|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 1, 2011 23:40:48 GMT -5
???Hey Redback, you hav a strange attitude. You said you were so glad you didnt hav to keep your end up til u were 100. I'm sorry, but I actually find that very odd. I hav a hubby thats around the 70 mark. Very active. very keen. Hope I'm not embarrassing everyone here. Think I'm blushing. Are u sure you name isnt really Ernie.
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 1, 2011 23:47:17 GMT -5
???I would hav thought Ernie wouldnt be allowed out of Vic. What dates Speed and Thoona Conv. Not far to either from Echuca.
|
|
|
Post by catgirl on Nov 2, 2011 4:02:05 GMT -5
I agree ram. The CSA guidelines that have been developed by a group of the friends are an excellent tool for use by the workers and if followed properly will go a long way to protecting our children from abuse. However it appears that the workers as a group are hesitant to adopt them which is a great shame. Not the wrong end of the stick....If all persons were mandated they would be far more vigilant and knowledgeable about CSA and the perps would not be under the Radar as they are now. Duty of care to our children is paramount and mandated people are very aware of this and have to act on information. Any worker who hesitates or is reluctant to adopt them should be aborted from the system like an evacuated bowel movement, then flushed away with his or her return craved no more!
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Nov 2, 2011 4:50:50 GMT -5
Regarding reply 133. Hi TS, good to see you on this thread. I’m not sure we can say that the worker Ernie Barry, who left the work in disgrace, has been more favourably treated in terms of the payout granted by the overseer, as compared to a worker leaving by his or her own choice and without a dark cloud over his or her head. The friends give money to the workers and some leave their estates to the work, without any caveat or accounting procedures being in place. The Vic / Tas overseer has a large amount of funds held in trust and administered by three trustees but available to him at his total discretion. On Cherie’s website there is a copy of sworn testimony taken by Victoria Police from the late Evan Jones, previous overseer of Victoria / Tasmania describing this fact. Of course there is a new overseer and maybe the trustees have changed, but the general arrangement is certainly still in place. It is clear from observation that when workers leave the work, some payment of funds from the trust is made to these departing workers. Those I am aware of who have left the work in various Australian States, have all managed to purchase homes and otherwise provide themselves with an adequate living. I am not surprised that Ernie Barry has been granted an allocation from the trust and do not think he has necessarily been shown favourable treatment, although someone in the secular world who is dismissed from office for criminal behaviour would probably lose some entitlements. What is disturbing is that all such payments are kept secret and are made entirely at the overseers’ discretion. This fact alone is a very powerful force to keep all workers subservient to the overseer. Many years ago in Victoria, an elder discovered that his daughter, who was in the work, maintained a bank account in her own name. The elder did not think this was “scriptural” and raised the matter with the then overseer. The elder and his wife were excommunicated and so were some who stood by them. This was a factor in the schism that occurred in Victoria in the 1950’s. Perhaps using personal bank accounts was how they did it in those days, now they use trust monies to give workers a payout when and if they leave the work. It is indeed an undisclosed and sneaky payment facility, which enables the workers to maintain they are unpaid, when in reality a nice monetary balance is accruing. I don’t decry the facility per seÌ, but do take exception to the deceitfulness. Interesting information cooee. Are you sure that EB has been given money out of the trust fund? If this is the case then it is totally wrong that a convicted criminal has been given money that has been donated by the friends, who naively think that it being used to support the workers. I bet they didn't count on this type of support!! Do you think that trust money has been used to help fund his lawyers? If this is the case then the overseer should be sacked!!
