|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 18:22:22 GMT -5
If he was 'convicted' it means the authorities already know about him. Its probably a waste of their time having copious reports filed on the grounds of 'suspicion'. I would try to keep a recovering alcoholic away from the temptation of alcohol, and I would try to keep a known child abuser away from the temptation of taking advantage of children. What C D was trying to explain was that there's much more that can be done to protect children than report suspicion to authorities. And I never said there wasn't other things parents could do.
My concern, (I wonder how many more time I have to repeat this?),
MY CONCERN WAS THAT BY JUST TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO TRANSFER HIM TO ANOTHER MEETING INSTEAD OF REPORTING IT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT JUST PASSING IT ON TO SOMEONE ELSE WHERE HE MIGHT MOLEST OTHER CHILDREN.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 18:25:33 GMT -5
Could you explain how this is relevant to the issue of the prevention of child sexual abuse? Do you have a way of knowing in advance how much a child will be damaged if an offence does occur? I don't let my young kids cross a busy street because I think there is only a 30% chance of getting hit by a car. No one has said it is relevant to the prevention of child abuse. Not me or any of the researchers. There is no way how damaged a person will be but knowing that all people who are abused are not damaged or not all equally damaged could lead to insight regarding their treatment plan, or may determine if any treatment is even required. This again sort of points to the problem with this discussion. No one ever claimed this was a way to determine who would abuse or how much damage an incident would cause. Yet from your question it seems you thought the the research would have some predictive ability. Or determine the damage caused. There were some very general findings. Damage from CSA that involved contact was more likely to cause damage than non-contact CSA. Abuse by a father or father-figure or any penetrating abuse was more likely to cause damage. The University of New Hampshire maintains a data base that shows some interesting statistics. There is substantial information on physical abuse. In some cases. But the data also shows that in some cases the damage was over-estimated. This is the problem with child abuse - until it happens it is almost impossible to predict. It is relevant to how the victims are viewed/treated following the abuse. The entire thread was about prevention, so why talk about this if it doesn't relate. At least that is what 'clearday' and 'fixit' are talking about - professing.proboards.com/post/557210professing.proboards.com/post/557089This one is about moving to another meeting, of a convicted criminal offender. professing.proboards.com/post/557246professing.proboards.com/post/557251Here's a particularly weird exchange that came up in this series of posts - Clearday - Perhaps you can lead the way with the appropriate advice for the friends on how to protect the rest of the world from a convicted criminal. I am sure that you know that a convicted criminal already will have restrictions placed on him to protect the public. What more should the friends do? Put a monitor on him 24/7? Does that work for you? DMG - What more should the friends do? How about they report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own to protect only those within their own group? Umm, this is a *convicted* criminal. What's to report? We KNOW he's a problem, and the authorities have finished with him. So they are talking about prevention especially related to suspicions about perpetrators. You are talking about suspected evidence of abuse in victims ... but Clearday asks you and DMG what to do about convicted perpetrators or potential perpetrators.So, then comes the blast, understandable at least, and possibly deserved, I think - professing.proboards.com/post/557253
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 18:29:29 GMT -5
And I never said there wasn't other things parents could do.
My concern, (I wonder how many more time I have to repeat this?),
MY CONCERN WAS THAT BY JUST TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO TRANSFER HIM TO ANOTHER MEETING INSTEAD OF REPORTING IT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT JUST PASSING IT ON TO SOMEONE ELSE WHERE HE MIGHT MOLEST OTHER CHILDREN.
But the question you were asked by ClearDay, was how to deal with a CONVICTED CRIMINAL. The man was convicted, he's paid his debt to society. He's still a threat to children. There is NOTHING to report. The parrot is deceased. He breathes no more. He has shuffled off his mortal coil. How many more times do I have to repeat this? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 18:31:40 GMT -5
First of all are you sure that quote is from Rational? "Rational wrote: "Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination."
It is NOT like something he would say what he say.
I noticed it as well but I think it was actually under someone else's post.
