Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00372)

Dear Dr Tillett

You write, "> I would assume that any person (whether or not doing so 
as some form of
> "occult training") who now "taught" a prepubescent or pubescent boy 
to
> masturbate and used "indicative action" and possible "touch" could
> anticipate criminal charges and a period in prison."

In this you are entirely correct. In Victorian Britain this kind of 
activity was considered reprehensible in the extreme and could expect 
the harshest treatment. The great difficulty was in proving the case 
without testimony from the abused child. This for reasons I have 
explained to Pablo in my latest post to him.

Thank you again for your input.

Kind regards
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, gregory@... wrote:
>
> Before the Committee hearing the allegations against him, Leadbeater
> admitted to the Committee (and it is recorded in the minutes) that:
> (a) he had "taught" boys to masturbate - just what that can mean is
> unclear but "taught" is obviously distinct from "advised boys not 
to worry
> about masturbating";
> (b) there had been "indicative action" - just what that can mean is 
unclear;
> (c) there "may have been touch involved" - just what that can mean 
is
> unclear;
> (d) this had involved boys who had not sought his advice;
> (e) this had involved prepubescent boys;
> (f) this had involved a number of boys (athough, apparently, less 
than
> twenty).
> The minutes were written up and sworn as an affidavit by G.R.S. 
Mead and
> the person acting as Secretary to the Committee. The minutes were
> subsequently published in a number of places. Leadbeater never 
publicly
> raised any question as to the accuracy of the record.
> I would assume that any person (whether or not doing so as some 
form of
> "occult training") who now "taught" a prepubescent or pubescent boy 
to
> masturbate and used "indicative action" and possible "touch" could
> anticipate criminal charges and a period in prison.
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett
>