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Nov 2, 2011 4:55:30 GMT -5
Hi Angelina Mouse, Thanks for the question about the taxation treatment of the 2x2 fellowship. Recognised and registered churches enjoy advantageous treatment under taxation law in Australia. Contrary to what is claimed by the 2x2’s and contrary to what many 2x2’s believe, this church IS registered and does have a registered name!!!!! That registered name is “Christian Conventions”. Underneath that header there is a cunning word play, “Representing Assemblies of Christians Assuming This Name Only”. (Source is sworn statement taken by Victorian Police from the late Evan Jones, a former overseer of Victoria / Tasmania) In his statement, Evan claims that “this letterhead is used for official documentation when sending workers overseas”. As if anyone would use a letterhead without there being the substance of a registered organisation behind it....................although, come to think of it, the 2x2’s are shonky enough to attempt such a deception. However, It is clearly a fact that a name has been registered for the 2x2 church. The church will identify and use the name when it suits its particular purposes. The name is used to claim tax free treatment of church funds and assets, to secure certain supports, access rights and advantages for individual workers both here and overseas. When preaching or speaking with interested parties outside the fellowship, the church will deny it has a name. This lie is told by the church attempting to promote the essential righteousness of this . It is used as a selling point differentiating this church from others. What breathtaking deceit and hypocrisy. Lies, lies and more lies. Good post cooee. The hypocristy is staggering! What is the big deal about admitting that this church has a name? Oh I forgot.....it is only the "worldly churches" that have a name ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2011 5:13:20 GMT -5
Not the wrong end of the stick....If all persons were mandated they would be far more vigilant and knowledgeable about CSA and the perps would not be under the Radar as they are now. Duty of care to our children is paramount and mandated people are very aware of this and have to act on information. Any worker who hesitates or is reluctant to adopt them should be aborted from the system like an evacuated bowel movement, then flushed away with his or her return craved no more! Prevention is better than cure. I am referring to the preventative end of the stick whereas mandatory reporting is at the reactive end. Child Protection (UK VIEW) is everyone's responsibility. It is a social and moral duty. A community or multi-agency approach encourages education, preventative measures and early warning procedures which come into play before the reporting of cases becomes obvious. For an example, albeit tongue in cheek look at a Mandatory reporting only procedure, go look at the MI worker thread. This was based upon personal experiences (though grossly exaggerated) from back in the early 1980s when all this stuff was in its infancy. Although in the UK mandatory reporting is not legislated for, the very classes of people (excluding ministers of religion) that we see covered in other countries/states, were indeed mandated for through their occupational disciplines. This route may well be more effective than a legislative one. It covered the very people who had first hand contact with abuse cases, but often these people were poorly trained and of course no one took any chances and often ridiculous matters were reported to the police, simply because people feared for their jobs and weren't allowed to employ any common sense. That said though, these last few years have shown that the workers are extremely reluctant to do the right and proper thing if it is something outwith their own little righteous world. Sadly, they are a class of persons which needs to be mandated for. There is now a world of a difference in attitude between many of the worldly churches and the workers in facing up to these issues. The work needs the current case in MI USA far more than JF does, but that is said without in any way excusing the perpetrator.
|
|
|
Post by I Wonder on Nov 2, 2011 7:09:50 GMT -5
After reading through all the pages on this subject and considering all the comments some factual and some heresay I must say that CSA needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities when the TRUE facts are known.
And yes in this case it maybe over many years.
It is NOT the right thing to PRE SUPPOSE what might have happened and you know how stories get changed and details exaggerated when passed from one to another.
It would be a far better thing for those NOT involved to keep the peace and not voice their Biased opinion on details they DO Not know. Refer these verses Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2011 8:23:23 GMT -5
I wonder, your caution is admirable, but the true facts usually only start to become known once an investigation has commenced. Reporting should be done whenever it becomes apparent there is some material substance to any suspicions of wrongdoing.
After that it is normally best that any speculation is left until an investigation is completed, by which time the full facts will be known.
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 2, 2011 17:48:39 GMT -5
Is "I wonder" a worker. So condesending. They are saying just shut up and go away. Just forget about it.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Flower on Nov 2, 2011 18:06:54 GMT -5
???Hey I agree, Angelina Mouse, What is the point? This board so they say is for discussing things ?? So why are we constantly told what we can and cant say? All that use this board need to read the terms and conditions. right? Hey you sure know when a workers gets on board and tries to start to rule the friends, and ex friends. Yes I agree they have as much right as what we do? But as you read through it all, they are still trying to CONTROL! The workers will never be honest about what goes on behind closed doors. They thought the exlusive brethern were scary. Not much difference is there? The two by twos are a cult and nothing can change that. It is just a pity that all the young friends in TAS are turning on each other like a pack of rabid dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 2, 2011 19:06:26 GMT -5
::)Hey wildflower, there are nasty people everywhere. Fand W no exception. Self-righteous too! Cant see they hav ever done any wrong. Doesnt matter what hurtful things they say, they think its ok.
