future care of children will match precisely to what `care' actually means; and that the authorities in charge can no longer resort to the lie that `We did not understand the nature of abuse'. For the sake of keeping future generations of children safe, I hope that you will grasp the opportunity to make a radical stand. Worth considering above all, of course, is the question as to whether young children should ever be incarcerated in the first place.

I await your findings with some trepidation, but not entirely without hope.

Yours sincerely,
Robert Dempsey

Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:10:02 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Regarding the perception that the identities of pedophiles should be protected, people may say that they should not be protected but accessible to all. The question is this: Why not? What about the right to privacy, with regard to former pedophiles who have undergone psychological treatment for their dysfunction and are now trying to recover from the experience and reintegrate into society? What about the right to protection from harassment and vigilante justice by an enraged populace?

What right?

Date: Sun 29 May 05


Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:58:43 -0500
I have visited your website, and would very much enjoy being added to your link page.
I have ALREADY placed a link to YOUR SITE on MY SITE along with a description at: [ link page ]

I would LOVE for you to pick the right category though. Currently, by default, you're in the MISC category. If you want the description of your site modified you can do it.

I would appreciate if you placed a link back to my site:
TITLE : Canton Real Estate DESC : Real Estate In Canton

Sincerly - Thank You, Phil Chevela

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:08:48 -0700
Hello [ editor ],
Today, I visited your nice site and I am contacting you about link exchange.

I am Oliver, the webmaster of Isabel Art Gallery -

I would like to create a link back to your website and I invite you to fill out our link form for free at: [ link page ]

I look forward to hearing from you soon and thank you for your interest.

Best Regards, Oliver Isabel Art Gallery

Isabel Art Gallery 66 Avenue des Champs Elysées c/o IsabelNet S.A. F-75008 PARIS France

Isabel Art Gallery 241 Route de Longwy c/o IsabelNet S.A. L-1941 LUXEMBOURG Grand Duché de Luxembourg

Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 20:42:15 +0100 (GMT/BST)

The origination of Consciousness.
There are many theories explaining origination of consciousness. Here some of them.

1) The God has taken clay has created the man, and then has inhaled in it consciousness.

2) 20 billions years ago all matter (all elementary particles, all quarks and their girlfriend antiquarks, all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muons....) - all was assembled in "singular point".
Then there was a Big Bang .
Question: when there was a consciousness?
a) Before explosion,
b) At the moment of explosion,
c) After explosion.
It is more probable, that after explosion.

Then there is a question: what particles (or waves) were carriers of consciousness? Mesons, muons, leptons, bosons (W+, W- , Z) ,quarks, ...gluons field ..... ets ...?
On this question the theory of Big Bang does not give the answer.
But can be, the consciousness was formed as a result of interaction of all elementary particles, all waves, all fields?
Then , on the one hand , the reason of origination of Big Bang is clear: all was mixed (and consciousness : and when it is mixed that is possible to construct all and everything).

But, on the other hand, is not clear: why farmer John can think simply, clearly and logically.

3) Ancient Indian Veda approve, that origination of consciousness is connected with existence of spiritual, conscious particles - purusha .

4) The modern physics approves, that Quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Quantum of light, in one cases, behave as a particle, and, in other cases, make action which can causing a waves. How the particle is capable to create waves? Such behaviour of Light quanta (dualism ) is explained simply. Quantum of light has own initial consciousness. This consciousness is not stiffened, but developing. The development of consciousness goes "from vague wish up to a clear thought".
* * *
If you have time and desire, I ask you to visit my site
Best regards.

Date: Tue 10 May

Karsten's Sphinx findings.

Thursday 28 Apr '05
Friend, maybe you've been deceived. Most UK education is dogma.

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:27:20 +0100 (GMT/BST)

get serious! Get an education and stop relying on dogma to deceive thinking people!
[no address]

Date: Sat 23 Apr '05
A New View.

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:38:02 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Hi to all what a great site.
Can any one help me in contacting Dr.A.Adoko? I need to fond a good reliable solicitor to go for compensation against the Met.Police London.
Most get cold feet or are in the club.

Best wish's to all out there, some one please help.

bet this site is monitored at a cost of millions!

