|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 15:26:10 GMT -5
The protection of children is the responsibility of their parents/guardians. And the rest of the children's community. So you believe that Martha, the mother of Jimmy, your child's friend, is responsible for protecting your child from Jason, Jimmy's father, a sexual predator?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 16:00:47 GMT -5
It possibly won't happen now that workers have their own guidelines, but at the same time, you DO still want workers talking and interacting with young people. The idea of implementing guidelines is to think collectively and constructively about situations like this, and how they should be handled. How do we know that workers have their own guidelines? I do know that a couple of head workers from the USA came into this area a few years ago and briefed the local area workers on 'safe ministry' practices. So that's all I meant by their 'own guidelines'. To me, this on its own does very little to keep children safe. You need the other aspects of a 'safe church' program that we've been discussing.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 16:29:55 GMT -5
The church is not a separate organization apart from the parents. The church is the parents, and the parents in the church work together to solve the problem. A careful reading of my posts and those of others should make that clear to you. But that is not the situation for all people who have their children in a church, even the F&W church. The church is an organization that is apart from the parents unless the parents choose to make that organization as responsible for the care of their children. I actually fully understand this. I think it is sad and probably not a very effective way to accomplish the end goal, the abuse of children. It is the equivalent of wrapping your children in bubble-wrap to prevent any damage. It is easy, the bubble-wrap does the work and the children are, for the most part, safe. But at what cost? Did it really work ever work? And if he gets up to get a drink he should not offer to get a drink for a child in the room because he could be trying to gain the children's trust, and this behaviour could lead to worse, if indeed the worker was a pervert. I have disagreed with it since the idea was introduced.Of course not - they are being irrational, gossiping about the behavior of another individual, spreading rumors - but it concerns someone who could be a pervert so that behavior is all OK.There are so many things wrong with this approach - from the parents of the child not addressing the situation directly with the child and the worker, to getting other parents involved, to discussing the issue with a co-ordinator, who is a member of the organization, and allowing him to deal with the suspect. Let's give the parents some credit. If they think that a worker is photographing their children and that this activity has the potential to lead to abuse then there is enough suspicion to report it. If it is simply taking photographs and there is nothing to indicate a problem, monitor it closely and make sure the child is safe. All the grooming in the world leads to nothing if the parents are protecting their children. Perhaps because you are vested in group guidelines, an organization sharing the responsibility of protecting children with the parents, and a group response when there is suspicious activity. Of course, all of this assumes that the greatest source of child abuse, the parents and family, are not the offenders. In the first part of your post you show little understanding of how churches are organized. It is not an organization apart from the parents. It is the parents themselves who largely do everything for the children from running youth groups to staffing 'safe church' committees. You seem to be thinking of a 'day care' or something of that nature. The second part of your post you seem to separate guidelines from parental vigilance. They're not mutually exclusive in the least. Perpetrators love positions of trust, and the guidelines prevent them from abusing that trust in the first place. There is simply no danger in a worker getting a glass of water for a child, or any other worker activity such as coaching or guiding children in plain view of the parents, or in tandem with another worker. As I keep harping, it's the 'one on one' activities that can lead to grooming behaviour. Similarly if a worker is taking pictures of the family, with the permission of the parents, for some explicit or stated purpose, there's no problem. But if it's taking a child into the backyard for a photo session, 'one on one', then alarm bells should go off. Are parents astute enough to pick up on this, without guidelines, without an awareness program, without a 'safe church' co-ordinator to handle questions and complaints? No. History has proven not. I think you're the one not giving parents enough credit. Parents staff these programs and run them from day-to-day. Let's assume for a minute that parents are not exercising vigilance, and relying too much on professional guidelines, which after all, just control the behaviour of other parents in volunteer positions. Don't you think that the parents running the program will attenuate the general education component of the program accordingly? Of course, they will. The culture I'm describing is entirely different from the friends' culture. It's much more of a formal program environment for all church activities. I can see difficulties in implementing a program such as this among the friends, but it is possible.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 28, 2014 16:44:07 GMT -5
