Discussion in 'Media' started by Anonymous, Apr 23, 2012.
apart from SWAT thru your front door? nope
As upsetting and wrong as this is, it's one of the very few 'wins' Scientology can grasp and they certainly can't brag about it like they have other times. I mean, this is NOT something you broadcast and brag about! The public take a very dim view to child abuse and I doubt the Australian public will react well to this. The DA will look very bad and extremely incompetent. No matter the reasons behind it, ultimately, they have shot themselves in the foot with their dropping of the charges and will now have to answer for it.
To say nothing of the fact that in the last four+ years since this movement started, Scientology has claimed comparatively few 'wins' compared to Anonymous and those other brave people who fight against it. It's because of Anonymous that this got the kind of media attention it received in the first place. And that has made a tremendous difference.
In the end, this will ultimately be a hollow 'victory' for the C.O.S. It will come back to bite them. It's just a matter of when.
Uh, gaise. I don't want to rain on your parades, but Eastgate doesn't mention Cruise or Travolta in her statement. The Daily Telegraph mentions Cruise and Travolta as her friends in an early version that only Tony Ortega quotes, but that is Fife-Yeomans of the DT, and not actually a part of Eastgate's statement. You can't even find that version of the DT article anymore.
You all should really get this part of the narrative correct.
From TO's VV:
Her statement begins after the quotes, where I have underlined. You can tell, because the names Cruise and Travolta come before the words "released a statement," and then the quotation begins. It was Fife-Yeomans who was associating Eastgate with Travolta and Cruise. Eastgate didn't do it herself.
If you do a Google news search for Eastgate, Cruise and Travolta in the last 24 hours, it only shows up on the VV. You can't even find the original DT article Tony is quoting anymore. Presumably, Fife-Yeomans is the one living down the consequences of having associated Cruise and Travolta with Eastgate; she had to change her article, and has probably spent all day expunging the old version from various Aussie news outlets.
EDIT - Looks like the commenters on the VV are just as rabid as you all are. I emailed Tony to let him know about this fail narrative he is helping to propagate.
You're ping-ponging too much between Logical Debate Herro and Braying Troll Herro.
We'd appreciate a little consistency.
well I am still glad it was mentioned.
Fife mentioning Travolta and Cruise with someone who MAY HAVE asked a child to lie to police about being raped by her father is still lulzy and a bonus in my eyes.
A dumb one on her behalf, but still lulzy.
Cruise and Travolta are responsible for lending their name, their money and their families to an abusive cult.
Cruise has promoted this cult for years by lobbying in DC for Applied Scholastics to be put in every school and for the detox program for fire fighters after 911 and alot more. Travolta and Preston started up Narconon in Hawaii to boot. And Preston was a big public supporter of the CCHR.
I am sure thousands of people have joined COS because of them. Even that mother who got her 14 year old daughter into the Sea Org in AU mentions Tom Cruise.Thanks Tom!
I am very glad their names were mentioned. no matter who said it.
also, if I read it that way, I am sure many of the general public read it that way too! win!
No bb, I'm like a mommy who wants to see you do your best. It's so much better when you make me rage hard.
Google images still needs moar Jan love
NAMBLA links to scientology would make my day
We can always dream.
I wonder if anyone saved a copy of Fife Yeomans original article for comparison. Along with losing Travolta and Cruise I think this bit is different but I am not sure:
Was there not a statement about the Senate rejecting Xenophon's call for an inquiry before he went to the police with Carmen?
Current version here:
Tony weighs in:
My take: It's hard to believe that coaching an 11-year-old girl to lie to police about being sexually molested was not a felony under Australian law in 1985. So the question I'd like answered is why the DPP was unable to refile these charges after they discovered they had filed them incorrectly. It will be interesting to see if Xenophon or Cannane or Seymour -- or Rainer herself -- can get an answer to that question.
whoops! we made a mistake on filing the charges = Jane Eastagte gets no trial and all charges are dropped.
The crime she was charged with simply goes away.
la dee da
If you do see something Interesting on the internet, it could be worth making a screengrab, or backup, just in case. Derp.