[ *** address supplied - but for obvious reasons, plse send advice thru MAIL PERCEPTIONS]

Hello Sushil Yadav,
Think you've got a good point - and, checking the physics and physiology at conscious, think we know why.

best regards

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:53:11 GMT

Dear Sir,
This is about the link between Mind and Environmental / Social-Issues. Can you (and your colleagues) help me in circulating this message among the right people?

Please note : The article has been written in short sentences rather than paragraph-form because it is about subjective experience / emotion/reduction of thought.

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words / language) for emotion.

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.

A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.





I am trying to get the following experiment conducted in a psychophysiology/ bio-chemistry laboratory.

( My background is given in the first letter ( letter No. 1 ) under the topic " Correspondence with neuroscientists " on the website : )

There is a link between visual / verbal speed ( in perception, memory, imagery ) and the bio-chemical state of the brain and the body.

Emotion can intensify / sustain only when visual and verbal processing associated with the emotion slows down ( stops / freezes ).

The degree of difficulty of an emotion depends upon the degree of freezing (of visuals and words ) required to intensify and sustain that particular emotion.

Subjects (preferably actors specialising in tragedy / tragic roles ) will be asked to watch a silent video film showing any of the following:-

(1) Human suffering.
(2) Animal suffering.
(3) Suffering ( Destruction ) of Air / Water / Land / Trees.

Subjects will be asked to intensify and sustain the subjective feeling of pain/ grief for the sufferer.

The chemical changes associated with the emotion in the body(blood) would be measured by appropriate methods.

The silent video film will be shown at different speeds :
(1) 125% of actual speed.
(2) Actual/real speed.
(3) 75% of actual speed.
(4) 50% of actual speed.
(5) 25% of actual speed.

Results :
(1) Intensity of emotion increases with the decrease in visual speed.
(2) Intensity of emotion is maximum when visual speed is minimum (25% of actual speed)
(3) The amount of chemical change associated with the emotion in the body(blood) will be found to increase with the decrease in visual speed.
(4) The chemical change is maximum when visual speed is minimum.
(5) The amount of chemical change will increase with the decrease in breathing rate. Breathing becomes so slow and non-rhythmic that it stops for some time at the inhalation/ exhalation stages.

The above co-relations will be valid for all subjects -even for those who cannot feel pain/ grief. Such subjects will experience emotion associated with boredom/ discomfort/ restlessness/ irritability/ uneasiness. The chemicals released will be different but the co-relation between visual speed and amount of chemical will be same( the breathing rates will be different/ fast). All subjects will experience some kind of emotion.

In the 2nd stage of experiment we shall replace the silent video film with a Narrator ( Audio only ) and repeat the procedure thereby establishing the link between intensity of emotion and verbal speed.

Please note:
While this statement is generally true for all emotions, it is particularly true for all painful emotions.
(2) In a society in which visual ( verbal ) speed and breathing- rates are fast , pain / remorse / empathy cannot be experienced. It is impossible.

Proof of the link between pain and slow visuals / words :-

In the last century man has made thousands of movies / films on various themes / subjects. Whenever pain / tragedy is shown in any film the visuals ( scenes ) and words ( dialogues ) are always slowed down. In many films tragedy is shown in slow motion. At the most intense moment of pain the films almost become static / stationary.

Tragedy-films provide direct proof / evidence of the link between pain and slowness.

Pain can intensify / sustain only when visual ( and verbal ) speed slows down( stops/ freezes).


One thousand years ago visuals would change only when man physically moved himself to a new place or when other people ( animals / birds ) and objects ( clouds / water ) physically moved themselves before him.

Today man sits in front of TV / Computer and watches the rapidly changing visuals / audio.

He sits in a vehicle ( car / train / bus ) and as it moves he watches the rapidly changing visuals.

He turns the pages of a book / newspaper / magazine and sees many visuals / text in a short span.

The speed of visuals ( and words ) has increased so much during the last one hundred years that today the human brain has become incapable of focussing on slow visuals /words through perception, memory, imagery.

If we cannot focus on slow visuals / words we cannot experience emotions associated with slow visuals /words.

Before the advent of Industrial Revolution Man's thinking was primarily limited to :
(a) visual processing ( slow visuals )
(b) verbal / language processing ( slow words )

Today there are many kinds of fast thinking :
(1) visual processing ( fast visuals )
(2) verbal / language processing ( fast words )

If visual / verbal processing is fast we cannot feel slow emotions.