Yes, the fact that from a legal standpoint he is allowed and so far no one had said they suspect he is a danger to children.What the workers think has no bearing on the case.Why should a person who committed a crime, was tried and convicted, served the sentence imposed by the court, be isolated and continue to be punished? Is this christian/theistic idea that I have missed out on?This is very different than being charged, tried, and convicted. You are using spiritual terms in an attempt to explain criminal behavior.You can be in a meeting with him or not as you wish. No one is forcing you to attend. You have rights but those rights extend to other people as well unless there is some legal restriction. The word paranoia springs to mind.Comparing IH to a convicted criminal who has served his sentence is not a fair comparison.So the solution imposed was useless and has become a moot point. More to the question at hand - have any additional children been harmed by him since he attended conventions? A program of effective guidelines is also meant to offset some of that paranoia, and replace a range of 'ad hoc', inept and ineffective parental response with a concerted, methodical, rational (I know you'll like that word) approach. The main 'red flag' I see in sharonw's post is that the meeting was not consulted before moving IH there. If nothing else, the workers should have consulted with a social worker or someone in rehabilitation and with the members of the meeting to discuss what was planned, and to address any specific concerns. The red flag WH is saying is true! Fact is we got a cellphone call about 10 mins. before IH and his relatives were due to arrive...it left us little time to decide just what we must or could due other then set out more chairs! Strangely enough the relatives had some young children and those 2 children conveniently went to an out of town grandparents' home for the mtg. so there was NO concern that they would have trouble with Uncle IH on that deal. But the problem could well have happened the week before when we had a young father drop in on his travels with his 4 children....a set of triplets probably in the second grade and a brother just a grade older....so what IF this had been the same Sun. what would we do? Would some of us had to meet IH at the property line as we are leaving and he is coming? It almost came to that any way. I did NOT want to stay but I stayed since the elder of the meeting was quite undone over the issue...he said what was he to do in that length of time....I said it looked like they didn't aim we do anything but set out another chair! After mtg. I did write to the overseer of that mtg. area and I got the thing Ih had repented and he had every right to be in any mtg. he so well pleased and we should welcome him! This turns out to be the same overseer that maja is speaking about, I'm almost positive!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 17:17:48 GMT -5
And the rest of the children's community. So you believe that Martha, the mother of Jimmy, your child's friend, is responsible for protecting your child from Jason, a sexual predator? Child protection is everyone's responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 17:24:18 GMT -5
Are parents astute enough to pick up on this, without guidelines, without an awareness program, without a 'safe church' co-ordinator to handle questions and complaints? No. History has proven not. An awareness program is key, and that is lacking among the friends.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 18:04:06 GMT -5
Child protection is a somewhat circular phenomenon. I would say that parents are the first line of defense and last line of defense (unless they are the ones that are the abusers of course). Second would be educating your children of what to look for so they have an understanding and can report things that don't feel right to them. Third if your child is part of an organization like a church, boy scouts, whatever, a good set of guidelines in place is also helpful. How this is circular is that a lot of the parents learn to be aware and the first line of defense from somewhere else, either reading, counselors, or guidelines that are set up by an organization they belong to. If everyone is aware and feels a responsibility to the well being and protection of the children in their care, then there is a smaller chance they will be abused. The level that is the weakest link, but still important imo is the level of guidelines in an organization.
Parents taking care of their children is good, but what about when you can't be with them? Then you need to know that whoever you leave them with will be responsible and that your child is educated enough to know what is acceptable boundaries. In a school setting where there is no parent, the only defense a child has against an abuser is his/her own knowledge of acceptable boundaries. Of course this doesn't work with a child that cannot understand these boundaries for whatever reason, too young, handicapped etc. We do what we can and that's all we can do.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 28, 2014 21:51:20 GMT -5
A hypothetical situation: A teenager comes to a male worker he has come to trust and asks for some help with a life situation (no sex involved - or maybe there is?). Should the worker tell him, "Oh I cannot have a personal conversation with you alone. Please come back and bring someone with you." What are the chances a teeneager will return? Now about non-minor/adult sleeping quarters... that is arranged how??? EDIT: Or the worker must say, "Oh I can't have a private conversation with you. Wait until tonight (tomorrow morning, after convention breakfast, etc.) and I will ask ******** to be with us." You've just shown the need for written guidelines. Telling the teenager to come back with someone else would be silly. If it was at convention they could go for a walk together, sit in the meeting shed together, sit in a car together provided it was in public view.
