September 14, 2017
Some days back, “Daniel Walker,” who writes as “Covert Fade” on the website JWsurvey.com, announced on Facebook that he was authoring a book about the Australian Royal Commission Inquiry. One of the victims who testified during the case, “BCG,” objected to her story being part of the book. What followed after that was a very disturbing, very public thrashing of BCG and me, by Lloyd Evans, aka John Cedars on YouTube.
Before I continue, if anyone has a problem with me bringing up this subject, remember that Lloyd attacked me with these baseless, public accusations; since then, he has not apologized for, or even acknowledged, his slander. I absolutely won’t allow defaming things to be said about me, publicly, without answering those accusations, as if I should just “take it.” I have every right and responsibility to set the record straight.
It’s been stated many times that BCG and I never discussed a book; even so, this accusing suggestion, that I might be “cynically exploiting” her for any reason, is downright vulgar. As a child sex abuse survivor myself, and as someone who knows the hell my friend Bo Juel went through to write his story, I would be loath to “exploit” another abuse survivor, especially for a book. I’m just absolutely sickened and disgusted at these words.
Let’s Just Make Up Our Own Reality
If you reread Lloyd’s statements, you can see how his lies and assertions are from scenarios he simply made up off the top of his head; he “believes” BCG is being cynically exploited, he “understands” she’s writing her own book, and says it’s “possible” she’s been persuaded to think of a book as competition. He says all of this, without fact-checking as to whether or not a book was even in the works in the first place (which it wasn’t). He outright says I was “creating controversy,” ignoring the fact that BCG approached Daniel Walker of her own accord, and was sending him public and private messages long before I contacted her to offer support. As with Daniel Walker’s very dishonest and misleading message on his Facebook wall about who was approaching him and why, this really calls into account all of Lloyd’s statements, everywhere. How many things does he say and assert because he “believes” them to be true, even if they’re not? If he outright says that I was “creating controversy” when I was not, what else has he said about me, or anyone else, that is also not true?
Personal vendetta? What the…? A vendetta for what? Does Lloyd have six fingers on his right hand?
It is true that I came out against Lloyd for printing and distributing copies of the book, “Crisis of Conscience,” something he did without permission from the copyright owner. As a writer and publisher, copyright is very important to me; however, my copyright wasn’t involved, so why would I have a “vendetta” for that?
It is also true that Lloyd left very inaccurate statements on my Facebook page about the UK Charity Commission investigation, so that I had to go to the CC themselves to question his statements, and post their response on this site. Yes, I am greatly bothered by what Lloyd said, especially if it may have gotten in the way of any victim approaching the Commission with their story. However, a vendetta? I’m not in the UK; he didn’t get in the way of me telling my story.
It’s also true that I gave Lloyd, and his associates at the Open Minds Foundation (OMF), a good thrashing when they lied about activist Marc Latham, telling a journalist that Marc was not being completely truthful to her, and encouraging that journalist to drop a particular story altogether (this page). Lloyd recently said that he did this to “correct wrong information”:
However, the BBC picked up on this story, regarding the Watchtower shredding documents in the UK, and reported what Marc had been saying to the other journalist (this page). The “friend” Lloyd mentions above, Patrick Haeck, apologized to Marc earlier this year. I give him full credit for that, but if he and Lloyd were correcting “wrong information,” why apologize? Why not say, “Marc, you know we had to preserve the story…”? Back to the point; as much as it infuriates me to see Lloyd getting in the way of stories and lying about an activist, why would I have a “vendetta” over it? He didn’t lie about me; he lied about Marc. They silenced stories of other victims, not me.
It’s also true that, when I approached Lloyd privately about his “Crisis of Conscience” bootlegging, he took the opportunity to suddenly start trashing my friend Bo, referring to him as “vain and self-obsessed,” while also flippantly saying, “Yes, he’s an abuse victim. Yes, he’s an ex-JW. Yes, he has fantastic hair.”
