|
Post by juliette on Oct 6, 2007 0:19:42 GMT -5
I completely agree with Rational in that parents should report crimes against their children. It's a no-brainer to me, but you have to ask yourself... why is this not happening in the 2x2 religion. You can argue about personal responsibility until the cows come home, but the proof is in the pudding. When you have so many cases (and Scott, Cherie and I as well as others have been told of many cases) where all of the adults involved, from parents to the workers do not call the authorities, you have to wonder what's wrong. I don't subscribe to the "cult" label to the 2x2 religion, because I believe that word is pretty strong. But I personally experienced many years among people who did not think for themselves in many basic ways. Workers told parents who their kids could associate with, which activities they could be involved in, what they could wear, what kind of wedding they could have, etc. And when you're under the impression that your religion is "the only way" and being "outside" equals eternal damnation, you have a lot of motivation to toe the line. "Gods true messengers" are to be obeyed... that's what many were taught and believe.
No, I do not personally absolve parents of their God given responsibility to protect their children at all costs. I also don't understand how a parent in this situation could continue to believe in a system that shows so little regard for their children. How a "man of God" could ever begin to tell a parent that a man who took away a child's innocence and did irreparable harm to that little life should just be handled within the system and moved to another area is beyond the pale. The whole thing is so sick and twisted I get sick to my stomach every time I think about it.
To be clear, I have no interested in outing crimes and sins of anyone in the fellowship (or outside of the fellowship for that matter) that do not put innocent lives at risk. So cheat on your wife, pee in the street, embezzle money from your company, shoplift a candy bar, do some drugs or steal a car... that's between you and God. This has nothing to do with exposing sin... this is about protecting children. Why would you not expect God to strike you with a lightening bolt if you did anything else?
|
|
sms
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by sms on Oct 6, 2007 1:08:56 GMT -5
I, too, Juliette, am completely mystified why parents in ANY religion would not report something like this to the authorities - and not wait for the advice/guidance of others in their faith.
I can tell you now that if I caught ANYONE in the act with my children - they would be facing far worse consequences than being taken away in handcuffs! I certainly wouldn't let them leave and then call a minister/worker/priest and ask what I should do. This just seems like a no-brainer!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 9:00:39 GMT -5
Lets take a 'hypothetical' situation here. A worker molests a child. The parents out of fear of being shunned by the friends and possibly kicked out of the 'truth' do not turn the worker in to the authorities, but instead consult with the overseer about what to do. The overseer then places the worker in question in a 'resting' status for a while while the situation blows over and is hushed up, and then the worker is relocated to another field. Do you feel that the overseer is criminally liable for not reporting the molestation to the authorities? Let's assume the parent caught the worker in the act. The parent is guilty of not reporting the situation to the authorities since they knew what happened. The overseer has only the word of the parent to act on. I believe the overseer should at the very least investigate the situation but without proof there is not a lot that can be done. The overseer could go to the authorities and relate what they suspect, but without the proof there is not a lot the state can do either. The overseer could try to get the parent to report what they know to the authorities. The overseer could confront the worker in question, and if appropriate, get the worker to turn themselves in for treatment. The overseer is in a tough position because they do not have proof of the crime. I do believe they should take some action and try to determine the truth and not sweep it under the rug. When you say 'know of the situation' do you mean they have heard it from others or they have witnessed the crime? Hearing about a situation if not proof. As a mandated reporter you have to report if you have "reasonable cause to believe" "reasonable suspicion.""know or suspect," which is a higher degree of knowledge. I was just wondering what you consider proof. Different states have different requirements. While I can understand what you are doing, why don't those who have been harmed do the reporting? If it evolves children - the parents would be the appropriate reporters. rational, I was once in the same quandry as you on this issue. The overseer would often get a "he said she said" report, the alleged crime vigorously denied by the accused, while the accuser is a child and often considered unreliable. So, the overseer, armed with a good story from the accused worker and no "proof" shuffles the accused off to another state and tells the family to forgive him, and hope it all blows over. I suspect this scenario has played out over and over but is completely inadequate. It's clear to me now. There must be mandatory reporting by ministers. There should be little, if any, investigation by the ministry. The reasons are