WH gave an example of how the two could meet in a coffee shop. They could sit on a park bench. They could sit in someone's garden. They could go for a walk together in a public place.Under NO circumstances should a worker be alone with a minor in a bedroom, or in a house with no adult there. Emy, workers have had sex with minors in the past and will continue to do so unless action is taken. These situations could all be opportunities for grooming, right? It has been my understanding that ANY 1 on 1 is off limits in guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:00:33 GMT -5
In the first part of your post you show little understanding of how churches are organized. It is not an organization apart from the parents. It is the parents themselves who largely do everything for the children from running youth groups to staffing 'safe church' committees. You seem to be thinking of a 'day care' or something of that nature. The second part of your post you seem to separate guidelines from parental vigilance. They're not mutually exclusive in the least. Perpetrators love positions of trust, and the guidelines prevent them from abusing that trust in the first place. There is simply no danger in a worker getting a glass of water for a child, or any other worker activity such as coaching or guiding children in plain view of the parents, or in tandem with another worker. As I keep harping, it's the 'one on one' activities that can lead to grooming behaviour. Similarly if a worker is taking pictures of the family, with the permission of the parents, for some explicit or stated purpose, there's no problem. But if it's taking a child into the backyard for a photo session, 'one on one', then alarm bells should go off. Are parents astute enough to pick up on this, without guidelines, without an awareness program, without a 'safe church' co-ordinator to handle questions and complaints? No. History has proven not. I think you're the one not giving parents enough credit. Parents staff these programs and run them from day-to-day. Let's assume for a minute that parents are not exercising vigilance, and relying too much on professional guidelines, which after all, just control the behaviour of other parents in volunteer positions. Don't you think that the parents running the program will attenuate the general education component of the program accordingly? Of course, they will. The culture I'm describing is entirely different from the friends' culture. It's much more of a formal program environment for all church activities. I can see difficulties in implementing a program such as this among the friends, but it is possible. You are right - I probably cannot fully understand the benefit of guidelines and how they will curtail child abuse. After all, I do not attend any church and like others who do not attend church am probably not astute enough to know when my children are in danger. The odd thing is that outside of parents and family religious organizations present one of the greatest sources of child sexual abuse to children. I was not aware that the photo taking you were speaking of was a one-on-one activity. If parents you are thinking of are not able to recognize that an activity like that needs to be examined then you are right, church guidelines are better than nothing. I think that putting the guidelines in place is certainly a step in the right direction. If nothing else it might help to stop organizations from moving offenders and/or suspected offenders off to a different meeting location as a preventive measure.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:12:06 GMT -5
The red flag WH is saying is true! Fact is we got a cellphone call about 10 mins. before IH and his relatives were due to arrive...it left us little time to decide just what we must or could due other then set out more chairs! Strangely enough the relatives had some young children and those 2 children conveniently went to an out of town grandparents' home for the mtg. so there was NO concern that they would have trouble with Uncle IH on that deal. But the problem could well have happened the week before when we had a young father drop in on his travels with his 4 children....a set of triplets probably in the second grade and a brother just a grade older....so what IF this had been the same Sun. what would we do? Would some of us had to meet IH at the property line as we are leaving and he is coming? It almost came to that any way. I did NOT want to stay but I stayed since the elder of the meeting was quite undone over the issue...he said what was he to do in that length of time....I said it looked like they didn't aim we do anything but set out another chair! After mtg. I did write to the overseer of that mtg. area and I got the thing Ih had repented and he had every right to be in any mtg. he so well pleased and we should welcome him! This turns out to be the same overseer that maja is speaking about, I'm almost positive! And exactly what harm do you think IH would/could do if there had been 10 children sitting in the meeting? Seriously - what is is your greatest concern about this? That a child will get up to use the bathroom and IH will follow them and molest the child? That IH would suggest that the child accompany him to the back bedroom and molest the child there while the parents are saying their goodbyes? I can understand if you simply don't want him in your house - say he isn't welcome. But this is not what you are saying. You sound like it is the safety of the children and I am trying to understand how you think they are in any danger.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 28, 2014 22:14:14 GMT -5
It possibly won't happen now that workers have their own guidelines, but at the same time, you DO still want workers talking and interacting with young people. The idea of implementing guidelines is to think collectively and constructively about situations like this, and how they should be handled. How do we know that workers have their own guidelines? Our workers told us so.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 22:17:24 GMT -5
You've just shown the need for written guidelines. Telling the teenager to come back with someone else would be silly. If it was at convention they could go for a walk together, sit in the meeting shed together, sit in a car together provided it was in public view.
