Loading...

Thursday, 27 March 2014

The 'divinely accredited' and lamentable Hales dynasty of nepotistic power freaks

From www.wikipeebia.com; 

http://wikipeebia.com/the-revenge-of-bruce-hales/

The revenge of Bruce Hales – I have been very astute when it comes to Bruce Hales and his Hench team.  Mind you- it’s not hard to work him out. I saw the posturing after his father’s death and the bravado and insecurity of his bible fumbling’s in his first meetings. And fumble he did. But luckily he had a father in law with loads of front row service under his belt who it is reported used to help out with scripture and verse and topics for fellowship and three days meetings.

But the real story here is that this is not a tale of the next link in the unbroken line – but a tale of revenge. A bloody tale. Most coups are bloody and not without their victims and casualties. Names like Paskewitz come to mind when JSH grabbed the reigns from Symington’s dying hands. There was a worldwide expectation that the eminently qualified Mr P. would take over as the Elect Vessel. And there were people with other candidates in mind when JSH was ailing. But his sons had formed the wagons into a circle at the time and there was never any other option. BDH was filled with talk of keeping the pure line in family hands. And of revenge.  The most telling thing that Bruce Hales said at the time, according to former Sydney heavyweight Bob Thorncroft, who was the recipient of this pearl of intention, was- and I quote:

“The Hales name has been dirt for a number of years, but it is going to be different now”.

This was a family grasping back the power that it has lost – not once but three times. And it rankled them- you could tell.  They were peeved in the extreme and humiliated that their father and uncle and others had been dealt with for their misdemeanours.  Sadly – in the Exclusive Brethren- if a Man of God says it- you’re stuck with it! So when Hales’ father was thrown out three times by Taylor and Symington- the younger Hales could do no more at the time but sit there and grind their teeth as the shame and anger welled up inside them. Of course they paid lip service to Symington – BDH even ringing him to say that he agreed with him for the judgment on his father. Symington then told BDH to stay close to Ron Fawkes- before Fawkes met his Waterloo, along with other threats to the top job.  I could say that he was a grovelling little bastard but to be fair- if BDH didn’t take this line he would have been out on his ear too. Like I said- Brethren leaders are as infallible as any Pope.

But as John Hales’ health was failing him, including the reported over reliance on anti-depressants by both John and Helen Hales, together with the underlying fear of what he had placed on his brethren coming back to bite him in the afterlife   – his son was already working hard to ensure that he would be the one to take over from him – thus destroying the conception that Elect Vessels come from heaven. They don’t. Trust me. And this letter from Bob Thorncroft, a once prominent stalwart in the Sydney assembly, is more telling than many may realize.  And Thorncroft provides not only an insight – but actual words that provide evidence of this transition of power from JSH to BDH. He witnessed it.

You can see the intent and venom in that one line. Of course, Hales would refute this or dilute it today – but Bob Thorncroft was from the old school and was not a man to tell lies and he remembers this is exactly what BDH said on that particular day.

Now I have maintained for years that the Hales are by nature- power freaks. And we also know that they are nepotistic to their core. And they have become known to be very cruel people too. There is evidence that John Hales liked to push younger Peebs around as far back as WW11, reading and learning tactics of control from books. And the evidence of their System day’s shenanigans is still top of mind with most people who lived through it. They ran roughshod over the poor unsuspecting Brethren who were powerless to respond as they might have liked to at the time. This of course is one of the main issues with Sect leaders….you can’t back chat them. Your opinion does not matter. Your feelings don’t matter to them either.

Bruce has been good to his word. He has reversed just about everything that was wrong with his extended family and bestowed privilege on his brothers and relatives. He has brought back his uncle and cousin, he has whitewashed his aunt’s name and reputation, he has expunged and paid for debts and he has set them up like never before. Their family trusts runneth over. He has rebuilt the Hales name – better make that- Brand- and he has built a new castle for himself and his family and provided for his relatives. His name is on every legal title and he has raped and pillaged the Brethren financially – reversing every rule in the book to maximize every last buck out of their wallets and now their companies. His fingers are in every pie and he now presides over his empire with the aggression and watchfulness of a Kim ll Sung.

The wicked thing is that this family has not reversed its judgments on those they deposed and dealt with appallingly- from other families. Like the man who refused John Hales’ requests to look at his business books. Hales contacted his wife and told her that he had ways and means to assist her to leave her husband. Then they threw the man out and took him to court so many times that he really never saw his kids again. Oh- he won the court case but by then the children were so poisoned against their father that the result was the way Hales had orchestrated it anyway. And this was not because this man was doing anything unspiritual. It was because he had an accountant and didn’t want John Hales nosing through his personal financial records as well. Remember this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tVdoRRUT2o

This is where a church becomes a sect. Right there! When your leader stops being your religious leader and tries to get his fingers on your finances and records – you have your definition proven in an instant.

