|
Post by mdm on Jul 25, 2014 3:25:12 GMT -5
From what I understand, there was nothing to report, so the meeting acted wisely and responsibly in taking preventative measures. Why accuse them of failing to report something when there was nothing to report, or of only caring for their own group and not caring for others? There were times when I wondered at someone's interest in children and as a result I just watched them more closely. But there was nothing inappropriate to report or to warrant any kind action. Now, if that same person was a convicted offender (or just a known offender), I would have taken action. What was done in the case CD mentioned seemed quite appropriate. But, still, just being friendly to kids and taking interest in them is not a reportable offense, therefore there was no failure on the part of the meeting. I see your answer to CD as an overreaction, and I see CD's answer to you as an overreaction in this case. But I can see how both of you would have responded that way without any malicious thought or intent. If there nothing to report, why did they feel the need that he was paying too much attention to a child that they "transferred" him to a different meeting?
If he were a "convicted" 'CHILD ABUSER" as it is claimed that he was, that was enough to report him.
I am in different time zone, and was sleeping when you asked this question... So, at this point, may I just say with you: "Repeating what I said another 100 times won't change anything! I will join you in an apology to those who have annoyed."
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 25, 2014 8:46:04 GMT -5
I doubt that asking a simple question another 100 times will produce an answer... That's the size of it. *sigh* I don't understand people. I don't. My hubby says I am so not like anyone he has ever met. If you point out my mistake or misdeed, I will own up. I sure might not feel good about it, but Golly Gee! why would I assume or expect others to do the same? I found this thread hilarious with all the posts and who defended who and all the crap, yes crap, about personal attacks. I would have called someone on the carpet if my words were twisted. And if they refused to own up, I would have hounded them till they did so. But that's just me. I expect people to do the right thing and sadly they rarely do. And to those who are tired of it all, don't read the thread. Seems pretty simple to me, but then I've always been weird like that.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 9:53:52 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. That's okay. Your post content was fine, other than the critique of rational. I think it's perfectly fine to make a mistake in a post, someone else corrects it, and the original poster acknowledges it. The problem occurs when we go back and forth on the same point, ad nauseum, which I'm as guilty of as anyone. I would have dropped this long ago, except for the fact that two valued posters have left the board, and it seems to be somewhat important to sort out how these things flare up and happen.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 9:56:48 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? The primary example given is that of a convicted offender, in which case there is nothing to report.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 25, 2014 10:02:01 GMT -5
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.
Perhaps if the original statement had not been couched so carefully and been actually stating what the parents actually were feeling in regards to finding themselves assigned to a meeting with a convicted CSA perpetrator! Honestly? Parents of children know within themselves that they do NOT want their children within several blocks of said such ex cons, so naturally they will do anything that's within their power to change their assigned meeting to protect their children as well as give themselves a peace of mind while they're in meeting to be spiritually fed! Otherwords when someone is sitting in meeting and there is a convicted CSA perp in that meeting, those within that meeting are NOT able to get a whole lot of good from that mtg. I KNOW....I've been there and I didn't have children but I did consider the fact that the Sunday before we had traveling friends pass through and our meeting was the closest! And for myself, I was not confortable....I didn't get "bread" from that meeting....so I know exactly how those young parents are going to feel and they're going to use the least little thing they can to override the workers' assignment of meetings. And this is the way it has to be done, since the workers were NOT considerate to start with about where they sent that ex con of CSA! THIS has been a problem since the inception of the 2x2 religion and parents of children have suffered untold problems and unrest. Look at the man in CO. who had some notices in envelopes to hand out to parents coming to a conv. to help that parent know that some CSA perps were on grounds and with workers' approval at that! What happened? He was eventually excommunicated after a bunch of strong dealings..... So I think we should turn the table a bit here, esp. DMG and look at this from this angle for a bit and then you would understand what CD was trying to get accomplished within the 2x2 meeting structure. CD and these parents of children were trying to shut the barndoor before the whole kit-n-caboodle escaped and then no one had control of the little ones' life! There wasn't anything "suspicious" written in that original statement, it was something the parents used to warrant getting the ex con out of their home meeting or them out of that meeting....they had to have a bona fide reason in order to override the workers' assignment of that ex con to their meeting. I think we all should remember what it is taking for the friends to overcome the workers' attitude and behavior and way of handling these things....then we'd understand what CD and others have tried to do.....it isn't easy to override workers' sanctions without causing some problems for one's self or others around you! You better have a good reason for doing what you're doing......and even then you may well lose favor with some workers!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:09:43 GMT -5
