Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 2:59:33 GMT -5
There is simply so much scandalous about the group I was indoctrinated into, even from my very conception (meaning even while in the womb of my mother) that as yet another report from one part of the world emerges, it seems to drive previous reports from focus and off "the front page." Nonetheless, some of us still care.
This thread, then, is to create an ongoing place to find out more about... ? (You name it.) Personally, I would appreciate having this thread become a sub-topic heading.
For instance the rape charge by a female worker against a former honored overseer and world traveling male worker, and the condition, emotionally, physically, mentally and every other way, of the victim of this perpetrator. We have her so often in mind, wishing her recovery, yet really know nothing more. Ma'am, should you be reading here, know it may seem as though you are forgotten, however you are not.
There are others as well, please help us remember them, and not forget them, nor about them?
Thank you, everyone...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 16:01:12 GMT -5
115 views, no comment other than one "like," by a kind and gentle soul. Guess the Idea wasn't so good after all.
Sigh.
Mango Chango, we are thinking of you, admiring your courage.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 30, 2014 18:33:08 GMT -5
I can only wonder at how the time lapse on the investigation has effected Mango Chango! Also Last I heard she'd left the work...I am praying that she has not faced some fellowship pressures in the negative sense for what she has done as to "reporting" one of God's anointed! And I'm praying the reason she left the work is for HER REASONS and not that her attacker had anything to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 7:29:14 GMT -5
115 views, no comment other than one "like," by a kind and gentle soul. Guess the Idea wasn't so good after all.
Sigh. There is the possibility that there is nothing new to report. There is no point in the state moving forward if they do not have the information necessary to properly present their case.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 31, 2014 9:46:30 GMT -5
115 views, no comment other than one "like," by a kind and gentle soul. Guess the Idea wasn't so good after all.
Sigh. There is the possibility that there is nothing new to report. There is no point in the state moving forward if they do not have the information necessary to properly present their case.Rational ~ I feel this is a common problem when CSA and rape cases are not reported right away to the proper authorities, but rather to people within the victim's circle of friends. Without documented evidence of such an attack on record, it's hard to prosecute an offender. Unfortunately, fear of repercussions, shame, and peer pressure from others within these religious groups often deter justice from being done within the court system, as statistics have shown. Below are eight (8) myths often associated with CSA; however, many of these conditions can also be related to adult rape cases within society. Especially take note of the first three myths in this list of the people who are often found to be offenders in CSA cases in particular.
www.vanguardngr.com/2014/01/rising-cases-rape/
www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6143427/k.38C5/Child_Sexual_Abuse_Statistics.htm
www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 31, 2014 9:48:39 GMT -5
115 views, no comment other than one "like," by a kind and gentle soul. Guess the Idea wasn't so good after all.
Sigh. There is the possibility that there is nothing new to report. There is no point in the state moving forward if they do not have the information necessary to properly present their case. It is likely to become this thing of "she said" "he said" situation which wouldn't necessarily make a courtcase, eh? Makes me wonder IF LW would be taken back into the work because of lack of evidence or has there been an agreement made between the victim(s) and the workership that no liability claim against LW would be continued as long as he is NOT allowed back into the work? Seems to me that was a possibility at one point! OR perhaps a question asked and maybe not answered at that time!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 10:03:22 GMT -5
There is the possibility that there is nothing new to report. There is no point in the state moving forward if they do not have the information necessary to properly present their case. It is likely to become this thing of "she said" "he said" situation which wouldn't necessarily make a courtcase, eh? Makes me wonder IF LW would be taken back into the work because of lack of evidence or has there been an agreement made between the victim(s) and the workership that no liability claim against LW would be continued as long as he is NOT allowed back into the work???? Seems to me that was a possibility at one point! Is this speculation or facts?This all sounds like an ethical problem to me.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 31, 2014 10:12:34 GMT -5
It is likely to become this thing of "she said" "he said" situation which wouldn't necessarily make a courtcase, eh? Makes me wonder IF LW would be taken back into the work because of lack of evidence or has there been an agreement made between the victim(s) and the workership that no liability claim against LW would be continued as long as he is NOT allowed back into the work? Seems to me that was a possibility at one point! Is this speculation or facts?This all sounds like an ethical problem to me. I think LW made the point of warning MC that his word carried a bit more weight then her's IF she so thought to report him to the workers, and that the situation would be called a "he said, she said" issue and the workers wouldn't likely do anything about it! Also, there had been a question asked once of MC that IF the workers pulled LW out of the work permanently would that be satisfactorily to her! As far as I know none of these questions were really answered! No speculations at all, but it would be a satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work so future young and vulnerable workers/friends would not be under his worker positional powers! This kind of goes along with what some of the sister workers told another overseer about their not being at a certain conv. IF LW was going to be there! These are not speculations but the evidence of things gone wrong but not enough evidence apparently to satisfy the law!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 10:28:55 GMT -5