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Nov 3, 2011 6:06:22 GMT -5
After reading through all the pages on this subject and considering all the comments some factual and some heresay I must say that CSA needs to be reported to the appropriate authorities when the TRUE facts are known. And yes in this case it maybe over many years. It is NOT the right thing to PRE SUPPOSE what might have happened and you know how stories get changed and details exaggerated when passed from one to another. It would be a far better thing for those NOT involved to keep the peace and not voice their Biased opinion on details they DO Not know. Refer these verses Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. I'm sure that Jesus would have treated the situation differently had someone RAPED A CHILD!!! This is not a simple TRESPASS! This is a SERIOUS CRIME! We are also told to be subject to principalities and powers, and to 'render unto Caesar' It's not like EB accidentally touched a child inappropriately! Evidence suggests he committed multiple offences on multiple victims over a long period of time. I realise only one of the victims has come forward, however the anecdotal evidence suggests that EB is a kiddy fiddler of the first order and should not be afforded the same privileges that a worker with 'nerves' is when exiting the work.
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 3, 2011 19:00:08 GMT -5
:)Well put pa1ag1. On another board it says a lady worker going around the friends somewhere in US telling them not to let workers babysit their children, and how to keep them safe. Maybe workers would be better off in a rented flat than in the friends homes. Is that how we will hav to keep our children safe. Does this include lady workers? Court case in our part of Oz, where a teacher[female] had a relationship with a 16yr old boy. Our age of consent is 17. She went to jail. Its really hard when you end up suspicious of all the workers because of the wrongdoings of a few!! Am I being dreadful to suggest our boys might not be safe from lady workers. It happened with the men workers and girls. [and boys in other countries- maybe here too.]
|
|
cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by cooee on Nov 3, 2011 19:42:41 GMT -5
I refer to the post 174 submitted by I Wonder, who states that “incidents need be reported to the authorities when the true (sic) facts are known”.
Is it this posters unstated proposition then that no report is made to the authorities otherwise, that is, unless facts are established?
Who then in this scenario establishes the “facts”?
Don’t even think of proposing the workers!
They have an abysmal record of ignoring reported CSA offences. The typical worker response has been to tell victims to “forget about it and get over it”. They then transfer accused offenders off to another state or territory without the families in that place being made aware that such a person is in their midst. This has happened time and time again.
The workers have little concern or care for CSA victims. They only care about maintaining the appearance of the spotless purity of their number.
The only reason Ernie Barry has faced the court is that a victim made a report to the Police.
Ernie confessed to the workers that he had committed multiple cases of CSA against multiple victims but the court dealt only with multiple offenses against the one victim who preferred charges.
Much earlier reports made to workers and family by this victim went absolutely nowhere.
In this case the Police established to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that facts existed, hence the verdict and sentence.
|
|
|
Post by I Wonder on Nov 4, 2011 0:30:08 GMT -5
cooee quoted or misquoted from post 174.
“incidents need be reported to the authorities when ALL the true (sic) facts are known”. also " that no report is made to the authorities otherwise, that is, unless ALL facts are established? "
The word ALL was NOT mentioned in post 174, but TRUE Facts is the operative word.
Even if there was only ONE TRUE fact re CSA then that should be reported and the investigating authorities would be able to investigate any further instances and confirm all factual details and sift out the heresay before a court hearing.
palag1 wrote " however the anecdotal evidence suggests that EB is a kiddy fiddler "
If this is the extent and nature of what EB did then yes definately contact the worker in charge in the area concerned and make sure a formal report to the police is made. If it is more serious such as rape then go immediately to the Police regardless of the age or sex of the victim.
|
|
|
Post by more serious on Nov 4, 2011 5:08:13 GMT -5
palag1 wrote " however the anecdotal evidence suggests that EB is a kiddy fiddler " If this is the extent and nature of what EB did then yes definately contact the worker in charge in the area concerned and make sure a formal report to the police is made. If it is more serious such as rape then go immediately to the Police regardless of the age or sex of the victim. It is more serious.
|
|
|
Post by be careful on Nov 4, 2011 6:59:14 GMT -5
Its really hard when you end up suspicious of all the workers because of the wrongdoings of a few!! Am I being dreadful to suggest our boys might not be safe from lady workers. Angelina mouse, you need to be very careful even with lady workers if you are a mom of small boys or girls. It is known that not all lady workers can be trusted. Ask privately for more info.
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 4, 2011 7:05:49 GMT -5
Yes "more serious", I have heard it is too! Why does "I wonder" keep talking about heresay. do they mean hearsay? How do they know whether it is hearsay or straight from the horses mouth! Also "be careful" you've totally freaked me out now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2011 7:45:06 GMT -5
Where I live, everyone is a mandated reporter, and you don't have to have the "true facts" to report.
Here is how it works here:
You must report suspected child abuse or neglect
If you have reason to believe that a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected or is in need of protection, section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act requires you to report your concerns to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. “Reason to believe” means that you suspect that a child could be at risk, based on what you have seen or information you have. You don’t need proof. Just report what you know.
