This is a place for those interested in the Hales exclusive brethren cult who actively destroy families, castrate Gays, avoid paying taxes, cause suicide and murder and are told by leader Bruce D Hales to develop an utter hatred of the world!
This documentary reveals the Charity Commission dispute in the UK a sideshow to where they're really worried about. Wow!
Leonardo! How did you let this happen? These great men are not pleased!
One of the allegations made in the programme was that “they're milking Centrelink for every last cent with government approval.” That was new to me. I had not heard that or anything like it said before. I take it Centrelink is some sort of social security fund. Does anyone know if there is any basis for the allegation?
There is no basis for anything said on that programme. None of it could be proven or substantiated.
I say, Anon 01.21, that is a brilliant argument for the defence; if you were not a shareholder, or even director (enforcer) of the PBCC Ltd, I might think you were a professional lawyer!Illuminator
Anonymous 8 May 2014 01:21Is there any basis for the cruel way the Exclusives treat former members?Is there any basis for the EB destroying families?Is there any basis for the EB taking businesses and homes?
Anon 01.21....There is a basis, as there is now so much proven information in the public domain, the only question remaining is the extent of the deceit, hypocrisy and dodgy practice. Unless, of course, you have a paranoid belief in an ill-founded opposition to the PBCC Ltd.
There is no basis for anything said on that programme. None of it could be proven or substantiated
Looks like we have a parrot in this thread; nothing new there...mindless repetition, as in all things PBCC Ltd.
Yes Ian, Centrelink is 'the dole office' and I hadn't heard the allegation before either.
Anonymous8 May 2014 01:21 wrote, “There is no basis for anything said on that programme. None of it could be proven or substantiated.” That is a good example of what I call going into “automatic denial mode,” which Brethren do with surprising frequency when responding to criticism. It ruins their credibility for two reasons. First, some of the statements made on the programme are very well established, such as the change of name, or banning computers and then owning them and selling them. Secondly, you could not possibly know whether some of the statements are true or false, such as statements about what someone said to someone else. So when you say “There is no basis for anything said on that programme,” you are denying both the things that are true and the things you could not possibly know about, unless you know everything anyone has said to anyone else. One of the sources of the information for the programme appears to be Michael Bachelard, who has established a formidable reputation for his careful investigation and accurate reporting. His book “Behind the Exclusive Brethren” is an outstanding example of his work. It was carefully researched, and the evidence meticulously documented. I could find very few factual errors in it, which is unusual for books of that sort.
"Anonymous8 May 2014 01:21There is no basis for anything said on that programme. None of it could be proven or substantiated."Perhaps this contributor could, as a starting point, deny that in September 2002 in Detroit Bruce Hales condemned the very idea of computers (as quoted on these pages) but now the EB/PBCC people, through the same Mr Hales' business, use them extensively and even sell them and offer IT consultancy. Now which bit of this is without basis or cannot be substantiated?
Are you on rechargeable batteries??
No smoke without fire...
Anonymous 8 May 23.55 and 23.55 You seem to be following the EB practice of saying the same thing over and over again. My recollection is that within the EB if something is repeated often enough it must be right.However many irrefutable and attested facts about the behaviour of the Exclusive brethren were contained in the broadcast so denial is as futile as denying that there was a time when remote garage door openers were forbidden.
To the Exclusive Brethren PBCC supporter who says – “There is no basis for anything said on that programme. None of it could be proven or substantiated”Before you make further wild assumptive denials, which make the Exclusive Brethren Plymouth Brethren Christian Church look foolish, even more cultish and even less like a supposed ‘Christian Church’, amongst other items the Australian “A Current Affair” program highlighted the following - - The name change from Exclusive brethren to Plymouth Brethren Christian Church- The link between the Exclusive Brethren PBCC and the RRT - The sudden rush to attempt to be Charitable, which they haven’t done before- The breakup of families, which is still going on- The change from banning computers to now owning and selling them- The Big Brother nature of the monitoring- Attendance at University being forbidden - The importance of Charitable status to fund schools - The importance of Charitable status to gain tax breaks for meeting rooms & trustsAre you and the Exclusive Brethren Plymouth Brethren Christian Church now saying that the program items highlighted in the list above have “No basis”, “No Proof”, and can not be “substantiated” ??? Please clarify Before you dig yourself even further into an embarrassing denial of reality, can I remind you that all program items from “A Current Affair” in the above list “CAN” be supported by documented evidence from – - Exclusive Brethren PBCC “Own” printed ministry and letters- Historical archives- Court reports- UK Parliamentary Committee Reports- Testimony from your own members to UK Parliament (Garth Christie, et el)- Testimony from former members- Testimony from concerned Christians- UK Charity Commission Report of Jan 2014- The Exclusive Brethren’s previous and current websites- Published Books- And many more sourcesGiven these facts do you and the Exclusive Brethren Plymouth Brethren Christian Church still claim the program items highlighted in the list above have “No basis”, “No Proof”, and can not be “substantiated” ??? Please clarify
Hahaha....got the reaction I wanted.You guys are suckers for punishment! :)