No speculations at all, but it would be a satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work so future young and vulnerable workers/friends would not be under his worker positional powers! This kind of goes along with what some of the sister workers told another overseer about their not being at a certain conv. IF LW was going to be there! These are not speculations but the evidence of things gone wrong but not enough evidence apparently to satisfy the law! I was asking if you knew if there was an agreement or if it was speculation. When you say it would be a "satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work" does than mean it would be a "satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work" for the victim as a way to resolve sexual assault issue?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 31, 2014 10:55:12 GMT -5
No speculations at all, but it would be a satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work so future young and vulnerable workers/friends would not be under his worker positional powers! This kind of goes along with what some of the sister workers told another overseer about their not being at a certain conv. IF LW was going to be there! These are not speculations but the evidence of things gone wrong but not enough evidence apparently to satisfy the law! I was asking if you knew if there was an agreement or if it was speculation. When you say it would be a "satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work" does than mean it would be a "satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work" for the victim as a way to resolve sexual assault issue? Rational ~ That sounds like a reasonable question to ask in this situation. When you consider that it was the accepted practice within the work in the past to play "musical chairs" with these sexually offensive workers who engaged in CSA and rape of sister workers within their jurisdiction, I suspect permanent removal would eventually be a final resort? However, that hardly solves the problem completely, as these people still continue to offend outside the ministry wherever they go. Ira Hobbs is just another example of an overseer that abused his position and lived a double life, who never got punished due to failure to report his sexual offenses to proper authorities.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 31, 2014 14:33:26 GMT -5
The saddest thing is that it did not have to come to a rape charge - it was preventable. The overseers should have acted on previous complaints of sexual harassment/abuse and removed the offender from the work a long time ago. There were people who pleaded and warned of the danger he presented in his place in the ministry, but they were not listened to. The overseers chose to protect their friend and talked about not wanting to "destroy a man." Safety of women is not a priority, apparently.
Or, perhaps, the saddest thing is that the victims were sometimes not believed and were even labeled as "troubled," "crazy" or simply to appear to be lying - victims were revictimized.
Or, perhaps, the saddest thing is that overseers don't seem to understand the difference between sexually abusive and healthy romantic relationships, thus excusing behaviors regardless of the context they appear in.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 31, 2014 17:32:17 GMT -5
No speculations at all, but it would be a satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work so future young and vulnerable workers/friends would not be under his worker positional powers! This kind of goes along with what some of the sister workers told another overseer about their not being at a certain conv. IF LW was going to be there! These are not speculations but the evidence of things gone wrong but not enough evidence apparently to satisfy the law! I was asking if you knew if there was an agreement or if it was speculation. When you say it would be a "satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work" does than mean it would be a "satisfactorily thing to get LW out of the work" for the victim as a way to resolve sexual assault issue? Again, it wasn't speculation...it actually was a question to the victim...and I don't remember her answer or if she gave an answer...probably didn't as it was early on in the reporting of the issue!
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 1, 2014 4:38:47 GMT -5
Rational ~ That sounds like a reasonable question to ask in this situation. When you consider that it was the accepted practice within the work in the past to play "musical chairs" with these sexually offensive workers who engaged in CSA and rape of sister workers within their jurisdiction, I suspect permanent removal would eventually be a final resort? However, that hardly solves the problem completely, as these people still continue to offend outside the ministry wherever they go. Ira Hobbs is just another example of an overseer that abused his position and lived a double life, who never got punished due to failure to report his sexual offenses to proper authorities. Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 7:24:36 GMT -5
Rational ~ That sounds like a reasonable question to ask in this situation. When you consider that it was the accepted practice within the work in the past to play "musical chairs" with these sexually offensive workers who engaged in CSA and rape of sister workers within their jurisdiction, I suspect permanent removal would eventually be a final resort? However, that hardly solves the problem completely, as these people still continue to offend outside the ministry wherever they go. Ira Hobbs is just another example of an overseer that abused his position and lived a double life, who never got punished due to failure to report his sexual offenses to proper authorities. :P Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with. So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW? You believe his sexual excesses were based solely on him being a worker/overseer? I believe it provided opportunities but again, this is moving someone so the offense is "not in my backyard".