Poor old Bob Thorncroft was thrown out in a vengeful way and never wished to be reinstated. He died out of the fellowship. But his thoughts at the time bewildered him as he set them down for us to see the early history of this current Brethren leader.

He goes on to say “I am convinced that pride and the love of prominence is at the root of his (BDH’s) trouble.”

When you get away from the EB – you can see them very clearly for what they are. And what they are not. And the last 10 years have perhaps been the most disturbing. We have watched an inept, greedy man and his brothers with a genetic lust for power and a love of other people’s money, wrestle the leadership from the hands of an ailing father and go into areas never before plumbed by the EB.

Bob goes on -”The brutal way that we, as old brethren have been treated particularly over the last three years by Bruce, Daniel and Ross Hales and the party stalwarts is something I would rather not go into, even to rejecting that we can have communion privately with the Lord. What more could they do to un-Christianise a person? I can well understand some persons treated like this becoming bitter.  We pray for grace to preserve us from this. The fact is Bruce was furious because concern was expressed publicly about the worldly conduct in which his own family had a leading part, and has done his utmost to find or fabricate some reason to get me out of the way.  Searching for imagined evil has entered into it and he resorts to bluff to get brethren to believe what he wants them told.  Unfortunately many have been so mesmerized that they think he can’t possibly do any wrong.”

Amazingly, Bob was a long-time supporter of John Hales and his family. But boy – didn’t he get bitten by the junior Hales members! Indeed they have done it to many people. All of their perceived threats have been removed. John Hales’s meticulously recorded personal files from his terror filled regime were apparently carefully destroyed by the sons so that their fathers  interference in other people’s lives could not be pinned on the newly cleansed Hales name. But the waters have never been so muddy since his youngest son has taken over the reins. Indeed his reversals are in many cases -a direct opposite to what his father was throwing people out for 20 years ago. Of course this sort of inconsistency and human flotsam is of no consequence to a Hales.

The controlling position and the desire to obtain wealth from others is everything. And the removal of ‘mud’ from the Hales name.


Here's Bob Thorncrofts letter for those that haven't seen it;

35 Fremont  Avenue,

Ermington, N.S.W. 2115

20th July 2002

 

What I am writing is not to criticise brethren, nor an attempt at self-justification or proclaiming self-righteousness, (far be the thought) but to state the truth, over against the lies which have been and continue to be circulated.

The position my wife and I have reluctantly taken is that we have withdrawn from Mr Bruce D Hales and his party supporters.  We have nothing against the truth held by brethren as it has been brought to us by leaders raised up distinctively by the Lord, J.N. Darby, F.E. Raven, J. Taylor, J. Taylor Jnr, and J.H. Symington and J.S. Hales.

What is at issue is the position of the one sovereignly chosen by the Lord to serve His people being quickly seized by a person who shows by his conduct that he is not morally qualified for such an office.

Those referred to who have led in the recovery of the truth have exhibited the spirit of Christ, in humility, self-judgement, lowliness, moral uprightness, free from preference and prejudice or respect of persons.  They each had enemies who attacked them personally and opposed the truth which they expressed not only in word, but practically in their way of life.

It is a well known and often used tactic in the world that attack is the best form of defense, especially when one knows he is guilty of wrongdoing, but too proud to admit it.  Sadly this has also been my own experience with Bruce D. Hales.

With nothing personal in mind at all, I have had reason to express to him genuine concern regarding certain of his own activities, and the conduct of some members of his household and that of his brother Stephen, for whom he acts as protector.  These matters have not just been isolated occurrences which could be bourne with, or overlooked, but are inconsistent with standard of the fellowship and the maintenance of right brotherly relations.

On every occasion, he  has not only flatly rejected my exercises, but sought to discredit me by spreading untrue reports, which brethren accept because of the place he has and the overpowering influence of his personality.

To divert attention from his own matters, he has concentrated his attacks on the theme that I was rival, and opposed to Mr Hales.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  He even goes so far as to claim that a word I gave in the ministry meeting in Sydney on 19th October 1999 was an attack on Mr. Hales.