Also, regarding the book Bo and I were working on at the time, Lloyd said, “It’s certainly a new one on me that he is a writer, since he contributed precisely fuck all writing to our early efforts at AAWA, preferring instead to order other people (including myself) to do his writing for him. But I’m delighted for him that he has pulled a new skill out of his arse, and I hope it will serve to help some to awaken from their cult indoctrination.”
Lloyd also shared his unsolicited opinion about Bo’s activism, “As far as I’m concerned he has never brought anything meaningful to the table,…”
Why would any of this cause me to have a personal vendetta against Lloyd? Bo does have fantastic hair.
You don’t need to guess at Lloyd’s meaning in calling me a “regressive activist”:
According to Merriam Webster, “character assassination” means, “the slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person.”
So, character assassination involves slander, or things that are not true, but everything I’ve said about Lloyd above is true, and can be backed up with screen grabs, emails, etc. However, by his own definition, Lloyd would then be the “regressive activist” for this character assassination against me. He slandered me by saying I was “creating controversy,” and by accusingly suggesting that I was “cynically exploiting” a sex abuse victim as “emotional leverage.” All lies and baseless accusations.
Dr. George Simon, PhD., explains “splitting” at this site:
“…a very conscious, deliberate tactic used by fairly well-integrated but headstrong and combative personalities who want what they want at all costs and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat their “opponents.” The tactic of dividing and conquering is as old as time … Among the most disordered characters, aggressive personalities are prone to using this tactic.”
Bree Bonchay, LCSW, discussed “splitting” at this site:
“This method of triangulation involves pitting two people against each other. The narcissist does this by smearing the character of one or both of the people behind their backs. This enables the narcissist to preserve their false image and ensures they’re viewed positively among the triangle. In many instances, the narcissist will portray themselves as the victim… The narcissist will usually seek supporters that he/she knows will always agree with them, no matter what.”
Interesting stuff, that “splitting.”
The Bottom Line
Bottom line. Lloyd’s lies and assertions are not true. I never talked to BCG about a book, much less would I ever “cynically exploit” a victim as “emotional leverage” for any reason; I can barely even type that, it’s so disgusting to me. I never “created” this controversy; BCG acted of her own accord in objecting to Daniel Walker. I have no “vendetta” against Lloyd, whatever that means.
Lloyd, I’m sure, cannot provide a shred of evidence to support this character assassination against me. None. Whatever his reasons for slandering me and defaming me, I’m guessing he didn’t consider that I’m not exactly powerless to respond to public lies and accusations, or maybe he assumed I’d sit in a corner and quake in fear. LOL. I just rode out Irmageddon; Reddit does not intimidate me.
That being said, Lloyd’s insults to me and outright lies are just a footnote; the real problem is that all of his dividing of the exJW community, his potential scaring abuse victims from coming forward for fear they may be called “irrational and unreasonable,” and his slandering of other activists is all very beneficial for the Watchtower, and very regressive to activism.
The September 4, 2017, Season 5, Episode 1 of JW Podcast, titled “Speak Out,” featured a discussion of this issue. Please listen here.
For more background regarding this matter, please read, “Activism Should Never Be At the Expense of the Victims.”
Read BCG’s public statement regarding these social media attacks at, “Public Statement of “BCG” In Response to Recent Manufactured Social Media Attacks.”
Daniel Walker has since offered an apology to BCG, who has not accepted it. Please read her statement in response at, “Public Statement of “BCG” In Response to Daniel Walker’s Apology.” Read my personal statement in response at, “My Personal Response to Daniel Walker’s Apology to Victim “BCG””
Lloyd Evans has offered an “apology” to BCG, who has not accepted it. Please read her statement on the matter at, “Public Statement of “BCG” and Response to Lloyd Evans’ Apology.” Read my response to Lloyd Evans’ “apology” at, “My Personal Response to Lloyd Evans’ Apology to Victim “BCG”“