WH gave an example of how the two could meet in a coffee shop. They could sit on a park bench. They could sit in someone's garden. They could go for a walk together in a public place.Under NO circumstances should a worker be alone with a minor in a bedroom, or in a house with no adult there. Emy, workers have had sex with minors in the past and will continue to do so unless action is taken. These situations could all be opportunities for grooming, right? It has been my understanding that ANY 1 on 1 is off limits in guidelines. I had in mind that none would be 1 on 1 (at least in the sense that others would see from a distance that there was no hanky panky). Convention grounds will typically have walking areas where others can see from a distance. Sitting in the meeting shed during the day when others are around would be OK. At night when others are not around would not be OK. Meeting in a coffee shop would be OK because there are others around. Sitting on a park bench would only be OK if others were around. Same for sitting in someone's garden. I'm not sure that grooming opportunities is the risk so much as intimate opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 22:20:52 GMT -5
How do we know that workers have their own guidelines? Our workers told us so. Secret guidelines would have limited value. Guidelines should be available for everyone in the organization.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 28, 2014 22:51:30 GMT -5
Secret guidelines would have limited value. Guidelines should be available for everyone in the organization. There was nothing secret about the ones we were told about. We were able to examine the materials used in the seminar.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2014 0:14:01 GMT -5
Secret guidelines would have limited value. Guidelines should be available for everyone in the organization. There was nothing secret about the ones we were told about. We were able to examine the materials used in the seminar. What percentage of the friends would be aware of the guidelines and be familiar with their contents?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 0:32:09 GMT -5
There was nothing secret about the ones we were told about. We were able to examine the materials used in the seminar. What percentage of the friends would be aware of the guidelines and be familiar with their contents? Somewhat less than the percentage that are familiar with the child abuse prevention guidelines that are published by the state (governed entity).