(3) Scientific / Technical thinking ( fast )
(4) Industrial thinking ( fast )
(5) Business thinking ( fast )


As long as the mind is doing this kind of thinking it cannot feel any emotion - not an iota of emotion.

In a fast society slow emotions become extinct. In a thinking ( scientific / industrial ) society emotion itself becomes extinct.


There are certain categories of people who feel more emotion (subjective experience ) than others.

If we attempt to understand why (and how ) they feel more emotion we can learn a lot about emotion.

Writers, poets, actors, painters ( and other artists )
Writers do verbal ( and associated visual) processing whole day- every day.
They do slow verbal ( and associated visual) processing every day.
(A novel that we read in 2 hours might have taken 2 years to write. This is also the reason why the reader can never feel the intensity & duration of emotion experienced by the writer )

Poets do verbal ( and associated visual ) processing whole day- every day.
There is more emotion in poetry than in prose.
This happens because there are very few words ( and associated visuals ) in poetry than in any other kind of writing.
There is a very high degree of freezing / slowing down of visuals & words in poetry.

Actors do verbal ( and associated visual ) processing whole day- every day.
During shooting / rehearsal they repeat the dialogues ( words ) again and again ( the associated visuals / scenes also get repeated along with the dialogues )

Painters do visual ( and associated verbal ) processing whole day- every day.
They do extremely slow visual processing - The visual on the canvas changes only when the painter adds to what already exists on the canvas.

There are some important points to be noted :
(4) All these people do visual & verbal processing - whole day - every day.
(5) They do slow visual & verbal processing.
(6) They do not do scientific / industrial / business processing whole day - every day.

Most of the city people doing mental work either do this kind of mental processing which is associated with NUMBERS / SYMBOLS/ Equations / Graphs / CIRCUITS / DIAGRAMS / MONEY / ACCOUNTING etc… or they do fast visual (verbal) processing whole day - every day.

This kind of thinking ( processing ) has come into existence only during the last 200 years and has destroyed our emotional ability (circuits).


Suppose the maximum intensity(and duration) of a particular emotion that can be experienced by any human being is 100 units.
Let us suppose the maximum intensity(and duration) of that particular emotion ever experienced by two people A & B in their entire life is :
A - 100units
B - 20 units

Now suppose A & B are made subjects on a particular day and are asked to feel that particular emotion under experimental conditions ( or outside the laboratory ) and the intensity & duration they actually experience is :
A - 90 units
B - 18 units

If A & B are then asked to indicate the intensity & duration of emotion on a scale of 0 -10 their response is likely to be :
A - 9
B - 9

Who is right and who is wrong ?
A is right.
B is wrong - B is wrong by a wide margin - B has experienced an intensity(and duration) of 18 units out of a maximum of 100 units and his correct / actual score should be 1.8

Self- assessment ( self rating ) can be accurate only if people have the capacity to experience the highest intensity & duration ( units ) of the particular emotion under study.

Because of physical work and slow visual/verbal processing in small(slow)agriculture based societies of the past, the mind used to experience a state of emotion all the time. If we read one thousand-year-old literature we will not come across the term "boredom" - the concept of boredom did not exist in slow societies. There were long gaps between different visuals and between words/ sentences -and people had the ability to experience/ tolerate the gaps -it was normal for them.

Emotion can intensify / sustain only when visual / verbal processing slows down ( stops / freezes ). In an Industrial (thinking) society people experience very little emotion because of fast ( visual / verbal / scientific / industrial / business ) thinking

Suppose the maximum intensity and duration of a particular emotion ( for most people ) in a fast society has reduced to 5 units ( from 100 units that people used to experience in earlier /slower societies ).

If such people experience 4 units of emotion they will give themselves a rating /score of 8 on a scale of 0-10 whereas their actual score should be 0.4


IQ vs EQ

IQ always has an element of change in it - IQ is about trying to make/ discover/ invent something new all the time. Change is an inherent feature of IQ. IQ is also about thinking more in less time - it involves speeding up of mind. IQ is about more and more change.

