|
Post by What Hat on Jul 29, 2014 14:44:57 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. Absolutely, I agree about paranoia being preferable. The situation I described is an interesting one to discuss. In most abuse situations the perp will take time to gain the confidence of the child. That's likely not going to happen in one hour with an older child, especially one that's been educated on the dangers of abuse. A younger child could be sexually assaulted without grooming, so that would be out. And what about children over 16? This is where some judgement is required. You can't put your children in bubble wrap, especially older children.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2014 15:35:05 GMT -5
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. Absolutely, I agree about paranoia being preferable. The situation I described is an interesting one to discuss. In most abuse situations the perp will take time to gain the confidence of the child. That's likely not going to happen in one hour with an older child, especially one that's been educated on the dangers of abuse. A younger child could be sexually assaulted without grooming, so that would be out. And what about children over 16? This is where some judgement is required. You can't put your children in bubble wrap, especially older children. I'm not sure what you mean by 'casual company'. A 16 year old is not considered a child in many jurisdictions.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 29, 2014 16:58:59 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 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/
This story, and many others like it, prove that the 'no church-wide guidelines' policy isn't working. Fixit ~ I agree! It will take a much more aggressive approach by the parents to change this picture by coming to the plate themselves and taking action to protect their own children, when a CSA threat is in their midst with prior convictions. Honestly, such a person should never be allowed around children in meeting in the first place according to civil guidelines. Why the overseers have such a problem with obeying the law really amazes me? No doubt they have their own skeletons to cover up and don't want to be exposed for their own lack of moral integrity? Also, I see no reason why such individuals who prey upon innocent children are not excommunicated from the meetings altogether, especially convicted criminal offenders? They throw people out of the 2x2's for much less or take away their privileges ~ but somehow lack of moral integrity and convictions for child abuse is something to be forgiven and tolerated? What a crock! Even outside churches would not tolerate such blatant behavior, but would take action as required by law to remove such an offender from their midst and bring them to justice. So, why would some group which claims to be the one and only way of salvation be so engaged in protecting the CSA offender from retribution and reluctant to take actions to alleviate this problem?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 29, 2014 17:03:08 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. Dream on, Rat! IH's CSA was NOT known that well at that time! The letter to the Texas friends had just barely made it to the online capacity and as we all know that there were few real devout friends and workers, at that time, willing to go against the workers' warnings to NOT be reading thing on the internet, etc. The biggest problem in seeing IH having to even pay his dues within the society that he so well chose to be in, was that the statute of limitations was past......and since there would have be no legal dealings with the allegations his victims were reluctant to have their names smeared within the 2x2s well knowing that gossip would have them being the aggressors, in all likelihood.....so IF a victim knows that the tables would turn on him and there was NO way of having fair treatment by the f&w's then I don't blame them as the legal eagles had no jurisdictions.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 29, 2014 17:11:53 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. Thanks, Scott! Yes, he IS still affecting the mtgs., and the affect is likely more so now then it was in the beginning of his loss of worker status, and he's got the ear of his overseer and this alone is the reason some young parents have left the fellowship in recent months! The conv. ground owners have been warned that should IH abuse a child during a conv. that they well could be sued simply because they allowed IH to be on their property! One conv. ground owner is having a hard time getting that in his own head and is going along with the overseer, so it seems...but I do know this conv. ground owner and know that given a bit of time, he will come to terms with this issue!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 29, 2014 17:19:14 GMT -5
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/
I suppose Mr. Scandalis might not have ever been prosecuted even IF he'd stayed with f&w's children.....the last go-around he targeted a boy outside the fellowship....and got too brave for his britches apparently and this boy and parents went right tot he authorities....like the friends' should have done many years ago. Again, when talking to some of the older more in power workers about the CSA issue, they declare that they didn't understand it to be a crime and they didn't think it would have a lasting effect on the child victims....they thought they just had someone who had a preferred deviant sex life. Kind of like the gay scene being deviated from the expected heterosexual coupling. I have a hard time believing AFTER the Catholic church got into such a big legal hazzle over 10-15 yrs. ago that these older powered workers would NOT understand that CSA is an illegal activity! There was more then plenty news about this very problem within the Catholic churh years ago! There was NO excuse for the workers NOT knowing that CSA was illegal!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 17:27:11 GMT -5
This story, and many others like it, prove that the 'no church-wide guidelines' policy isn't working. You would need to define your meaning of 'proof'. There are many institutions/organizations with guidelines that are still struggling with child abuse within their ranks. In one state the man in charge of CPS for 30+ years was convicted of molesting young girls. This, of course, does not prove that the guidelines don't work either.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2014 17:33:12 GMT -5