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 29, 2014 0:33:54 GMT -5
There was nothing secret about the ones we were told about. We were able to examine the materials used in the seminar. What percentage of the friends would be aware of the guidelines and be familiar with their contents? Jesse, do you have any idea what the answer to Fixit's question is?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 29, 2014 9:25:40 GMT -5
The red flag WH is saying is true! Fact is we got a cellphone call about 10 mins. before IH and his relatives were due to arrive...it left us little time to decide just what we must or could due other then set out more chairs! Strangely enough the relatives had some young children and those 2 children conveniently went to an out of town grandparents' home for the mtg. so there was NO concern that they would have trouble with Uncle IH on that deal. But the problem could well have happened the week before when we had a young father drop in on his travels with his 4 children....a set of triplets probably in the second grade and a brother just a grade older....so what IF this had been the same Sun. what would we do? Would some of us had to meet IH at the property line as we are leaving and he is coming? It almost came to that any way. I did NOT want to stay but I stayed since the elder of the meeting was quite undone over the issue...he said what was he to do in that length of time....I said it looked like they didn't aim we do anything but set out another chair! After mtg. I did write to the overseer of that mtg. area and I got the thing Ih had repented and he had every right to be in any mtg. he so well pleased and we should welcome him! This turns out to be the same overseer that maja is speaking about, I'm almost positive! And exactly what harm do you think IH would/could do if there had been 10 children sitting in the meeting? Seriously - what is is your greatest concern about this? That a child will get up to use the bathroom and IH will follow them and molest the child? That IH would suggest that the child accompany him to the back bedroom and molest the child there while the parents are saying their goodbyes? I can understand if you simply don't want him in your house - say he isn't welcome. But this is not what you are saying. You sound like it is the safety of the children and I am trying to understand how you think they are in any danger. My biggest concern was the fact that the worker in charge of "allowing" IH in any meetings that was NOT following the "guidelines" that had been recommended by WINGS shortly after IH's CSA was made public! One of the guidelines was that all the regular persons in a purposed mtg. for said CSA perp was asked IF they had any objections to such a person being in their mtgs. We weren't even given enough time to ask that question and/or do something about it in a timely fashion! Again, as you still do not understand the mechanics of 2x2 mtgs. where at times people stay for dinner after mtg. OR the adults want to visit and then the children are allowed to go out and play and IF there is an offender then he/she might slip out by going to the bathroom then slipping out unbeknownst to the meeting adults...don't laugh it's happened! Then opportunity is born for whatever action the perp may so well want to do! It is just automatic when workers are in a mtg. most children trust them just due to them being workers....and yes, this is old hat, but it is still true! So you do not understand the mechanics of post-mtg. exchanges and the opportunities that an alert offender will look for...... Furthermore, since IH had not been convicted and paid his just does, in fact was given a grand tour of spec. mtgs. before losing his worker status plus at this time he was playing "worker" but unable to take the worker leading mtgs. due to his "voice" problems as that was why he was not active in the work.....this is what he informed one person in our mtg. that had never known IH. He pretended to this man that he was still a "worker" and the rest of us knew he was NO more worker then any of the rest of us....he lied.....so how would you feel ifyou know an offender is "lying" about his position when he should be smart enough to know most people were quite aware of his worker firing!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 29, 2014 9:35:36 GMT -5
In the first part of your post you show little understanding of how churches are organized. It is not an organization apart from the parents. It is the parents themselves who largely do everything for the children from running youth groups to staffing 'safe church' committees. You seem to be thinking of a 'day care' or something of that nature. The second part of your post you seem to separate guidelines from parental vigilance. They're not mutually exclusive in the least. Perpetrators love positions of trust, and the guidelines prevent them from abusing that trust in the first place. There is simply no danger in a worker getting a glass of water for a child, or any other worker activity such as coaching or guiding children in plain view of the parents, or in tandem with another worker. As I keep harping, it's the 'one on one' activities that can lead to grooming behaviour. Similarly if a worker is taking pictures of the family, with the permission of the parents, for some explicit or stated purpose, there's no problem. But if it's taking a child into the backyard for a photo session, 'one on one', then alarm bells should go off. Are parents astute enough to pick up on this, without guidelines, without an awareness program, without a 'safe church' co-ordinator to handle questions and complaints? No. History has proven not. I think you're the one not giving parents enough credit. Parents staff these programs and run them from day-to-day. Let's assume for a minute that parents are not exercising vigilance, and relying too much on professional guidelines, which after all, just control the behaviour