You're right; it's not what rational meant, but it's a quote taken out of context. I elaborate in a prior post. Here's what Rational wrote... I can only assume that this is an error of omission; that is, you never mention it because you know nothing about it, or you have some libertarian idea that parents acting individually are sufficient to handle the problem. Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination. You might feel safe because the workers have a published guideline regarding child abuse but I would not be at all comfortable with that. I commented extensively on the guidelines and voiced my disagreement with some aspects when they were being developed. Any additional comments at this time could be seen as undermining what I believe, in spite of what I consider flaws, to be a very good start.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 24, 2014 18:36:06 GMT -5
You're right; it's not what rational meant, but it's a quote taken out of context. I elaborate in a prior post. Here's what Rational wrote... Parents acting on their own is what I believe. They and they alone, can determine what they consider to be safe for their children. How they do so should be their determination. You might feel safe because the workers have a published guideline regarding child abuse but I would not be at all comfortable with that. I commented extensively on the guidelines and voiced my disagreement with some aspects when they were being developed. Any additional comments at this time could be seen as undermining what I believe, in spite of what I consider flaws, to be a very good start. But he's talking about parents acting alone as opposed to their acting in concert through a formal church program or a set of guidelines, that is, parents acting alone versus parents acting collectively. He's not precluding any interaction or reportage to the authorities. DMG rightly picked up on this. I have to defend rational on this one, as it flowed directly out of an exchange with me on parents acting collectively versus acting individually.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 18:53:30 GMT -5
And I never said there wasn't other things parents could do.
My concern, (I wonder how many more time I have to repeat this?),
MY CONCERN WAS THAT BY JUST TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO TRANSFER HIM TO ANOTHER MEETING INSTEAD OF REPORTING IT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT JUST PASSING IT ON TO SOMEONE ELSE WHERE HE MIGHT MOLEST OTHER CHILDREN.
What more should the friends do? How about they report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own to protect only those within their own group?? How are we supposed to interpret the following? 1. Instead of 2. Rather than
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 24, 2014 19:39:01 GMT -5
Rational did write it dm... the post says 4 hours ago at the time I am writing this. Hard without post numbers.
I admit I have come into the discussion late and am not really following the discussion with a few points like this catching my attention.
With all the confusion reigning on this thread I am not sure if many can follow it but I certainly do not want to get caught up in it. Guess i already have.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 19:52:49 GMT -5
From what I understand, there was nothing to report, so the meeting acted wisely and responsibly in taking preventative measures. If there was nothing to report, if there was no suspicion why was if suggested that the person be moved to a different meeting location? If there was suspicion why wasn't it reported? Again, if there was nothing to report why were they concerned enough to move the person to a different meeting location? Just because they felt like it? Or was it to protect the children? To protect them from what? Danger from someone that they suspected might harm the children? Why is it that no one seems to understand what agencies mean when they advise to report suspicious behavior?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 20:08:02 GMT -5
From what I understand, there was nothing to report, so the meeting acted wisely and responsibly in taking preventative measures. If there was nothing to report, if there was no suspicion why was if suggested that the person be moved to a different meeting location? If there was suspicion why wasn't it reported? Again, if there was nothing to report why were they concerned enough to move the person to a different meeting location? Just because they felt like it? Or was it to protect the children? To protect them from what? Danger from someone that they suspected might harm the children? Why is it that no one seems to understand what agencies mean when they advise to report suspicious behavior? Most of us understand that child protection requires the eyes and ears and wisdom of the various communities in which children live. This applies to church communities, school communities, scouting and sporting communities etc. Agencies by themselves can't keep kids safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 20:21:32 GMT -5
When I take an opposing view I generally can make myself known. I was opposing the view that the individual should be moved to a different meeting location because of the suspicions of the me mbers of the meeting but for some reason shoould not be reported to the authorities.Where did that come from? I can't imagine that CD ever wrote that. It is time for everyone to recognize that few live with a common set of rules! Rat, I know you think everything you express is sound and perfectly logical. Ditto for you, Fixit. Where is the problem as I see it? Repeating, as I see it, Neither of you have the same common set of rules by which you live and interpret life around and about you.
Rat, can you not just let it rest? Must you post everytime as if none are right except you?
Fixit, same question?
We as readers likely decide which of you are right for ourselves, constantly resulting in polarization.
Rat, you have befriended me on occasion, I am thankful for that.
Fixit, your posts have on occasion given me a glimmer of what could be, and I am thankful for that too.
But please guys, stop the polarization that you two seem bent on creating in this forum?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 20:39:07 GMT -5
No one has said it is relevant to the prevention of child abuse. Not me or any of the researchers. There is no way how damaged a person will be but knowing that all people who are abused are not damaged or not all equally damaged could lead to insight regarding their treatment plan, or may determine if any treatment is even required. This again sort of points to the problem with this discussion. No one ever claimed this was a way to determine who would abuse or how much damage an incident would cause. Yet from your question it seems you thought the the research would have some predictive ability. Or determine the damage caused. There were some very general findings. Damage from CSA that involved contact was more likely to cause damage than non-contact CSA. Abuse by a father or father-figure or any penetrating abuse was more likely to cause damage. The University of New Hampshire maintains a data base that shows some interesting statistics. There is substantial information on physical abuse. In some cases. But the data also shows that in some cases the damage was over-estimated. This is the problem with child abuse - until it happens it is almost impossible to predict. It is relevant to how the victims are viewed/treated following the abuse. The entire thread was about prevention, so why talk about this if it doesn't relate. At least that is what 'clearday' and 'fixit' are talking about - The discussion about moving the suspected abuser to a different meeting location was about prevention. The examples that Clearday asked me to post about the victims and the short term and long term effects were discussions concerned with the reports that had been started in a different thread - these were regarding the reports of Clancy et al. One of the problems was that there were multiple discussions going on at the same time. In this case I was responding to : CD's patience had already been sorely tried by folks who seemed to be claiming that CSA can be harmless.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 20:59:03 GMT -5
If you they had "suspicions" enough to transfer him to another meeting, they had enough to report him to the proper authorities.