The biggest problem in seeing IH having to even pay his dues within the society that he so well chose to be in, was that the statute of limitations was past......and since there would have be no legal dealings with the allegations his victims were reluctant to have their names smeared within the 2x2s well knowing that gossip would have them being the aggressors, in all likelihood.....so IF a victim knows that the tables would turn on him and there was NO way of having fair treatment by the f&w's then I don't blame them as the legal eagles had no jurisdictions. This is a big problem in the fellowship - victims who come forward are re-victimized by professing public opinion that considers them 'enemies of the truth', pathetic individuals who are hell-bound because they make 'false' accusations against 'the Lord's anointed'. This attitude has got to change, but vested interests are resisting change.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 29, 2014 17:40:05 GMT -5
This story, and many others like it, prove that the 'no church-wide guidelines' policy isn't working. You would need to define your meaning of 'proof'. There are many institutions/organizations with guidelines that are still struggling with child abuse within their ranks. In one state the man in charge of CPS for 30+ years was convicted of molesting young girls. This, of course, does not prove that the guidelines don't work either. I thought you might pick up on that. 'Prove' might not be the best choice of word. These stories show that the church culture left a lot to be desired with respect to child protection. Good written guidelines would be a useful tool for making the church culture safer for children.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 29, 2014 18:35:05 GMT -5
About any church today that receives tax exempt status has to have some form of church guidelines in place regarding CSA for the safety of the children, which is more than reasonable and expected by the parents. Why the 2x2's balk at the process involved in protecting their own children from such harmful behavior is very sad, IMHO. I feel it's about time they take off the rose colored glasses and get with the system proposed to clean up this depravity within their midst!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 29, 2014 19:01:23 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. Rats, do you think this might be a situation in which moving the person from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children could be more effective in protecting children than reporting the person to authorities?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 21:08:23 GMT -5
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. Rats, do you think this might be a situation in which moving the person from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children could be more effective in protecting children than reporting the person to authorities? Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities. There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 30, 2014 1:41:07 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. It was another case that I commented on and which was I so virulently misrepresented when I said it would be better to "report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own and just transferring him to another church ."
In this case there was "3 generations of families leaving; an estimate of 200 people leaving," because the abuser hadn't been reported to the proper authorities to handle the case.
Look at all the people hurt because of not reporting him to the proper authorities.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 30, 2014 4:17:38 GMT -5
Rats, do you think this might be a situation in which moving the person from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children could be more effective in protecting children than reporting the person to authorities? Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities. There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse? Those who enabled his abuse in the past are not alive any more. The known victims can't report him any more because of statute of limitations. So there is nothing that can be done about the past abuses. The question remains whether potential future abuse can be prevented. Do you think that putting church-based restrictions on IH would be called for (such as putting him in a meeting with no children and not allowing him to go to conventions)? In my opinion, not placing such restrictions is enabling future potential abuse. And this is what this topic is about - preventing abuse now, not about what should have been done in the past.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 30, 2014 4:25:29 GMT -5
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. It was another case that I commented on and was so virulently misrepresented when I said it would be better to "report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own and just moving him to another meeting."
So in this case "3 generations of families leaving, an estimate of 200 people leaving." They should have reported him to the proper authorities to handle the case.
Look how many were hurt.
I see those two cases as different. In IH's case, huge mistakes were made, but legally there is nothing that can be done at this point. The only thing that can be done is make church-based restrictions on him to prevent future abuse. In the other case, the offender had served his sentence, but now the church decided that church-based restrictions should be made to prevent future abuse. In one case, the offender has not served his sentence, in the other one he has. Where these two cases are the same is that at this point in time there is nothing to report (either because of statute of limitations or because of no new offenses), and in that the church has the right and responsibility to place church-based restrictions on their involvement with children. Also, past mistakes regarding IH included the failure to implement church-based restrictions (such as removing him from the work).