of other parents in volunteer positions. Don't you think that the parents running the program will attenuate the general education component of the program accordingly? Of course, they will. The culture I'm describing is entirely different from the friends' culture. It's much more of a formal program environment for all church activities. I can see difficulties in implementing a program such as this among the friends, but it is possible. You are right - I probably cannot fully understand the benefit of guidelines and how they will curtail child abuse. After all, I do not attend any church and like others who do not attend church am probably not astute enough to know when my children are in danger. The odd thing is that outside of parents and family religious organizations present one of the greatest sources of child sexual abuse to children. I was not aware that the photo taking you were speaking of was a one-on-one activity. If parents you are thinking of are not able to recognize that an activity like that needs to be examined then you are right, church guidelines are better than nothing. I think that putting the guidelines in place is certainly a step in the right direction. If nothing else it might help to stop organizations from moving offenders and/or suspected offenders off to a different meeting location as a preventive measure. Leaving the trace of sarcasm aside, I'd like to focus on the content of this line which indicates that you might not quite be getting it, entirely. The guidelines are not based on detecting or preventing clear and present danger of sexual abuse. The 1-on-1 principle reduces the chance of intimacy between a child and an adult who has to work with the child on a professional basis, be it clergy, youth volunteer, or other capacity within the church. Intimacy can lead to abuse; most times it does not. The guidelines still do recognize the need for intimacy in a child's development. For example, most church guidelines have a comment, not restricting hugs, but suggesting how a child should be hugged, and also attenuating the adult to be aware of the child's response to a hug. I do think that awareness training and discussion of the guidelines might help parents develop better radar to avoid 1-on-1 situations that might endanger the child. You're going to leave your child with casual company for an hour, while you run an errand? Is that wise? Perhaps, but parents aren't often sensitive to risks of this nature. There's always the possibility of making parents paranoid through awareness training. For example, in the example I provided, the age of the child should be gauged in assessing the risk. With children over 12, say, there would be little cause to worry in the above scenario. (This is just an opinion, not relaying any expert advice I've encountered.) Anyway, you saying "a step in the right direction" is progress, I suppose. I never intended to totally convince you, and 'safe church' measures are not a cure-all. I'm sure the approach will be refined and adjusted over time, especially once statistical studies are performed to gauge their actual effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 29, 2014 9:38:49 GMT -5
One other point to raise, are criminal background checks on all volunteers and clergy, et cetera, who work with children. There's quite a bit of advice on the web on how to do this. I was told that there was huge resistance to introducing this measure in the CRC, and many churches still refuse to do it. In fact, although 'safe church' has been in place for 20 years, 43% of the CRC congregations have still do not have 'safe church' program in place. What spurs program implementation? High profile cases of sexual abuse.
(Note: I am not a member of the CRC, and will likely never be. It's my reference point because of family ties.)
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 11:27:17 GMT -5
My biggest concern was the fact that the worker in charge of "allowing" IH in any meetings that was NOT following the "guidelines" that had been recommended by WINGS shortly after IH's CSA was made public! One of the guidelines was that all the regular persons in a purposed mtg. for said CSA perp was asked IF they had any objections to such a person being in their mtgs. I was asking what the objections might be. What would you do? Barricade the door? I went to meetings for 18 years. We had Sunday morning meeting in our house. I have a fair idea of how that all works. Please do not tell me what I do and do not understand. This is all filler. The chances of IH offending a random child after meeting was small. Probably a smaller chance than another member being an offender. IH was a known offender and a meeting full of adults could certainly keep track of his movements in the home if that was required. Personally I think IH should have been jailed and, failing that, his activities should have been publicly announced to the membership. Ideally the people he abused would have come forth but that is water under the bridge/over the dam.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 29, 2014 12:07:09 GMT -5
Really? He groped one girl during singing of grace at convention, another one at the kitchen table with other people in the room, another in the back seat of a car..... These were in statements given to the overseers which had a bearing on his removal from the work.
I think parents where he is in meetings should be aware of his past, so they can make informed decisions on whether to be in meetings where he is present.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 13:24:44 GMT -5
Scott, might you be implying it is obvious to some who understands and who doesn't or is that too much like putting words into your mouth? In any case, it is quite obvious to me who knows and understands what all is involved here. Another young female child asked its parents afterward, "why does the uncle 'x' put his hand in my panties?" That, too, was in semi-public.