Mandatory reporting is NOT required and probably not advised based on having suspicions about a potential abuser. It's based on having reason to suspect abuse occurring to an abused victim. A review of the wiki survey on mandated reporting clarifies for me, that suspicions based on potential grooming behaviour can not be reported, and yet parents must deal with them somehow in order to prevent abuse in the first place. By the time the perp acts, and abuse is suspected to have occurred, it's too late. IMO, the best course for dealing with suspicions about a perpetrator, or with potential grooming behaviour, is the implementation of 'safe church' guidelines. Then it's clear what is allowed and what is not allowed; parents acting on 'ad hoc' basis based on their personal suspicions really isn't the best way to do things. Can you provide statutes that state whether or not "Mandatory reporting is NOT required and probably not advised based on having suspicions about a potential abuser?"
If you they had "suspicions" enough to transfer him to another meeting, they had enough to report him to the proper authorities.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 21:00:06 GMT -5
Most of us understand that child protection requires the eyes and ears and wisdom of the various communities in which children live. This applies to church communities, school communities, scouting and sporting communities etc. Agencies by themselves can't keep kids safe. No one has said that agencies can keep children safe. All they can really do is remove offending criminals from society and prevent them from abusing again. It is the responsibility of parents to protect their children. Given the reports from various churches, civic groups, and other organizations, they can't always keep children safe either. If parents want to drop their children off in the care of some organization it is their responsibility to ensure that it is a safe environment, regardless of what the organization claims.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 21:05:50 GMT -5
Most of us understand that child protection requires the eyes and ears and wisdom of the various communities in which children live. This applies to church communities, school communities, scouting and sporting communities etc. Agencies by themselves can't keep kids safe. No one has said that agencies can keep children safe. All they can really do is remove offending criminals from society and prevent them from abusing again. Great, we can agree on that. Can we now agree that church communities, school communities, scouting and sporting communities etc have a role to play in protecting children from sexual predators?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 21:29:30 GMT -5
And I never said there wasn't other things parents could do.
My concern, (I wonder how many more time I have to repeat this?),
MY CONCERN WAS THAT BY JUST TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO TRANSFER HIM TO ANOTHER MEETING INSTEAD OF REPORTING IT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT JUST PASSING IT ON TO SOMEONE ELSE WHERE HE MIGHT MOLEST OTHER CHILDREN.
But the question you were asked by ClearDay, was how to deal with a CONVICTED CRIMINAL. The man was convicted, he's paid his debt to society. He's still a threat to children. There is NOTHING to report.The parrot is deceased. He breathes no more. He has shuffled off his mortal coil. How many more times do I have to repeat this? LOL. Actually, what hat, it was NOT the question we were asked by CD. CD hadn't said the man was a CONVICTED CRIMINAL, when he misrepresented what I said.
You say that he's still a threat to children but there is NOTHING to report! -even though they suspected he was showing too much attention to one of the children in meeting?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 21:38:09 GMT -5
Where did that come from? I can't imagine that CD ever wrote that. It is time for everyone to recognize that few live with a common set of rules! Rat, I know you think everything you express is sound and perfectly logical. Ditto for you, Fixit. Where is the problem as I see it? Repeating, as I see it, Neither of you have the same common set of rules by which you live and interpret life around and about you.
Rat, can you not just let it rest? Must you post everytime as if none are right except you?
Fixit, same question?
We as readers likely decide which of you are right for ourselves, constantly resulting in polarization.
Rat, you have befriended me on occasion, I am thankful for that.
Fixit, your posts have on occasion given me a glimmer of what could be, and I am thankful for that too.
But please guys, stop the polarization that you two seem bent on creating in this forum?
Dennis, in all due respect, you have cited many times when your character & reputation had been bemirched & lied about.
I never, ever told you just to let it go, did I?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 24, 2014 21:45:38 GMT -5
Rational did write it dm... the post says 4 hours ago at the time I am writing this. Hard without post numbers. I admit I have come into the discussion late and am not really following the discussion with a few points like this catching my attention. With all the confusion reigning on this thread I am not sure if many can follow it but I certainly do not want to get caught up in it. Guess i already have. Mary ~ I agree with your concluding remark highlighted above. This thread reminds me of the Duracell Bunny that will never runs down!