It doesn’t matter if you think someone else is reporting the situation or if a child welfare worker is already involved with the child – you must still make a report. It also doesn’t matter if the suspected abuser is your neighbour, patient, family member, church, temple or mosque member or another person. Your duty to report your suspicions takes legal priority over any claim of confidentiality or privilege.
It is an offence not to report suspicions of abuse or neglect. The only exception is for a lawyer who may have concerns that involve his or her client.
This is serious stuff and reporting includes children up to the age of 19. The protection of children has finally risen to the level it should be. Where we live, we can be thrown in jail even if we suspect child abuse and do nothing.
At some point, I expect all jurisdictions to move to this sort of stringent requirement. It's the way it should be. Children are the most vulnerable of society, the most at risk, and the least able to protect themselves because of what can go on behind closed doors. It will take all adults (and other kids) in society to protect them and even then, some will be abused in secret.
"I wonder", I think you need to ponder this and revisit your thinking on what is required to report. The bar is much lower than you think.
The downside to reporting is minimal. In our jurisdiction, there is no jeopardy to do do:
You won’t be sued or prosecuted for reporting your suspicions
The Child, Family and Community Service Act protects you from being sued or prosecuted for reporting a suspected abuser. This assumes, of course, that you are acting in good faith and believe your concerns are true when you make your report.
|
|
cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by cooee on Nov 4, 2011 15:28:51 GMT -5
Hi I Wonder,
I'm sorry and I sincerely apologise to you. I did misquote your post 174. You did not have the word ALL in your post before the words "true facts".
|
|
cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by cooee on Nov 4, 2011 15:31:25 GMT -5
Hi again I Wonder,
I have edited my post to remove the word "all"
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 4, 2011 17:18:21 GMT -5
Ok, can someone give me a reason why reply 184 has changed from reading VIC/TAS lady workers to some lady workers. Someone obviously thinks they are totally trustworthy. I used to think that about Ernie.
|
|
|
Post by I Wonder on Nov 4, 2011 19:04:34 GMT -5
Hi cooee
Apology accepted with thanks
|
|
|
Post by Ok on Nov 5, 2011 16:48:37 GMT -5
Ok, can someone give me a reason why reply 184 has changed from reading VIC/TAS lady workers to some lady workers. Someone obviously thinks they are totally trustworthy. I used to think that about Ernie. Ok so what should it say? There are some Vic/Tas lady workers suspected of sexual impropriety? Are you sure or is it hearsay?
|
|
|
Post by Angelina Mouse on Nov 6, 2011 2:23:33 GMT -5
???It said VIC/TAS lady workers when it was 1st posted. And who are you to say what is hearsay or not? Is it a pack of lies if it is hearsay!! I know how easily an innocent comment can become the complete opposite. I have actually heard it. Totally changed what was said 1st. So what is hearsay or Not?!! Do you think the person warning me is just making it up.
|
|
|
Post by man power on Nov 6, 2011 2:32:55 GMT -5
Hey well if the men are capable of commiting CSA, what is stopping the women? Most think that the person that would do such a thing would be men but it doesnt matter what gender you are it can happen from both. You know its is not just done to children in the truth, what about the offers put forward by the women workers to married men, when the wives are not present! It happens trust me! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2011 4:23:58 GMT -5
Hey well if the men are capable of commiting CSA, what is stopping the women? Most think that the person that would do such a thing would be men but it doesnt matter what gender you are it can happen from both. You know its is not just done to children in the truth, what about the offers put forward by the women workers to married men, when the wives are not present! It happens trust me! ;D Well it never happened to me, either when I was single or married. Mind you it took me a long time to discover that the anti-deoderant spray that I was using was actually insect repellant!
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Nov 6, 2011 10:13:23 GMT -5
Hey well if the men are capable of commiting CSA, what is stopping the women? Most think that the person that would do such a thing would be men but it doesnt matter what gender you are it can happen from both. You know its is not just done to children in the truth, what about the offers put forward by the women workers to married men, when the wives are not present! It happens trust me! ;D Well it never happened to me, either when I was single or married. Mind you it took me a long time to discover that the anti-deoderant spray that I was using was actually insect repellant! Well now! God called Jacob a worm, and now you are stating that workers are easily repelled by insect spray. I've read that insect spray attacks the nervous system of insects. Just wondering if you noticed workers getting nervous when in your presence? OK, I'll go back to my room!
|
|