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.This is really the point of contention between ourselves (Clearday, you and I) and Rational. And likely with Jesse, too, though he did not answer my pointed questions on this subject. That is, we have different views on the responsibilities and practices of organizations within civil society regarding abuse including child sexual abuse. That includes the friends. It took a helluva long time to tease this out of the conversation. What do we learn from this? I suggest that when we engage the big questions, like child sexual abuse, we ask participants for a general position statement, rather than play 'cat and mouse' on specific points. Someone coming on to a thread should prepare a summary response, just so we know they understand the thread context, and so other participants can see where they are coming from. This should be done without reference to any particular point on the thread. Should this be a rule? No. But I think it's reasonable to ask a poster some open-ended questions, and if they don't answer, don't engage. Also, when in debate, ask for clarification before you critique a post. Many critiques are based on misunderstandings, which result in a lot of 'tail chasing'. There are probably other things to be learned that people would offer, and good posting techniques and habits might be a good thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:18:10 GMT -5
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. Yes, to be entirely fair, he wasn't 'hearing' you either. When I review the thread (and this is close reading of only part of the entire thread) you're clearly on different planets. The reason I've adopted ClearDay's perspective is because accusations of misrepresentation are serious, and I felt, over the top. I've been there too. Sometimes the thing goes off the rails, there's a dustup, and hopefully, cross our fingers, time heals the wounds. I also participate on a 'classical music' forum, and sad to say, similar dust-ups occur, discussing classical music. Sad to say, I've been on that forum 7+ years now, and some long-standing members become involved in one or another of these situations, quit and never return.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:26:47 GMT -5
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?
Check this post - professing.proboards.com/post/557250/threadYou even used the words "convicted criminal" yourself, and then said he should be reported. Again, what's to report?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:30:59 GMT -5
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.
You missed the point of the post. Rather than me repeating; please read it a second time. If you still don't get it, I will elaborate. You can also Google "mandatory reporting" and tell me if you find anything on reporting grooming behaviours to the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:36:48 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?
I think you've made your case well enough. Some will agree with you, and some will not. I can't see why that matters to you. You're not the one on trial.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:40:52 GMT -5
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? I think we should leave this as a point of disagreement and leave it for another day. I actually do not agree with rational on this, but this thread is about 'personal attacks' and how thread go off the rails.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 25, 2014 10:41:52 GMT -5
And they lived happily ever after. THE END
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 10:45:35 GMT -5
I doubt that asking a simple question another 100 times will produce an answer... That's the size of it. *sigh* I don't understand people. I don't. My hubby says I am so not like anyone he has ever met. If you point out my mistake or misdeed, I will own up. I sure might not feel good about it, but Golly Gee! why would I assume or expect others to do the same? I found this thread hilarious with all the posts and who defended who and all the crap, yes crap, about personal attacks. I would have called someone on the carpet if my words were twisted. And if they refused to own up, I would have hounded them till they did so. But that's just me. I expect people to do the right thing and sadly they rarely do. And to those who are tired of it all, don't read the thread. Seems pretty simple to me, but then I've always been weird like that. You realize there's a bit of self-contradiction in this post, do you? That is, you decry 'all the posts' on this thread, but then indicate you 'would have hounded them' if it was you. I would imagine that might generate a lot of crap as well. Personally, the length of this thread doesn't bother me, although I sorely exceeded my budgeted TMB time this week. I thought it was worth it. Sometimes people need to jump and shout, get a load off their chest, and just clear the air. But at this point I think it is time to call it a day. I'm not concerned about the length of the thread, but I am concerned about lingering animosity. We've all said our piece, more than once, and let's see what the result is in the due course of time.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 25, 2014 10:48:58 GMT -5
And they lived happily ever after. THE END Now, Snow, please bring CD and EM back!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 25, 2014 10:57:14 GMT -5
And they lived happily ever after. THE END Now, Snow, please bring CD and EM back! I'd love to. Not sure I have the power to and if I did, the right to. That is a decision they must make for themselves. Hopefully they will return. ps, the happily ever after was wishful thinking and not something I am at all sure of.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 25, 2014 12:38:21 GMT -5
That's the size of it. *sigh* I don't understand people. I don't. My hubby says I am so not like anyone he has ever met. If you point out my mistake or misdeed, I will own up. I sure might not feel good about it, but Golly Gee! why would I assume or expect others to do the same? I found this thread hilarious with all the posts and who defended who and all the crap, yes crap, about personal attacks. I would have called someone on the carpet if my words were twisted. And if they refused to own up, I would have hounded them till they did so. But that's just me. I expect people to do the right thing and sadly they rarely do. And to those who are tired of it all, don't read the thread. Seems pretty simple to me, but then I've always been weird like that. You realize there's a bit of self-contradiction in this post, do you? That is, you decry 'all the posts' on this thread, but then indicate you 'would have hounded them' if it was you. I would imagine that might generate a lot of crap as well. As I said, I've got a thing about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet. I do not ask any less of myself. As to generating a lot of crap, sometimes that's just the way it is. No one has to participate or read the thread if they don't want to.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 25, 2014 12:49:38 GMT -5