I gave up on the last thread and can't believe this second one is already over the 6,000 marker rehashing the same old thing? Perhaps it's time to give the whole topic a rest and move on to something more inspiring to ponder ~ like the humor thread as a good ice breaker?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BQITyhgUCM
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 21:45:45 GMT -5
What more should the friends do? How about they report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own to protect only those within their own group?? How are we supposed to interpret the following? 1. Instead of 2. Rather than Ok, if you want to compare words, shall we Just "reword" it to your satisfaction?
"What more should the friends do? How about they report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, INSTEAD OF them trying to handle the case on their own to protect only those within their own group??"
Does it make any difference to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 21:47:20 GMT -5
No ma'am, you certainly haven't. Have I ever asked that of you, either? Or ever just one party? Ever?When such things begin to affect all of us, shouldn't someone speak up and ask for a halt? Obviously I have and to your mind am in the wrong for doing that. Should I just silently leave also? Perhaps so, and if so...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 22:03:49 GMT -5
No ma'am, you certainly haven't. Have I ever asked that of you, either? Or ever just one party? Ever?When such things begin to affect all of us, shouldn't someone speak up and ask for a halt? Obviously I have and to your mind am in the wrong for doing that. Should I just silently leave also? Perhaps so, and if so... Dennis, you are suggesting that we should halt this dialogue in spite of the fact that someone(CD) completely misrepresented what we had said.
If our dialogue is affecting all of you out there, does that mean we are supposed to suck up lies about ourselves and not talk about it so it won't affect the rest of you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 22:27:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply and link Rational. I can’t get at the PDF link to The Trauma Myth (presumably a problem with https sites which I can’t yet resolve). I apologise for not having read the book. I do suspect the discussions of Clancy’s work so far have not really been sufficient to draw a clear picture of her work and believe this a pity. Another time and thread perhaps. Are you referring to Clancy & The Trauma Myth here Rational? If that is the case I'm not sure this is the conclusions Clancy was emphasising from the data. I have never read reviews of a book that had so many completely different angles on her work. That is one of the works that that I was referencing. I think the wide range of the reviews is because there was such outrage about the topic. I also referred to work done a decade earlier by Rind, Tromovitch, Bauserman, Finkelhor, and others who arrived at much the same conclusions. A link to the entire book in PDF has been posted several times. Clancy saying that some victims did not experience trauma was at times jumped on to mean that since there was no trauma that there was no problem but even though she stated in interviews and published reports over and over that any child sexual abuse was wrong, regardless of the impact on the victim. For a look at the problems people have had when presenting controversial topics look here: The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Truth Versus Political CorrectnessYou can see the same response at other places that was seen on this message board.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 22:41:37 GMT -5
Rat, can you not just let it rest? Must you post everytime as if none are right except you? Suppose that is the case? Should I lie? How would you do that if we were not posting? I sometimes do that to people. You know, practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty! I'll do my best!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 24, 2014 22:51:11 GMT -5
I can't think of a single word to add.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 22:55:24 GMT -5
I can't think of a single word to add. Oh, come on Bob!
When have you ever been wordless? ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 24, 2014 22:56:11 GMT -5
After reflecting on the post by Dennis, it is probably time to move on from this topic.
I doubt that asking a simple question another 100 times will produce an answer and, at the end of the day, what does it matter.
Parents need to take the responsibility to protect their children and not place that responsibility with others. Let the authorities resolve criminal cases, or suspected criminal cases, of abuse.
My apology to all those who have been annoyed!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 24, 2014 23:02:02 GMT -5
I can't think of a single word to add. Oh, come on Bob!
When have you ever been wordless? ?
When I got caught in the act!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 24, 2014 23:10:17 GMT -5
How are we supposed to interpret the following? 1. Instead of 2. Rather than Ok, if you want to compare words, shall we Just "reword" it to your satisfaction?
"What more should the friends do? How about they report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, INSTEAD OF them trying to handle the case on their own to protect only those within their own group??"
Does it make any difference to you?
You misunderstood me again. Time to let it rest?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 24, 2014 23:44:05 GMT -5
After reflecting on the post by Dennis, it is probably time to move on from this topic. I doubt that asking a simple question another 100 times will produce an answer and, at the end of the day, what does it matter. Parents need to take the responsibility to protect their children and not place that responsibility with others. Let the authorities resolve criminal cases, or suspected criminal cases, of abuse. My apology to all those who have been annoyed! True! repeating what I said another 100 times won't change anything!
I will join you in an apology to those who have annoyed.
|
|