simple. First, the ministry has many vested interests including the interest in protecting their own colleagues and the reputation of their ministry group and church overall. Because of these vested interests, they are the worst group to get involved in it. Secondly, the authorities have investigative skills that no one in the church has. This is particulary important with children as it takes special training and skills to properly interview an alleged child victim to determine the truth and get the "proof". The lack of both investigative skills and the problem of vested interests make the overseers completely inadequate for involvement. I had some peripheral involvement in a "worker investigation" recently. Two workers, one a former worker and one still in, now an overseer, were accused of homosexual activity with a teenager many years ago. The allegations were assigned to a worker to investigate. A little later, the worker concluded his investigation. "I asked both accused parties and they said 'no it didn't happen', so since both said the same thing I conclude that the accuser is lying". Vested interests? Bad investigation? or ? Regardless, this is the quality of response that you can expect when you report impropieties of a worker to another worker. Child molestation accusations must be reported to the appropriate authorities for their investigation, no exceptions. There should be no judgment or rationalization placed on the case by those hearing the accusations if they are in the ministry, otherwise, they risk not only encouraging a criminal, but risk huge problems for themselves, not the least being a criminal charge against them, but also a civil damages suit against them by the victims. Overseers need to tell their staff the rules of reporting upfront so that there are no surprises and hurt feelings. "We are not going to get involved except to provide spiritual support to both the accused and the victim, and all allegations of child molestation will be reported to the appropriate authorities for investigation."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 9:21:36 GMT -5
Clearday, your post above is exceptionally sound advice. Today's society demands ands accepts nothing less than these standards. The wake-up call is happening now. If such standards and approaches are not fully grasped the day will come when those who will be held accountable will find they have no place to hide. The whole thing is, "protection of the system and those in authority in it" is far more important a consideration than protecting the weak and vulnerable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 9:27:14 GMT -5
Clearday, your post above is exceptionally sound advice. Today's society demands ands accepts nothing less than these standards. The wake-up call is happening now. If such standards and approaches are not fully grasped the day will come when those who will be held accountable will find they have no place to hide. The whole thing is, "protection of the system and those in authority in it" is far more important a consideration than protecting the weak and vulnerable. Ram, I think you are quite right. The wake-up call is right now and it may not last long. Should the workers not implement this kind of policy, it could bring down the whole church. Multiple workers and overseers could be charged with aiding and abetting criminals, obstruction of justice, and all are right now subject to massive civil suits. As a member of this church, I realize that I too am subject to facing civil action in court because of my association with this.
|
|
|
Post by How Ram on Oct 6, 2007 14:50:28 GMT -5
Most of this thread I can easily agree with, but Ram, I'm trying to figure out how you could be civilly liable?
Did you witness a molestation or a crime and not report it? Did you witness a molestation or a crime and conspire to cover it up? Did you have first hand knowledge of said acts and either not report it, or did you conspire to cover it up. Failing that, I'm trying to determine how base your concern about being found responsible?
|
|
|
Post by Sorry Ram on Oct 6, 2007 14:51:16 GMT -5
Sorry Ram - that question was for Clearday - my bad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 15:08:27 GMT -5
To How Ram. That's okay, but if you don't mind I'll contribute just a couple of things meantime ?
There are various ways in which responsibility applies.
There is moral responsibility. This may not involve civil or criminal responsibility, but is based on perceptions or accepted beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong. A concern for our fellow man is very much part of this.
In life, everone has a "civic duty" which involves a duty of care for others. (Even Jesus made this one of his two main commandments !)
Duty of care (a big thing these days) is at least in my country written into both civil and criminal laws.
More and more groups and organisations, even charities, churches and voluntary groups have to take steps to prevent as far as possible the wrong types entering their environment, and when alleged misdeeds occur, have them investigated or reported to the authorities, so that appropriate action can be taken.
All this begins "before" anything has happened. The whole ethos is "prevention." When called into question these groups have to show in their day to day running that their practices and procedures stand up to scrutiny and do everything that is reasonably practicable to prevent abuses from occurring and if and when they do come to light, that they are properly dealt with.