EQ is about sustainment of the same feeling/experience over a period of time. When we experience any higher-level emotion for 10 minutes we experience the same feeling( subjective experience) over and over again for 10 minutes. The( same) feeling can sustain only if there is Repetition. EQ involves Repetition - Constancy - Sameness.

IQ and EQ are contradictory.
IQ and EQ are opposites.
IQ and EQ are inversely proportional.

(1) A thinking species destroys the planet.
(2) Animals lived on earth for billions of years (in very large numbers) without destroying nature.
(3) They did not destroy nature because their thinking / activity was limited to searching for food for one time only.
(4) Man has existed on earth in large numbers for only a few thousand years / a few hundred years.
(5) Within this short period Man has destroyed the environment.
(6) This destruction took place because of Man's thinking.
(7) When man thinks he makes things.
(8) When he makes things he kills animals / trees / air / water / land.
( Nothing can be made without killing these five elements of nature ).
(9) A thinking species destroys the planet.

There was a time when Man knew nothing about the number of species and millions of species existed.
Today Man knows the names of millions of species and nothing is left of the species.

There is no higher purpose behind work.
People do not work because they want to work.
People work because they cannot stop working.
People cannot stop physical activity and mental activity (simultaneously) for even 2 minutes.
For most people it is a choice between physical and mental work.
The switch-over from physical work to mental work is disastrous for the planet.

Man can do the same physical work every day.
Man cannot do the same mental work every day.

When man used to do physical work ( farming and related activities ) he could do the same repetitive work day after day- generation after generation.

After the Industrial Revolution when man switched-over to mental work he began a never ending process of making new machines / things / products - a process which can only end with the complete destruction of environment ( planet ).

The nature of mental work is such that man has to do new mental work every day-in fact he has to do new mental work every moment- Man cannot do in the next moment the mental work that he has already done in the previous moment.

A mathematician cannot solve the same problem of mathematics every day - once he has solved it he will be forced to take up a new( unsolved) problem. Even when he is solving one particular problem he has to move from one step to another - there is a continuous change involved -- there is no constancy at any stage.

An engineer cannot design the same machine again and again - once he has made a machine he will try to make changes/ design a new one.

A writer cannot write the same article every day-he will be forced to write something new every day/ every moment (This is also the reason behind endless discussions/ debates/ arguments).


To save the ( remaining ) environment from destruction man will have to return back to physical work ( smaller communities ).

To save the mind from mental diseases man will have to return back to physical work ( smaller communities ).

Environment can be saved only if we stop production of most ( more than 99% ) of the consumer goods we are making today.



The following is about to come true.

Nature can exist
(1) before man.
(2) after man.
(3) not with man.

Time is running out for this planet.
We are in the last 20 years.

Yours Sincerely,
Sushil Yadav

I am seeking help from volunteers in spreading this message far and wide.

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:16:15 GMT

Any ghost-groups in MS?

Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:17:41 GMT

Barry George is innocent OK.


Thank you.

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:50:07 GMT

We must have a brain that is "hard wired". How can you explain identical twins seperated at birth meeting later in life and thinking alike though raised differently?

I did not raise my son, who is now in his 40's, yet we think and speak alike.

John Willis [address supplied ]

Hello John,

We've both seen quite a few discoveries to do with identical twins, many concerning shared thought patterns.

Carl Jung had some ideas about that which are still being thought about, major one being the `collective unconscious' - so could well believe that identical twins might have those attributes, but even more highly developed.

Thanks for raising the matter; hope to investigate it more, and soon. Best regards

Date: Sat 29 Jan
Tassos sends a proposition.

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:42:38 GMT

Excellent comments on the law in England.

I work in the labour law courts where the 'evidence' of employers is regularly accepted, even if it is obviously contradictory and full of holes.

There is a nice case at
which shows this trend. If you are a rich man, black means white to them judges.

Well done

Thanks Friend - think you're right about UK "justice" - too often a corrupt farce.
Readers might like to check some search results - for "judges"; - "police" etc.

Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:04:46 GMT

Many thanks for a very informative site, I wish I'd known more about many of these things before I dug my hole.

I'm now going to carry on digging and hope someone see's the truth.

Keep on Friend - Win or lose you're still probably right.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:18:57 GMT

fantastic site my friend pact full of usefull truths about the great britsh hypocracy I myself was abused by the very people you talk about thats is he was a prison officer who went on to becoming a priest.