When challenged on one of their visits, the “priests” could not provide one shred of evidence that the word was an attack on anyone, specially Mr. Hales.  They then said the word caused other brethren to be critical of Mr Hales and Bruce, but they couldn’t explain how this could be the result, nor could they give any facts to support their claim that I was rival to Mr Hales.

We sometimes puzzle how brethren could swallow such falsehood, when only a few short years earlier I was instrumental in looking into the wrongs done to Mr. Hales and having those wicked charges rejected and withdrawn.  Could a rival to Mr Hales be the author of the summary published in ministry in October 1987? A copy is enclosed.

As to the accusation that I changed his ministry, I freely own that at Mr Hales request, I reviewed the transcripts of his Sydney meetings and suggested some minor changes be  made for readability. These were all in pencil and returned to Mr Hales for his approval before being sent to the Depot.  At no time was I regarded as editor.  When the matter was first raised with me, copies of the transcripts were given me, not the originals on which the changes were made.  So many changes were attributed to me that I knew I did not make, so I asked to be shown the originals for checking however they were not made available.  I also suggested that they could go over with Mr Hales to test the truth of what I told them but was given the curt reply “He has forgotten”.  Could you really believe this?

Just an example of my changes – in a reading on 18th March 1995 Mr Hales said “the foe is so deceitful, he is so trained in deceit” etc.  I suggested the word “trained” be changed to “experienced”, as “trained” seemed to suggest outside influence.

On many occasions I sat down with Mr Hales in his house to go over the notes and asked him at least twice whether what I was doing was what he wanted done and was acceptable.  He expressed no difficulty.  Daniel would never accept that my changes were “suggested”.  He claimed that they were not referred to Mr Hales but sent straight from me to the Depot.  That is a lie.

Following the word I gave in the ministry meeting, Mr Hales expressed no difficulty, – he actually told Stephen Hales in my presence, and heard by others “There was nothing wrong with it”.  However, like Stephen, Bruce was enraged and persuaded his father to have second thoughts.  It was only then that Mr Hales phoned me the next morning (with Bruce listening) to suggest that the word “assembly” be changed and that referring to the verses in 1 Corinthians 5 was inappropriate.  It was obvious that he did this at Bruce’s direction, however he did not support Bruce’s demand that the word be entirely withdrawn.

On one of the many occasions the “priests” were trying to force me to withdraw the word, I finally said “Mr Hales has spoken to me a number of times regarding this matter, and has never said that the word should be withdrawn, however, if he states that that is now his mind, I will submit to it, – Please ask him”. They came back to me later to say that they decided not to ask Mr Hales and accused me of wanting to run my own case, and despising the priesthood, I think I know why they were afraid to ask Mr Hales.

Without wishing to discredit Mr Hales in any way it was becoming obvious that his deteriorating health and increasing weakness caused him to be dependant on his sons for physical support.  Either Bruce or Daniel accompanied him wherever he went and it was unlikely that anyone could talk to him privately without one if them (mostly Bruce) being present. Bruce eventually assumed control of all local administrative functions, finances, meeting arrangements, giving to levites, groups, even, it appears, where 3 day and fellowship meetings were to be held. He seemed to be able to use his powers of persuasion increasingly on his father to get him to think his way on most matters and persons, universally. Thankfully, not completely, but my impression is that Mr Hales was in such a weak condition that he tended to allow Bruce free rein, which of course Bruce was quick to take advantage of… Woe betide any who dared to question what he did.

The brutal way that we, as old brethren have been treated particularly over the last three years by Bruce, Daniel and Ross Hales and the party stalwarts is something I was rather not go into, even to rejecting that we can have communion privately with the Lord. What more could they do to unchristianise a person? I can well understand some persons treated like this becoming bitter.  We pray for grace to preserve us from this.

It is not my desire to expose the persons involved, however quite a number of brethren, particularly younger ones attended an organised district festival where there was public entertainment in which some of our young brothers (up to 20 years old) participated, singing and dancing on stage with worldly girls.  I was told that one young brother was detained for some time by the police for harassing young women.  The extent of what took place was obviously kept from Mr Hales, as after the word, he immediately came over to me to ask what happened.

The fact is Bruce was furious because concern was expressed publicly about the worldly conduct in which his own family had a leading part, and has done his utmost to find or fabricate some reason to get me out of the way.  Searching for imagined evil has entered into it and he resorts to bluff to get brethren to believe what he wants them told.  Unfortunately many have been so mesmerised that they think he can’t possibly do any wrong.