I don't know how "duty of care" applies in the States in civil law, but if it's anything like the UK, then it is something that should be seriously considered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 15:37:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 16:59:28 GMT -5
Most of this thread I can easily agree with, but Ram, I'm trying to figure out how you could be civilly liable? Did you witness a molestation or a crime and not report it? Did you witness a molestation or a crime and conspire to cover it up? Did you have first hand knowledge of said acts and either not report it, or did you conspire to cover it up. Failing that, I'm trying to determine how base your concern about being found responsible? Actually, I'm not worried about actually being found civilly liable. I just said "I too am subject to facing civil action in court". In a real life civil case, the plaintiffs typically name anyone and everyone who has a connection to the case no matter how tenuous, and then the list gets whittled down before trial. In my case, the logic could be put that since I am part of the f&w church, then I must agree with coverup policies and have some responsibilities in that regard. It's a big stretch, but not outside the realm of possibility and would have to be defended nevertheless or risk being part of a settlement. Civil action does not require the same standard of evidence and proof that criminal cases do. A good case to review is the two trials of OJ Simpson. He was acquitted in the criminal trial, but was found responsible in the two deaths in the civil trial and the plaintiffs were awarded a $30million plus settlement. Many plaintiffs name a lot of defendents in the hope that some don't defend and they then get a bigger base from which to collect the settlement. Hope this explains my comment. It surprises me that no one has attempted a civil action against f&ws, particularly on the child molestation issue. It would be an interesting case because there is no legal entity to attack, so any civil action would have to be structured by naming a very long list of defendents.
|
|
|
Post by To Ram on Oct 6, 2007 17:01:05 GMT -5
Ram, Not a legal scholar myself, so will not try to speak on the US justice system - but I think most would still necesitate knowledge - that was my question for Clearday - why would he/she feel they might be held liable - I was just curious what personal knowledge, or witness, they had that might make them personally liable in civil court. If Clearday has such knowledge, wouldn't they have already reported it to the authorities? The US, or at least some states, do have a Failure to render aid law, in which some can be held civilly and/or criminally liable for the failure to help those who could not help themselves. I do not know the vagaries of the law, but it may be somewhat similar to the duty of care you mention. I agree with the concept, but fear many just don't want to get involved and so many instances go unreported, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by to clearday on Oct 6, 2007 17:02:33 GMT -5
We must have been posting at the same time - thanks for your clarification -
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 17:23:30 GMT -5
Hi To Ram, I don't know a lot about the vagaries of civil law in my own country, never mind the USA, but I am sufficiently versed to be cautious. That's why I recommend Workers seek advice from Lawyers and Social Services etc.
In many circumstances Companies and groups can be held liable for the actions of their workforce carried out in the process of their employment (paid or otherwise), which result in injury or loss to others, where such injury or loss could be reasonably forseen. Those in charge of the company or group need not have any knowledge of these events. The key criteria being that they could reasonably be forseen and that no preventative action was taken.
In the case of Workers abuses with children. In case "one" it could likely be argued such inury or loss could not have been forseen, based on the grounds it had never happened before. A lucky escape. By the time you get to case three or four or more, you would have a hard job arguing such things could not have been reasonably forseen because by now you have been aware of several cases beforehand.
The "Duty of Care" that I have mentioned is fast creeping into every walk of life. It is a revolution just like "political correctness" and "human rights." Just consider the link I listed in the above post and see how "Duty of Care" is not only a precaution with regards to children it is a demand and in most circumstances a legal one at that.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 7, 2007 1:30:53 GMT -5
The US, or at least some states, do have a Failure to render aid law, in which some can be held civilly and/or criminally liable for the failure to help those who could not help themselves. I do not know the vagaries of the law, but it may be somewhat similar to the duty of care you mention. The fail to render aid laws refer to cases where the person who is responsible for an accident leaves the scene of the accident without providing aid. A hit and run accident, for example. Many people agree with the concept but the sad reality is that if you do stop and render aid in some stated the good Samaritan law does not offer any protection and even if you do your best and the outcome is not good you could be held liable. As far as reporting things like child abuse - no one is required by law to report events they know about except mandated reporters. In most states however, anyone can file a report with the proper authorities and the state is required to act upon it. Depending on the location the report may or may not be filed anonymously. In CA, for example, mandated reporters are: Any one whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children. Medical, Dental and Hospital Personnel. including: physicians, surgeons, dentists, residents, interns, podiatrists, chiropractors, licensed nurses, dental hygienists, optometrists, medical examiners, coroners, emergency medical technicians I & II, paramedics, Mental Health Professionals and Counselors (including psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed and unlicensed marriage, family and child counselors and trainees, psychological assistants.) School Officials and Educators (including public, classified or private: teachers, instructional aides, teacher’s assistants, administrative officers, supervisors of child welfare and attendance, administrators or employees of a county office of education or the California Department of Education, school police.) Social Service Personnel (including: public assistance workers, social workers, clinical social workers, child visitation monitors, county welfare employees.) Clergy (including priests, ministers, rabbis, religious practitioners, or similarly functionary of a church, temple or recognized denomination or organization.) Day Camp or Child-Care Providers (including public or private: administrators, licensees & employees of any youth center, youth recreational program, youth organization, licensed community care or child day care facility.) Commercial Film and Photographic Print Processors (including those that develop exposed negatives, slides, or prints.) Law Enforcement Personnel (including: any employee of any police department, county sheriff’s department, and county probation department. This includes probation officers, parole officers, police officers, peace officers & custodial officers.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 7, 2007 1:33:16 GMT -5