The Failboat usually arrives late to the best threads, unfortunately. I don't feel responsibility for failing to get a screen cap of the original, though; I'm not one of the ones who's been following this story for 18 months.
I have to wonder if Cruise or Travolta did in fact come to her defense at all. I wonder if they contacted anyone in the DPP or whomever?
point being, if you see something Interesting, it should be your responsibility to get a screencap.
Not just you, but all the derpier derps that derp this up, too.
Everyone reading this thread who saw the original, who now sees the edited version, and wishes somebody else saved a copy, derp on you.
A caption under a picture with an article in The Australian says
"Cleared" implies more of a judicial review than "charges dropped." But maybe I'm being picky.
First post in this thread has it copypasta'd. But it's still not a screengrab.
It is worth getting this in perspective, I suppose.
The Chairman of The Board of the Church of Scientology, one David Miscavige, his close friend the actor Tom Cruise and Jan Eastgate, head of Sciebntology front group CCHR has been accused by a sexually abused child of fourteen years of age of coaching the child to cover up the child abuse, effectively lying to police and social services.
The testimony of the child included the allegation that Jan Eastgate threatened the child with loss of her mother if she revealed to the authorities what had gone on.
David Miscavige has been pictured with this Eastgate woman, he is in fact her overall boss. I just think that this is interesting. Disgusting, but it is important that the connection is made in my opinion.
The current article for comparison:
Why is this spokeswoman not named? Can we get her name?
The Chelmsford bit was likely removed as it draws attention to a potential conflict of interest: Fife-Yeomans and Eastgate are friends going way back. Notice that the first version conveys a lot of admiration for Eastgate. The re-write removes most of that and emphasizes the idea that the NSW police don't like Nick Xenophon.
Is this true, NSW police? Wait, scratch that. I don't care. "X doesn't like Y" is an old trick, a way to divert attention from something else. It works because it's interesting, like a girl in a bathing suit is interesting. The monkey-mind can only see and later recall the most interesting things in its environment. We must learn to outsmart ourselves if we ever want to have nice things.
So let's take that bit out. What then makes us most curious?
Spokeswoman, I reckon.
When were Tom cruise and David miscavige accused of coaching a girl to cover up sexual abuse?
"Nothing to see here, mates. Move along."
Just now. You did.
Our dear anonchovie went off the rails with his guilt by association failpost. But let's not waste bandwidth on it plz.
Herro you are good at catching this stuff. But somehow you invite Anonymous to go all retarded for like a dozen posts or so. It's like being around my little brother and sister all over again.
I like the Socratic thing generally. But it does require patience.
I dunno. Far be it from me to tell you how to do your jorb.
Google, "guilt by association logical fallacy."
That is a brilliant and insightful question. Good on you.
Rather like your good self, in what can be seen as your attempts here to bury the discussion under a cloak of faux correctitude, it is a matter of association.
It remains that as a child young Carmen Rainer suffered child abuse and subsequently brought the issue of her being terrorized by Jan Eastgate representing The Church of Scientology and by default, its Chairman, David Miscavige into covering it up. This is the jist of her and her mothers very public and credible allegation.
You are a stellar troll, by the way but I still think that this is a human rights issue of some importance and of great interest to Anons and WWP, I think you do too which is why you are trolling rather that contributing.
Why do you hide your IRL identity by the way, as you you are clearly not part of the anon movement?
Anons tend to be idealistic and altruistic, you seem to be the opposite.
I don't think that the interests of victims are best served by trying to drag individuals in through guilt by association just in order to further your own agenda against Scientology. Sorry grebe, I couldn't help myself.
How would you know?
Ok just this once then I promise I will be good.
anonanchovie, Scientology cheats. This is why we protest.
Your post implies that Miscavige and Cruise share some responsibility for Eastgate's behavior. However to support your point all you have is a picture and a reminder of their social relationships.
I give you laundry you no have ticky, that cheating. No ticky no laundry.
It is more than just my own agenda. I think it might be the general agenda of WWP and that agenda is being buried by the likes of yourself under the guise of correctitude.