He is now doing eight years in prison for his crimes. he affected so many young lives back then there where six of us in court when he was put into prison, on the back of the following press another seven have came forward and he is to be charged with them also however his defence barrister is expecting a baby and has put it to the copurt that she would rather have her baby wait then come back next september for the trial. They expect us to wait another year before we even go back to court!!! we have been waiting for this justice a quater of a century and I for one think that is long enough

I try to run a web site its not the best site in the world however Iv'e had no training for this kind of thing infact I have had no training period but i do what I can.

Brilliant site webmaster yogi

Date: Sat 27 Nov '04

OFFER from Valery Feodorovich Andrus

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:52:15 GMT
MetaMAIL query re: Amenhotep IV?

Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 15:03:03 GMT

I am trying to find out the source of the Katherine Wheel of bonfire night fame. Do you have any ideas please? Thanks for any info you can provide [no address]

OK - just added an info link to "St. Catherine" on that Centrifugal / Centripetal page

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:53:46 GMT

hi there perceptions,
just to say that it does my heart and soul good to see that you are still there, doing your thing...
hope you're well
yours with very best wishes,

Good to know you're there too, Salamander - and thanks for kind thoughts [got to answer here - no address]

Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:30:15 GMT

Gidday Ray
A great article, right up your alley, referenced from, and we are about to be subjected to the indignities at LAX!
- and that you are constantly being so hassled is no surprise to me
kind regards Graham

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:55:24 +0100 (GMT/BST)

As I understand it (though internet searches have proved futile in trying to confirm it) Lawyers and a number of other categories of professions are not allowed to sit on a Jury.

I think they should be disbarred from parliament because our intuitive suspicion of them as 'professional dissemblers' has been more that adequately evidenced as correct in recent times. It seems a logic contradiction that people disbarred from jury service, in the interests of justice should then be enabled to make the very laws that form the basis of what is considered just.

Do you have any statistics, ie MP's by background/profession? I'd love to see them published, so the British people can see we are heading down the same corrupt road that the American people are now saddled with.
[address provided]

Sent - "couldn't agree more" and amusing links -

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:27:59 +0100

Hello MackZed
Nope, hadn't read of them until now. But a quick search shows a "Perceptions Magazine" - either of Culver City or of Los Angeles - _had_ been publishing stuff concerning ethical questions which also get considered here. Latest seem to have been mid/late '90s (but there's bad rumor below).

Quick search refs.
---------- - quote
"The CIA mind-control apparatus has been well known since 1975, when 10 large boxes of documents were released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests." - quote
(Link inactive 15 July 2004) - quote "Perceptions magazine is dedicated to the wholeness of life and sovereignty of the human being. We believe that to be truly free, you must have control of your political environment, access to crucial health information, and exposure to concepts that expand consciousness." - quote
"Article from *Perceptions* magazine, Winter 1994, p. 8. For sample copy & subscription information call or write:
Perceptions Magazine, c/o 10734 Jefferson Blvd., Suite 502,
Culver City, California p.c. 90230
310-313-5185, 800-276-4448, Fax 310-313-5198
Note: The above address & phones may not be accurate . . . there are rumors that Perceptions Magazine suffered a Gestapo-like raid by the Feds. Those Feds are so lovable!" - quote
"Perceptions Magazine, 11664 National Blvd #314-HT, Los Angeles,
CA 90064, tel. (310) 398-1705, fax. (310) 398-8097"

Hope they're still alive and well - as you might guess this (on-line only) `Perceptions' is coming under corrupt-authority pressures also.
best regards

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 04:17:57 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Are you folks, by any chance related to the folks that ran Perceptions Magazine some years back out of los angeles, California, USA. The magazine and the people that ran it just seemed to have disapeared.
If you are not they, then if you have any information about these folks and their magazine, please let me know.
Thank you.