Why would you not expect God to strike you with a lightening bolt if you did anything else? This begs the question of why god would not be protecting these children in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by wingsofaneagle on Oct 7, 2007 9:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Oct 7, 2007 22:07:48 GMT -5
Why would you not expect God to strike you with a lightening bolt if you did anything else? This begs the question of why god would not be protecting these children in the first place. This statement was rhetorical and for effect only. Obviously God doesn't strike us down for our misdeeds, or there wouldn't be many of us left. I just don't understand how someone can walk around with the knowledge that they aided and abetted a child molester and think of themselves as a man of God. The question of why God allows horrible things to happen I will leave for debate among people who have more time and energy than I do at this time.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Oct 7, 2007 22:09:19 GMT -5
Rational posted the mandatory reporting requirements for CA. First among these was "Any one whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children." I wonder if that includes parents? Could a parent be prosecuted for failing to report abuse against their child?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2007 14:29:49 GMT -5
Rational posted the mandatory reporting requirements for CA. First among these was "Any one whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children." I wonder if that includes parents? Could a parent be prosecuted for failing to report abuse against their child? I believe this group of mandated reporters are those who jobs puts them in the position of caring for children. For parents, the charges are not for not reporting but neglect or child endangerment. If, for example, a husband is abusing his child and his wife (child's mother) has knowledge of the abuse but does not takes steps to protect the child, is guilty of endangering the health and well being of the child. As a mandated reporter, you have to always make the determination of when a child is being abused. Many parents do not take kindly to being told they must stop hitting a child or you will be obligated to report them. The definition of spanking - needs work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2007 15:20:34 GMT -5
The crucial thing to be considered are the offences committed against children and young persons and having these things the main focus in any circumstances.
Those classes of persons who are designated mandated reporters (or their equivelent) generally have much of their discretion removed from them by making them legally responsible to report abuses or suspected abuses that they may encounter in the line of their work. In most cases there should be no "ifs" or "buts" because if they have any doubts about a particular case they are obliged to go ahead and report it.
We shouldn't get too hung up about "mandatory reporters" because that can cloud everyone's civic responsibility to report all matters of perceived sexual abuse involving children and young persons and any perceived "excessive" parental chatisement.
Although the average person in the street cannot be held accountable for not reporting these matters, they nevertheless have a civic and moral duty to do so.
Rash is right - parental chastisement needs some work. Most, if not all countries have steered away from defining this, however "excessiveness" is usually determined by the factors in individual cases.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2007 15:50:18 GMT -5
We shouldn't get too hung up about "mandatory reporters" because that can cloud everyone's civic responsibility to report all matters of perceived sexual abuse involving children and young persons and any perceived "excessive" parental chatisement. Although the average person in the street cannot be held accountable for not reporting these matters, they nevertheless have a civic and moral duty to do so. I think it is only fair to bring up the other side of the picture here. For example, I have hit my children in the head with metal objects. It was not a form of chastisement. It was usually something like a spoon. A quick ding to the head to gain their attention. Was it child abuse? If reported as hitting the children in the head with metal objects - yes it was reportable. In reality it was no more than a quite form of yelling to get their attention while they were absorbed in TV. When reported the state has to investigate. If a child, in anger, accuses a parent, it is investigated. All it takes is for one of the neighbors to also mention that there was yelling the night before and then things start downhill fast. And if the family is going through difficulties it just keeps keeps getting worse. In the end you have parents fight to keep their children just because of an unfortunate turn of events. It happens. www.false-allegations.com/whyallege.htmlAnd for a religious tie in: www.religioustolerance.org/cps_vict.htm
|
|
|
Post by rolly parks on Oct 8, 2007 16:23:59 GMT -5
page 2, Melbourne (aust) Herald Sun, Tuesday October 9, 2007.
"Sex abuse haunts half of all women."
"Almost half of Australian women aged between 18-41 were sexually abused as a child.
Research shows a staggering 45% of women were abused as children by family members, friends or strangers.
Abuse ranged from non contact behaviour - such as indecent exposure or being forced to watch pornography - through to rape.
A survey of 1300 women selected at random from electrol rolls by Griffith University psychology researches found 80% of victims knew their abusers.