I am convinced that pride and the love of prominence is at the root of his trouble.  He once said to me, after Mr Hales matters were put right in the assembly, “The Hales name has been dirt for a number of years, but it is going to be different now”.  A strange statement to make which I have never forgotten, but it shows his thinking.

We love the truth, and the brethren and are grieved that the brethren, being generally submissive, have many times been forced to accept testimony brought to the assembly which has been untrue and biased – persons being made the issue, not the truth.  This has occurred often in this city over the years, springing from strong personal feelings and predjudices, with the readiness to condemn certain persons rather than serve them by love.

What patience the Lord has shown, what boundless grace despite the tendancy to allow history to repeat itself in almost every generation.

We pray that we may be kept humble and contrite to provide a basis for the Lord to come in and grant deliverance and recovery to the full level of the truth.

Bob Thorncroft


And the other letter;


35 Fremont Ave, 
ERMINGTON 2115, N.S.W.


22 May 2002


Ken Williams
Beloved Brother,

We are writing this letter to you and two other elders in the city, Bob Chappell and Doug Mansley asking you to acquaint the brethren at Ermington of our decision to withdraw from Mr Bruce D. Hales and his party of supporters.

Be assured we are not giving up the truth or the path of separation and what has come down to us in the recovery through faithful men J.N.D. F.E.R. J.T. J.T.Jnr J.H.S. and J.S.H. men raised up of the Lord (not self) to lead His people. They were humble men.

You may not realise that particularly since August 1995 (when a simple brotherly warning was conveyed to B.D.H. regarding activities which undermine brotherly confidence and produce personal feelings) we have been made increasingly conscious of not being wanted in B.D.H.’s scheme of domination of the brethren locally and eventually, the assembly universally.

What has unfolded since that time is respect of persons, preference and prejudice, deceit and party activity, with the inevitable allowance and cover up of a lower standard.

This has been persisted in despite beloved Mr Hales labour and travail and it is heart breaking to think that in his increasing physical weakness he has been deceived by one he trusted so much. It would be summed up in B.D.H.’s own words, “I told you some things”. The situation in which that was said publicly was clearly the Lord’s ambush and the frantic efforts to explain it away by false accusations against others are confirmation of the dark character of things working.

You no doubt know that the word in the ministry meeting following the 1999 Granny Smith Festival exposed outrage in persons too proud to admit they were wrong. What seems to have infuriated them more is Mr Hales witnessed statement that there was nothing wrong with the word. We have clung to this. We know that under pressure from B.D.H. Mr Hales phoned me next day and suggested a minor adjustment, Mr Hales never at any time asked me to withdraw the word. Some days later, he told Mark Bartlett that it was never in his mind that the word be withdrawn.

Through intimidation and intense pressure I finally submitted and agreed to withdraw it, otherwise knowing the prevailing spirit of condemnation I could, and no doubt would have been accused of contention. The fact remains that the truth contained in the word still stands – there is nothing personal in it. A copy is enclosed.

The present position is that they continue to presume to judge my motives in giving it, however, when asked to say what they object to, they can only say that the word provoked feelings in some brethren against Mr Hales and B.D.H. but cannot say how it could have had that effect.

Many false and injurious accusations have been made against us which we are prepared to discuss with you if you wish, but the real crux of the issues relates to the word I gave as previously mentioned and many times have stated my exercise was against worldliness and intended to support Mr Hales labours to keep us separate form it. A couple of times we asked “what were the outstanding issues of the truth” but the answer was very vague.

Just as one example of what we have had to endure, we learned of the Lord taking beloved Mr Hales (and earlier Mrs Hales) not from the brethren, but from one “outside” before his burial. The outside person is a receptionist in my specialist doctor’s rooms and is a neighbour of B.D.H. I happened to have an emergency appointment that Tuesday morning and could hardly believe that such news of Mr Hales death could be passed on to outsiders from B.D.H.’s household so quickly. Daniel and Ross came unannounced about a week later to tell us the news and were flabbergasted when we told them that we knew it before the burial and explained how. They came back a couple of days later and said “We want you to declare before God how you came to learn of Mr Hales death”. I went over it again, Daniel then declared “I have reason to believe that you are not telling the truth”. He then asked whether I knew anything about some offensive sheets of paper placed under the windscreen wipers of brethrens’ cars during the burial meeting. Of course we knew nothing about it. He then repeated “I have STRONG reason to believe that you are not telling the truth”.