You realize there's a bit of self-contradiction in this post, do you? That is, you decry 'all the posts' on this thread, but then indicate you 'would have hounded them' if it was you. I would imagine that might generate a lot of crap as well. As I said, I've got a thing about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet. I do not ask any less of myself. As to generating a lot of crap, sometimes that's just the way it is. No one has to participate or read the thread if they don't want to. Yes, that was a good point you made, about not having to participate. I probably should have mentioned it in my response. I'm a little uncomfortable with your statement "about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet". There is no carpet here, and I hope no one thinks there is one to call other people up to. That would be presumptive. We're all equals here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 16:02:18 GMT -5
And they lived happily ever after. THE END You have been reading fairy stories again! The truth goes more like And they grew old and decrepit and pretty soon forgot all about it. THE END
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 25, 2014 16:08:50 GMT -5
And they lived happily ever after. THE END You have been reading fairy stories again! The truth goes more like And they grew old and decrepit and pretty soon forgot all about it. THE END Oh ya, right! I forgot.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 25, 2014 16:27:29 GMT -5
As I said, I've got a thing about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet. I do not ask any less of myself. As to generating a lot of crap, sometimes that's just the way it is. No one has to participate or read the thread if they don't want to. Yes, that was a good point you made, about not having to participate. I probably should have mentioned it in my response. I'm a little uncomfortable with your statement "about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet". There is no carpet here, and I hope no one thinks there is one to call other people up to. That would be presumptive. We're all equals here. It has nothing to do with being equal. Again... *sigh* If someone twisted my words to mean something other than what I had originally said, I would point it out to them and would expect a correction, an explanation and/or an apology. Please explain how that is being presumptive. Better yet, don't explain. I have said what I have to say. That's it. Why did I have to open my big mouth. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2014 16:36:34 GMT -5
As I said, I've got a thing about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet. I do not ask any less of myself. As to generating a lot of crap, sometimes that's just the way it is. No one has to participate or read the thread if they don't want to. Yes, that was a good point you made, about not having to participate. I probably should have mentioned it in my response. I'm a little uncomfortable with your statement "about expecting people to own up to their mistakes or misdeeds when they are called on the carpet". There is no carpet here, and I hope no one thinks there is one to call other people up to. That would be presumptive. We're all equals here. LIARS & HONEST PEOPLE ARE ALL EQUAL AS TO THEIR CHARACTERS?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2014 17:11:46 GMT -5
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?
Check this post - professing.proboards.com/post/557250/threadYou even used the words "convicted criminal" yourself, and then said he should be reported. Again, what's to report? WHAT HAT, Since you seem to be so intent of of indicting me as DISHONEST, I would appreciate it if you show all the evidence and get the FIRST post that CD had made & my response instead of this one which is obviously a second or third response.
Since you seem to have time to find my posts & even crossing thread lines to do so, I'm sure somewhere you will be able to find the first CD's post and my first reply.
Since I have CD still on "ignore" & one thread , the "Porn" thread is locked, it is hard for me to find his posts.
So I will have to paraphrase what I remember of CD's first post. It went like this:
"There was a church in Texas ( I think that was the state) who felt someone was paying too much attention to a child and they transferred him to another church where wasn't any children"
NOTHING IN THAT POST SAID anything about him being a CONVICTED abuser.
THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN POSTING ABOUT ME IS EXACTLY HOW CD DID, -SO I'M GOING TO DO AS I DID TO CD, PUT YOU ON "IGNORE"
(If you want to You an contact me by person messages)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 25, 2014 18:23:28 GMT -5
DMG - please put me on ignore as well if you haven't already.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2014 18:24:24 GMT -5
DMG - please put me on ignore as well if you haven't already. DONE.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 25, 2014 18:38:56 GMT -5
DMG - please put me on ignore as well if you haven't already. Me too. Please.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 25, 2014 19:22:28 GMT -5
DMG - please put me on ignore as well if you haven't already. Me too. Please. Sharon, -I don't want put you on ignore unless you would prefer that I did so.
You contribute a lot to TMB and there are many times I enjoy your posts, -but if you would rather put me on ignore, please feel free to do so.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 25, 2014 19:53:14 GMT -5
One way to prevent controversy would be for all of us to put everyone on ignore.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 25, 2014 20:12:11 GMT -5
One way to prevent controversy would be for all of us to put everyone on ignore. I don't put anyone on ignore. I don't want to miss a thing!
|
|