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 30, 2014 5:06:18 GMT -5
Rats, do you think this might be a situation in which moving the person from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children could be more effective in protecting children than reporting the person to authorities? Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities. There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse? As Maja wrote, report him for what?! On the other hand, he could be banned from meetings entirely. Would that be a better approach than moving him from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2014 10:33:18 GMT -5
Perhaps some but not all have shuffled off their mortal coil.I am not sure this is correct. Some states have no criminal SOL on sexual abuse of a child under 18 and many others are subject to the 'Discovery Rule'. I think the difficulty would be getting the victims to come forward. I do not know the states involved but I remember TX was one of them and there is no SOL on some crimes. Informing the parents and educating them is, in my opinion, a much more effective approach. Of course, educating people who have IH on a pedestal may not be effective. But moving to a different meeting location does not address the root issue.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 30, 2014 11:13:54 GMT -5
Perhaps some but not all have shuffled off their mortal coil.I am not sure this is correct. Some states have no criminal SOL on sexual abuse of a child under 18 and many others are subject to the 'Discovery Rule'. I think the difficulty would be getting the victims to come forward. I do not know the states involved but I remember TX was one of them and there is no SOL on some crimes. Informing the parents and educating them is, in my opinion, a much more effective approach. Of course, educating people who have IH on a pedestal may not be effective. But moving to a different meeting location does not address the root issue. Don't know why your reply got quoted here as one paragraph... What do you suggest can be done if some of those who are responsible for moving IH to different states because of reports of CSA are still alive? What can be done to influence victims to come forward and report abuse if still possible? Informing and educating parents is one function of guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2014 12:45:16 GMT -5
Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities. There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse? As Maja wrote, report him for what?! On the other hand, he could be banned from meetings entirely. Would that be a better approach than moving him from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children? I have a feeling that the SOL may not have run out in all cases or that the tolling could be modified based on discovery. There are a lot of myths and fears generated by child abuse and especially the sexual abuse of children. Scott was revealed that IH seemingly abused children spontaneously. From the NY State Division of Justice Services: Myth: Child molesters spontaneously attack when they see a vulnerable potential victim.Fact: Many child molesters and pedophiles spend years positioning themselves into a place of authority and trust within the community, and can spend a long time "grooming" one child.Grooming is aimed at an intended child and the offenders behave in ways to gain a parent's trust, often ingratiating themselves with the victim's family or guardian. They often select their potential victims carefully, targeting children who are seeking adult attention. Often there is a period before the offender engages in any inappropriate behavior and during this time, the potential offender exhibits interest in and spends time with the child (Lanning, Kenneth 2010). While this may occur it is much more likely that the criminal already has the child's trust. Educating against this possibility (implicitly trusting some revered person) would be a more effective approach and, I believe, offer more protection to a wider group of children.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 30, 2014 13:11:58 GMT -5
It was another case that I commented on and was so virulently misrepresented when I said it would be better to "report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own and just moving him to another meeting."
So in this case "3 generations of families leaving, an estimate of 200 people leaving." They should have reported him to the proper authorities to handle the case.
Look how many were hurt.