Surely those who do not know about such things do not understand, even if they think they do?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 13:25:17 GMT -5
Really? He groped one girl during singing of grace at convention, another one at the kitchen table with other people in the room, another in the back seat of a car..... These were in statements given to the overseers which had a bearing on his removal from the work. I think parents where he is in meetings should be aware of his past, so they can make informed decisions on whether to be in meetings where he is present. Thanks for the information. I was not aware of these details and, based on this information, was in error. Perhaps sharingtheriches was aware of this and in that case her concerns were well founded. Given that evidence, why was he not charged as an offender? Had the SOL on all the cases run out?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 29, 2014 13:45:42 GMT -5
Really? He groped one girl during singing of grace at convention, another one at the kitchen table with other people in the room, another in the back seat of a car..... These were in statements given to the overseers which had a bearing on his removal from the work. I think parents where he is in meetings should be aware of his past, so they can make informed decisions on whether to be in meetings where he is present. Thanks for the information. I was not aware of these details and, based on this information, was in error. Perhaps sharingtheriches was aware of this and in that case her concerns were well founded. Given that evidence, why was he not charged as an offender? Had the SOL on all the cases run out? Yes, the statute of limitations were past. In one case, it was reported to senior workers, but nothing done. In hindsight, the parents would have reported to the authorities. That situation reulted in 3 generations of a family leaving meetings. I tried to estimate once how many people have quit the fellowship because if his abusing, or the lack of response by responsible elder workers, and came up with around 200 people. He is still affecting those in meetings currently.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2014 14:34:05 GMT -5
You're going to leave your child with casual company for an hour, while you run an errand? Is that wise? Perhaps, but parents aren't often sensitive to risks of this nature. There's always the possibility of making parents paranoid through awareness training. For example, in the example I provided, the age of the child should be gauged in assessing the risk. With children over 12, say, there would be little cause to worry in the above scenario. (This is just an opinion, not relaying any expert advice I've encountered.) I think the risk of paranoid parents is preferable to the risk of sexually abused children. Children over 12 left for an hour with a pedophile would be high risk.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 29, 2014 14:34:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the information. I was not aware of these details and, based on this information, was in error. Perhaps sharingtheriches was aware of this and in that case her concerns were well founded. Given that evidence, why was he not charged as an offender? Had the SOL on all the cases run out? Yes, the statute of limitations were past. In one case, it was reported to senior workers, but nothing done. In hindsight, the parents would have reported to the authorities. That situation reulted in 3 generations of a family leaving meetings. I tried to estimate once how many people have quit the fellowship because if his abusing, or the lack of response by responsible elder workers, and came up with around 200 people. He is still affecting those in meetings currently.
Scott ~ We had a similar worker in my home area of New England who left quite a lasting impression. Fortunately, he finally did get caught and convicted years later by the name of George Scandalis. How ironic that "scandal" is found within his own last name! Unfortunately, he got away with a lot of stuff, too, due to failure to report his actions by the F&W's until the day came when it eventually hit the fan and he finally got thrown out of the work. However, he still remained an elder within the meeting in his home area years later. Also, although he professed to being gay when young, he married a gal after leaving the work and feigned a new existence?
Honestly, I don't understand the toleration within some churches for such perverse behavior, especially regarding CSA? How some churches can put on a big display of disdain over the evils of worldly activities and petty things while they willfully tolerate a greater evil among themselves and refuse to deal with it is truly mind boggling?
wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/convicted-csa-offenders/george-scandalis/
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2014 14:39:58 GMT -5
Scott ~ We had a similar worker in my home area of New England who left quite a lasting impression. Fortunately, he finally did get caught and convicted years later by the name of George Scandalis. How ironic that "scandal" is found within his own last name! Unfortunately, he got away with a lot of stuff, too, due to failure to report his actions by the F&W's until the day came when it finally hit the fan and he got thrown out of the work. However, he still remained an elder with meeting in his home years later, although he professed to being gay when young, but married a gal after leaving the work? Honestly, I don't understand the toleration within some churches for such perverse behavior? How some churches can put up a big display of disdain over the evils of worldly activities while they willfully tolerate a greater evil within their very midst and refuse to deal with it?
wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/convicted-csa-offenders/george-scandalis/
This story, and many others like it, prove that the 'no church-wide guidelines' policy isn't working.
|
|