The enthusiasm of Anons and their selfless protests excited me and encouraged me to write articles and publish a book exposing my observations of the occluded day to day workings of the cult of scientology. The protest actions drove the cult into a corner and emboldened people to speak out, people like Valeska Paris and now in this instance, Carmen Rainer.
In terms of victims being interests being served, well, it was on and is being widely discussed on international TV and Internet news and it is valid grist for the WWP discussion mill I would think.
Unless WWP is being reduced to a forum on legal nuances? I may have missed that shift in emphasis.
By the way, I really don't mind making an ass out of myself, I think the ongoing cause is more important than any sense of pride and decorum.
I know, right? I completely hate myself right now for this derail.
Ten points for resisting, "This isn't about me, anonanchovie."
It's well-worth remembering that scientology = Miscavige.
Nothing moves without his direct or indirect say-so, not even Marty.
That was a terrible post, anonanchovie. The only good part was your willingness to be wrong.
When someone calls you out for making a bad argument, best to avoid emotional appeals like, "Anonymous used to be cool but now, not so much." Emotional appeals are nothing more than social manipulations.
Also, "What is your hidden agenda?" is quite risky. As manipulations go, it's much more stick than carrot (see above). Experienced herders understand that liberal use of the carrot combined with rare use of the stick makes for a contented livestock.
If the agenda is exploiting a child's rape to tar and feather unrelated parties, then I'm more than happy to burry it. Ok grebe I'm done. I promise. Can I have a carrot?
Let us get back then to the substantive issue;
Carmen Rainer and her mother made a very public series of allegations with regard to sexual abuse and an enforced cover up of this abuse by the Church of Scientology Australia using threats against the abused (at the time of disclosure) eleven year old girl of never being allowed to see her mother again.
The child and her mother were coached to withdraw the allegations that Carmen and her friend had made initially to the then CEO of Bernados in Sydney who took the charges further. The person doing the coaching was Jan Eastgate.
The subsequent charges that were brought against Eastgate by Carmen and her mother a year or so ago were being taken very seriously indeed by the NSW DPP. The case was more or less in court, Scientology as the employer of Eastgate has reputational issue at stake. The DPP without warning drop the case.Eastgate goes off happy and makes a somewhat self congratulatory press statement. Carmen is devastated and breaks down in tears on national tv.
This is an emotional issue. It needs to be discussed and not pissed all over. The emotions of rage are quite valid in such cases.
I think that if WWP is unable to get angry, unable to generate the kind emotion that resulted in the 2007 2008 campaigns then it has lost something important. I think that what it has lost should be rekindled.
There are plenty of forums around the net for debates on rhetoric, debates on legalese, debates on the nuances of the law.
I am angry that the Australian DPP dropped the case and that there has been no satisfactory explanation. Scientology has a history of manipulating individuals around any threatening legal actions to make things go in their favor - it is not my job to enumerate all such cases here - I don't see that caving into troll engendered despondency furthers anyones but the cult of scientologies agenda.
Is it not the case that if we all just shut up and go home that further revealtions of the abusive nature of Miscavige's cult will simply evaporate and vulnerable people will continue to be abused and destroyed and remain voiceless?
I see WWP as a voice for such people, I don't know any real ex scientologists (Rathburn and co aside) that have not appreciated the advocacy of WWP in the public arena.
Are you saying Eastgate is an unrelated, uninvolved party in the cover up of the rape of a child?
Watch this video or what?
No, just different opinions. Apparently, the eventual decision was made by the NSW DPP and Assistant DPP. Perhaps they hadn't been involved personally before. Perhaps they only got involved because of the realisation that the office had stuffed up.
Personally, I don't believe anything nefarious happened. I think there were some competence issues. I do think that when the DPP and Assistant DPP got the file it was likely in the context that they knew the office had stuffed up, which might subconsciously have affected their judgement when assessing the evidence. But I'm sure they reached a genuinely held view.
Nope. I'm sayin Tom cruise and David miscavige are unrelated in that alleged coverup. Are we done here?
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!