At other times they persisted with suspicion of my knowledge of the graffiti attacks on the meeting rooms and claimed that my initials appearing above Mr Hales initials on some rooms showed that persons were preferring me to Mr Hales. This supposedly supported their accusation that I was rival to Mr Hales. At the finish of one very brief session, Daniel quoted to me what one brother said were features of open brethren, the strong inference being that I’m like them. Another time (in which they were only here 5 – 8 minutes) I was told to read what happened to Uzziah and likened my case to him. Wasn’t that encouraging! There is also evidence that B.D.H. circulated widely that I was rival to Mr Hales, but didn’t say it to me.

It is just typical of the attitude of distrust and suspicion which has characterised their interviews right from the beginning. And they claim to be priests. In my poor understanding, a priest thinks for God, and as judging himself, feels for the sinner, and is impartial in his discernment, not set to uphold some persons and condemn others. We are not prepared to speak further with those three persons.

We are called upon (1 John ch.4) to “prove the spirits”, going on to “every spirit which does not confess Jesus Christ come in flesh is not of God”. How can a proud, ambitious, arrogant and overbearing spirit be reconciled with Jesus Christ come in flesh, the man who is meek and lowly, who humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death etc, sad to say, many persons in the recovery who aspired to leadership were exposed by their spirits and set aside. You would know some.

Your attention is humbly drawn to some scriptures having a direct current bearing – 3rd John verses 9 – 11, 1 Timothy ch.3 verses 4, 5 & 6, Isaiah ch. 29 verses 19, 20 & 21 and 1 Kings ch. 1. verses 5 - 10 and ch. 2 verses 13 to 17. This last scripture pointing to the seriousness of one wanting the assembly in it’s purity for himself. 

The directive in 2 Timothy is clear, and as before the Lord we name the activities of Mr B.D. Hales and his party of supporters as evil and therefore we must withdraw from iniquity and can no longer walk in fellowship with those persons.

Yours in Christ

R.W. THORNCROFT N.M. THORNCROFT

8 comments:

  1. 'The fact is Bruce was furious because concern was expressed publicly about the worldly conduct in which his own family had a leading part, and has done his utmost to find or fabricate some reason to get me out of the way. Searching for imagined evil has entered into it and he resorts to bluff to get brethren to believe what he wants them told.'

    And that's exactly what Gordon Pollard did to my own father. Did not want him as his accountant anymore, so he fabricated a story and spread it round. I was hearing stuff from 300 miles away about my own parents who lived round the corner. You think he ever made any attempt to put that right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob Thorncroft wrote another letter as well - if you Google "Bob Thorncroft - Friends Alive" it will bring it up. Perhaps Laurie could post this one as well.

      Delete
    2. http://www.friends-alive.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=207&sid=e9f5ccb9163262b809dd53102491e090

      Delete
    3. It's sad to see a man struggling for integrity and honesty, yet still believing in the mythology of 'the recovery'.

      Either way it seems he was on a hiding to nothing.

      Delete
  2. Never heard of him. Did he go on to lead his own branch of ex-brethren and keep up the peeb-speak?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand the cynicism about admiring someone who was still, it appears, a peeb to the core. But like the rest of us, while we still 'in', peeb-speak was the only language we knew. Within the confines he was operating he was challenging - with considerable courage - an awful hierarchy. Perhaps in the succeeding years he has learned that the system itself was bad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Thorncroft passed away several years ago - he never rejoined the Peebs. His wife returned to the Peebs after his death due to her age and health issues.

    Thorncroft was instrumental in having John Hales returned to the Peebs during the 80's. He was also used by John Hales to solidify Hales position as the MOG after Symington's death in 1987-he was sent to America two months in a row to take the Neche fellowship meeting which was a universal focal point during Symington's time.
    And yes, he was a Peeb thru and thru - as John says how else would you expect him to speak? He should be remembered for his courage to remain true to his personal convictions. Remember most of us at one time only talked and thought Peebspeak.
    The purpose of the letters being published was not to draw attention to Thorncroft but to give an inside look at how BDH gained control of the Peebs in a long term and very focused way and how he used the most dishonorable means to do so - lying and bullying among other things. As well it should be abundantly clear that BDH had no respect or compassion for his father even during his dying days even though today he idolizes him at every opportunity.
    The letters give us a very candid inside look at the character of the dictator running the Peebs today. Here is a man who is a liar and a bully, devoid of real oratory and moral character responsible for the lives of more than 400000 people. Ask yourself a simple question - if BDH wasn't the son of JSH would he be the MOG? Absolutely not! No more than Kim Jong-un ruling North Korea.

    Spenser

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh Leonardo J Octavianus! Wherefore art thou?

    ReplyDelete