I see those two cases as different. In IH's case, huge mistakes were made, but legally there is nothing that can be done at this point. The only thing that can be done is make church-based restrictions on him to prevent future abuse. In the other case, the offender had served his sentence, but now the church decided that church-based restrictions should be made to prevent future abuse. In one case, the offender has not served his sentence, in the other one he has. Where these two cases are the same is that at this point in time there is nothing to report (either because of statute of limitations or because of no new offenses), and in that the church has the right and responsibility to place church-based restrictions on their involvement with children. Also, past mistakes regarding IH included the failure to implement church-based restrictions (such as removing him from the work). If you are referring to the case I am talking about, it was not stated as to whether the offender had served his sentence.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 30, 2014 15:48:59 GMT -5
As Maja wrote, report him for what?! On the other hand, he could be banned from meetings entirely. Would that be a better approach than moving him from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children? I have a feeling that the SOL may not have run out in all cases or that the tolling could be modified based on discovery. There are a lot of myths and fears generated by child abuse and especially the sexual abuse of children. Scott was revealed that IH seemingly abused children spontaneously. From the NY State Division of Justice Services: Myth: Child molesters spontaneously attack when they see a vulnerable potential victim.Fact: Many child molesters and pedophiles spend years positioning themselves into a place of authority and trust within the community, and can spend a long time "grooming" one child.Grooming is aimed at an intended child and the offenders behave in ways to gain a parent's trust, often ingratiating themselves with the victim's family or guardian. They often select their potential victims carefully, targeting children who are seeking adult attention. Often there is a period before the offender engages in any inappropriate behavior and during this time, the potential offender exhibits interest in and spends time with the child (Lanning, Kenneth 2010). While this may occur it is much more likely that the criminal already has the child's trust. Educating against this possibility (implicitly trusting some revered person) would be a more effective approach and, I believe, offer more protection to a wider group of children. Rats, in a sense child molesting workers groom the whole fellowship. When a worker is highly respected as "the Lord's anointed" by the child, it's extended family and the whole social/church environment then the grooming is mostly achieved. The NY State Division of Justice Services will not be referring specifically to the friends and workers environment. Reminder: This forum is about the church of the friends and workers so that's our focus for CSA discussion. Of course I wish that every child on the planet was protected from sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 30, 2014 18:11:18 GMT -5
You would need to define your meaning of 'proof'. There are many institutions/organizations with guidelines that are still struggling with child abuse within their ranks. In one state the man in charge of CPS for 30+ years was convicted of molesting young girls. This, of course, does not prove that the guidelines don't work either. I thought you might pick up on that. 'Prove' might not be the best choice of word. These stories show that the church culture left a lot to be desired with respect to child protection. Good written guidelines would be a useful tool for making the church culture safer for children. The guidelines also assist people to know when an action is of great question and needs investigation by the authority.....and IF the same mistake keep popping up, then it is would seem to me that it would be time to make some very important leader changes within the organization, meeting, group....etc Also with guidelines this helps the parents of children know that certain things ARE necessary to be reported to the authorities! The friends and workers likely did not think that CSA was something to bring an outside investigation into....that IF the powers that be took care of it, then that's what God would bless...however parents then learn over the next umpteen years what damages has happened to their children when they've been victimized! Also it seems to me that this victim situation has also played a big part in the shrinking numbers of the children staying in the fellowship...or it really should anyhow!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 30, 2014 18:20:52 GMT -5
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. It was another case that I commented on and which was I so virulently misrepresented when I said it would be better to "report him to the proper authorities to handle the case, rather than them trying to handle the case on their own and just transferring him to another church ."
In this case there was "3 generations of families leaving; an estimate of 200 people leaving," because the abuser hadn't been reported to the proper authorities to handle the case.
Look at all the people hurt because of not reporting him to the proper authorities.