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 1, 2014 8:44:36 GMT -5
Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with. So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW? You believe his sexual excesses were based solely on him being a worker/overseer? I believe it provided opportunities but again, this is moving someone so the offense is "not in my backyard". I happen to know of some offenses that were reported against him way before the rape charge, and they were not of criminal nature, therefore not reportable. (I was referring to these previous offenses, not the rape charge that came at a later date.) What do you advise should have been done to protect everyone's "backyard" when only non-criminal and non-reportable charges were known?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 15:43:07 GMT -5
Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with. So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW? You believe his sexual excesses were based solely on him being a worker/overseer? I believe it provided opportunities but again, this is moving someone so the offense is "not in my backyard". This was a silly question to ask Rats: So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW?No one knows the answer to that. How can they? What we do know is that his place of trust and authority gave him opportunity to harass and abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 15:49:06 GMT -5
So often I wish it were possible to use "agrees" with this rather than "likes."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 15:54:11 GMT -5
So often I wish it were possible to use "agrees" with this rather than "likes." I think it pretty much means 'agrees' Dennis.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 21:07:47 GMT -5
I happen to know of some offenses that were reported against him way before the rape charge, and they were not of criminal nature, therefore not reportable. (I was referring to these previous offenses, not the rape charge that came at a later date.) What do you advise should have been done to protect everyone's "backyard" when only non-criminal and non-reportable charges were known? I am at a disadvantage since I am not privy to these non-criminal non-reportable charges. Can you share these incidents?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 21:13:18 GMT -5
This was a silly question to ask Rats: So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW?No one knows the answer to that. How can they? Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with. I took "...solved the problem..." as meaning there would be no further sexual assaults. Perhaps this is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 21:16:45 GMT -5
This was a silly question to ask Rats: So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW?No one knows the answer to that. How can they? Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with. I took "...solved the problem..." as meaning there would be no further sexual assaults. Perhaps this is incorrect. It would have solved the problem of a man using his place of trust and authority to harass and abuse.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 21:48:24 GMT -5
I took "...solved the problem..." as meaning there would be no further sexual assaults. Perhaps this is incorrect. It would have solved the problem of a man using his place of trust and authority to harass and abuse. I see. I somehow thought the sexual assaults were the problem. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 23:35:19 GMT -5
It would have solved the problem of a man using his place of trust and authority to harass and abuse. I see. I somehow thought the sexual assaults were the problem. My mistake. What sexual assaults did you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 7:13:32 GMT -5
I see. I somehow thought the sexual assaults were the problem. My mistake. What sexual assaults did you have in mind? I was respomding to: Rational ~ That sounds like a reasonable question to ask in this situation. When you consider that it was the accepted practice within the work in the past to play "musical chairs" with these sexually offensive workers who engaged in CSA and rape of sister workers within their jurisdiction, I suspect permanent removal would eventually be a final resort? However, that hardly solves the problem completely, as these people still continue to offend outside the ministry wherever they go. Ira Hobbs is just another example of an overseer that abused his position and lived a double life, who never got punished due to failure to report his sexual offenses to proper authorities. :P And the followup of: The most egregious problem, as I read it, was "...with these sexually offensive workers who engaged in CSA and rape of sister workers..." and the followup post suggested that removing him from the work would have solved the problem. As I explained in a different post, I am not privy to all of the details so I can only base my answers on what is publicly posted.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 2, 2014 13:40:57 GMT -5
Ira Hobbs is just another example of an overseer that abused his position and lived a double life, who never got punished due to failure to report his sexual offenses to proper authorities. He's not likely to be punished, because it seems that the overseer group considers child sexual abuse in no way takes away from all the good that he has done.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 3, 2014 11:35:39 GMT -5
Faune, for somebody like LW, removing him from the work would have solved the problem, as it would have removed him from the place of trust and authority. It was this place which gave him the opportunity to harass and abuse to begin with. So by removing him from the work there will be no additional sexual crimes from LW? You believe his sexual excesses were based solely on him being a worker/overseer? I believe it provided opportunities but again, this is moving someone so the offense is "not in my backyard". Rational ~ You may be right in your assessment, but at least it serves as a warning to the overseers that this type of behavior among the hierarchy will not be tolerated by the members. Also, it's a big step down in the power pyramid of the 2x2's, which I feel was keenly felt by LW? However, I doubt it would deter him from repeating his behavioral patterns wherever he goes? Only by reporting offenders in a timely fashion can such crimes be curtailed, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 3, 2014 11:39:35 GMT -5
Ira Hobbs is just another example of an overseer that abused his position and lived a double life, who never got punished due to failure to report his sexual offenses to proper authorities. He's not likely to be punished, because it seems that the overseer group considers child sexual abuse in no way takes away from all the good that he has done. Fixit ~ Most sexual offenders found within churches are very clever at presenting themselves above reproach and as righteous individuals in the eyes of others as a personal cover for their sexual crimes. That's just part of their defense when suspicion arises regarding their hidden warped character. That's why I shared earlier the statistics with the myths associated with CSA, so that people can be made aware of the clever tactics of these sexual offenders in grooming their victims and getting away with their crimes against the unsuspecting individuals who fall within their radar.
www.vanguardngr.com/2014/01/rising-cases-rape/
www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6143427/k.38C5/Child_Sexual_Abuse_Statistics.htm
www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 3, 2014 13:13:26 GMT -5
He's not likely to be punished, because it seems that the overseer group considers child sexual abuse in no way takes away from all the good that he has done. Fixit ~ Most sexual offenders found within churches are very clever at presenting themselves above reproach and as righteous individuals in the eyes of others as a personal cover for their sexual crimes. That's just part of their defense when suspicion arises regarding their hidden warped character. That's why I shared earlier the statistics with the myths associated with CSA, so that people can be made aware of the clever tactics of these sexual offenders in grooming their victims and getting away with their crimes against the unsuspecting individuals who fall within their radar.
www.vanguardngr.com/2014/01/rising-cases-rape/
www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6143427/k.38C5/Child_Sexual_Abuse_Statistics.htm
www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html
Yes it was always the most righteous that did the witch burning too. Not really related to CSA. So often when someone gets caught people talk about how surprised they are. They always seemed like such outstanding in their community. A God fearing man. A church goer.
|
|