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:34:05 +0100 (GMT/BST)

From `Easviod' ( Xi'an, Shannxi, China) - News of the Phaistos Disk

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:14:55 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Big ENTROPY / UNCERTAINTY Q's from anonymous

Subject: Stephen Kobasa writes on Martha Stewart and the Plowshares Nuns Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:03:12 -0400

"What Martha Stewart, Nelson Mandela, and radical nuns have in common"
by Stephen Kobasa

When reflecting on her imminent imprisonment during a recent interview, Martha Stewart declared that "good people go to jail"

When Stewart arrives at the federal prison camp in Alderson, West Virginia, to serve her five-month sentence, she will not have to look far for confirmation of this. Among the women there is Carol Gilbert, a Dominican nun who last year began her 33 months of imprisonment. Along with Sisters Ardeth Platte (sentenced to 41 months) and Jackie Hudson (30 months), Gilbert cut through the fence surrounding a Minuteman III missile silo in Colorado. The three then poured blood on the massive concrete lid that covered the nuclear warhead. This provoked charges of "sabotage" from the federal government, and the attendant excessive punishments. As Gilbert said at her sentencing, "We know something is very wrong with a system that can incarcerate us for years in prison for inspecting, exposing, and symbolically disarming America's weapons of mass destruction."

Perhaps she will be moved by news of the Adopt-a-Missile Silo action by Citizen Weapon Inspection Teams in Colorado on October 2 to mark the second anniversary of the three nuns' witness of conscience. And perhaps she will come to use her notoriety as an instrument for making public the injustice committed in their case. That might put her closer to that category of "a good person in jail."

Stephen Vincent Kobasa is a member of the Atlantic Life Community.

Don't forget to visit our website

Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 17:00:59 +0100 (GMT/BST)

dear mayor i think that the taxes are dum so stop making our parents pay taxes or i will tell my mom to vote for john kerry

That took three tries on "MAIL PERCEPTIONS" - maybe Marquilla really means it.
Don't know how to FWD the message though - so her friends needn't copy her idea.

Subject: Nuns' appeal Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 00:04:03 -0400


Background: On October 6, 2002, Jackie Hudson, Ardeth Platte and Carol Gilbert went to a Minuteman III Missile site near Greeley Colorado to non-violently and symbolically inspect, expose and disarm the illegal and immoral weapon of mass destruction. The Dominican Sisters were charged and convicted of two felonies, sabotage and destruction of property for lowering 32 feet of perimeter fence and marking the missile silo cover with crosses in blood.

The 10th Circuit is expected to issue a decision within two or three months.

For more information - visit our website

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 01:13:59 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Think you do a great job putting out info not bullshit,

Thanks pal - that's good of you. regards, ed@percs

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:25:06 +0100 (GMT/BST)

WH Clark of Austin, Texas tells news of his Texas X Files

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 06:00:20 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Sjoerd Hoek's Big Questions

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:50:16 -0400

News from Jonah House - "Faith and Resistance" Retreat - 2004

03 Aug '04 - Kee-Tai's Questions

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:01:57 +0100

Hello Laurence, Thanks for your good will message - It's really appreciated here, as we try our best for all folk regardless of labels.

We - and readers - will be thinking of you.
best wishes

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:41:15 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Hello Brothers & sisters in Christ,
I am Laurence from India wishin & praying for you all - i red yours sight - helps us to know more about Christian funds been used

Please do pray for us in India mail to my mail id is lau_jel@******
Have nice blessed day - praying for you all - have great day bye bye
Yours in Christ

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:03:47 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Hi there,
I am wondering if you can tell me who the people who stop you in the street and get you to say Gouranga are?

Whenever I get stopped they never tell me who they represent. Do you know? I know that legally you have to be a registered charity to collect money on the street. Are they?

Let me know by email at: "email***" Cheers,

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:16:32 +0100 To: "Mr.bose" lscbose@***net
Hello Mr. Bose,
There is a problem of ethics.
`Perceptions' can't interfere in peoples' lives, [especially at the behest of third parties].

However, if people would like to email, (just go "mail perceptions" in Google) they should get [whatever] help is possible.

best regards

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 06:15:08 +0530 From: "Mr.bose" lscbose@****.net
Dear Sir,
I need your help, to get one of my relative's daughters to get married to a Tamil Christian Boy. They are the coverted to christianty, belongs to a upper caste called sozhiya vellalar of Tamil Nadu. In fect she is almost like my own daughter. Please try to help me.

She ( electronics and coummunication) presently working in Mexico in USA, with her mother.
With love and regards,

22 June 2004
Mail from Jonah House - here's all their news


[ Google ]

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2005 Ray Dickenson

this page

Share This