To be clear on all those who left the fellowship due to IH and his CSA, all 200 were not victims nor their parents or even those who were in mtgs. with the victims but certainly those who were betrayed by the workers that kept him in the worker and more so betrayed by putting him in an overseership! The flavor of the 2x2 religion became something very unpleasant to some of us due to this way of "rewarding" IH for all of his efforts in the work! Even the letter that RH sent out was commenting on the need to thank IH for the work that he had done! What another betrayal that was! The man had many years of honor and glory when he should have been spending them in prison for the CSA things he did! And when a young man who's daughter had been handled wrong by IH and this young man tried to warn other parents at conv. about the potential for CSA by IH, he was quickly squelched, told to cease and desist and eventually excommunicated. That was all uncalled for! It showed exactly those "dark fruits" that speaks as to what the 2x2 religion is all about. And that goes back to what an overseer told me just short days before I left the fellowship. He said, "You will know them by their fruits." I certainly do!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 30, 2014 18:25:30 GMT -5
Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities. There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse? As Maja wrote, report him for what?! On the other hand, he could be banned from meetings entirely. Would that be a better approach than moving him from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children? Gene! Removing him from the fellowship entirely would be the "best" approach! They excommunicate people for lesser reasons, so why allow someone who has exhibited criminal behavior for many years and has been blessed for it by being brought up into overseership......it's time the excommunication process serve the real needs of the fellowship and not the moods of the powers that be!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 30, 2014 18:57:24 GMT -5
As Maja wrote, report him for what?! On the other hand, he could be banned from meetings entirely. Would that be a better approach than moving him from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children? I have a feeling that the SOL may not have run out in all cases or that the tolling could be modified based on discovery. There are a lot of myths and fears generated by child abuse and especially the sexual abuse of children. Scott was revealed that IH seemingly abused children spontaneously. From the NY State Division of Justice Services: Myth: Child molesters spontaneously attack when they see a vulnerable potential victim.Fact: Many child molesters and pedophiles spend years positioning themselves into a place of authority and trust within the community, and can spend a long time "grooming" one child.Grooming is aimed at an intended child and the offenders behave in ways to gain a parent's trust, often ingratiating themselves with the victim's family or guardian. They often select their potential victims carefully, targeting children who are seeking adult attention. Often there is a period before the offender engages in any inappropriate behavior and during this time, the potential offender exhibits interest in and spends time with the child (Lanning, Kenneth 2010). While this may occur it is much more likely that the criminal already has the child's trust. Educating against this possibility (implicitly trusting some revered person) would be a more effective approach and, I believe, offer more protection to a wider group of children. The two solutions are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 30, 2014 19:01:31 GMT -5
As Maja wrote, report him for what?! On the other hand, he could be banned from meetings entirely. Would that be a better approach than moving him from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children? Gene! Removing him from the fellowship entirely would be the "best" approach! They excommunicate people for lesser reasons, so why allow someone who has exhibited criminal behavior for many years and has been blessed for it by being brought up into overseership......it's time the excommunication process serve the real needs of the fellowship and not the moods of the powers that be! Well, yes -- but that won't protect the school children that walk past his house each day, either! Capital punishment would work, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 30, 2014 20:21:03 GMT -5
Rats, do you think this might be a situation in which moving the person from a meeting with children to a meeting with no children could be more effective in protecting children than reporting the person to authorities? Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities.There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse? My guess would be that his overseer status of the past contributed to the continued enabling of his behavior? However, if the friends had reported him to the authorities in the beginning, perhaps a whole lot of people would have been spared being abused by him? It's too bad that people don't see that doing nothing and moving an offender from one meeting to the next is not a solution to the problem or doing the right thing here?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 31, 2014 9:37:47 GMT -5
Absolutely not. The problem with this whole situation is the result of moving IH from place to place instead of standing up to him and reporting him to the authorities.There is a lot of blame placed on IH (and he certainly deserves it) but what about the people who enabled his abuse? My guess would be that his overseer status of the past contributed to the continued enabling of his behavior? However, if the friends had reported him to the authorities in the beginning, perhaps a whole lot of people would have been spared being abused by him? It's too bad that people don't see that doing nothing and moving an offender from one meeting to the next is not a solution to the problem or doing the right thing here? His workership alone was of a strict and stern countenance and certainly was quick to judge or discern against any of the friends' behaviours....his countenance when around his peers was such that there would be nothing wrong to say he wasn't of the best fiber within the 2x2s.....this enabled him to not only be a CSA abuser, but also became evident that he was a spiritual abuser as well...and this evidence was AFTER his CSA behavior was revealed, of course. Someone who is quick to correct someone else perhaps should strive a little harder to not have skeletons in the their own closet, IMO! It appears to me that the workers who have been secretly behaving wrong are the ones who bend over backwards to show their peers how great and good they are within their position in the work! And amazingly a lot of them who have such immoral acts to their credit become overseers in spite of such immorality and when something forces their retirement from overseership and maybe workership, they reap great accolades of their work! Seems to me that the workers with powers should be thinking about how much the immoral negates the good, eh? But after a while, it becomes that more and more power that be workers have immoral deeds to their credit as well and perhaps not criminal but immoral, rtendering them completely unable to discipline a peer who has criminal or immoral problems.
|
|