.....................the horifing results were consistent with figures of child sex abuse in the US and Britain......................"
This stagers me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2007 16:49:22 GMT -5
Rash,
whilst I am keen for people to be educated about their civic responsibilities, for instances of parental chastisement I am keen that they use their common sense and discretion in judging what is "excessive" and what should be reported. They should also ask themselves such things as, do they believe the child is in danger of physical or mental harm or worse, All too often people have refrained from reporting matters which are nothing short of cruelty or excessively physical. I reiterate that in matters which are reported "excessiveness" should be determined from the circumstances of each individual case. We all know that parents can occasionally go over the top when they lose control. I think this is one of the main reason the powers that be shy away from trying to define "parental chastisement," and letting the circumstances of each case be determined on their own merits.
Of course matters of sexual abuse deserve no such considerations.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on Oct 8, 2007 18:08:05 GMT -5
<< I am quite convinced that sexual abuse by workers IS greater than the general run of the population --- Just as the Catholic church with its celibate priesthood, combined with doctrinal trust, together with oppurtunity for private contact with vulnerable youth -- has proven to have a higher risk rate than other groupings. >> I think this is not true. Please read this site: www.catholicleague.org/research/pedophiles_and_priests.htmHere is a quote from it, in case you are not inclined to read the whole thing: << Notwithstanding the difficulties that such data comparisons hold, the available information on clergy sexual misconduct shows that the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy. For example, the most cited survey of sexual problems among the Protestant clergy shows that 10 percent have been involved in sexual misconduct and "about two or three percent" are "pedophiles." With regard to the "pedophile" problem, the figure for the Catholic clergy, drawn from the most authoritative studies, ranges between .2 percent to 1.7 percent. Yet we hear precious little about these comparative statistics. >> Other sites with comments on Jenkins' book also have interesting viewpoints. I have not been able so far to track down data about whether clergy or family members have higher rates of offense. Also have not discovered whether religious families or non-religious have higher rates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2007 2:38:42 GMT -5
I have never suggested that there is any difference in the genetic makeup of male workers than the general population -- and it is just this basic ordinary human sexual makeup that causes them enormous problems when they are injected into the highly unusual and unnatural environment of "the work". Strict celibacy at the same time as unlimited cult granted trust - in the intimate environment of the home lives of private individuals. With this in mind, If you disregard the 2x2 idea that these people are more righteous than all others, how could you expect it would go??
The work in the 3 western Canadian fields that I have had fairly close contact with at one time, doesn't consist of more that 40-50 brother workers. I am aware of at least 9 workers over the years in these fields that have had 'serious difficulties with their sexuality' in this regard --- and I am sure that I am only aware of portion of the problem (because it there is such a high secrecy involved). I find it amazing the the problem is regarded as insignificant.
Edgar
Of course the most honorable 'solution' is what in reality has proven to be the case -- Probably at least 5 out of 10 people that start out in the work choose instead to get married later in life. Many have found that 'the work' is a mine field in far to many ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2007 7:39:02 GMT -5
Edgar, I think your theory has some validity, but will vary in validity widely between individuals. Sex drives vary widely amongst people so that celebacy and the related sexual tension will be a much bigger problem for some than for others. There will be some people to whom celebacy is no big deal, in fact there will be some who think it is a wonderful and easy way of life. I don't doubt that sexual tension contributes to some leaving the work, but in my opinion it is only a major factor in a few of them, ie those with the higher sex drives. The fact that there is an attrition rate of 50% in less than 10 years in most places probably mirrors civilian life, as most people today change careers at least once in a lifetime, and often within 10 years of starting the first one. I have never suggested that there is any difference in the genetic makeup of male workers than the general population -- and it is just this basic ordinary human sexual makeup that causes them enormous problems when they are injected into the highly unusual and unnatural environment of "the work". Strict celibacy at the same time as unlimited cult granted trust - in the intimate environment of the home lives of private individuals. With this in mind, If you disregard the 2x2 idea that these people are more righteous than all others, how could you expect it would go?? The work in the 3 western Canadian fields that I have had fairly close contact with at one time, doesn't consist of more that 40-50 brother workers. I am aware of at least 9 workers over the years in these fields that have had 'serious difficulties with their sexuality' in this regard --- and I am sure that I am only aware of portion of the problem (because it there is such a high secrecy involved). I find it amazing the the problem is regarded as insignificant. Edgar Of course the most honorable 'solution' is what in reality has proven to be the case -- Probably at least 5 out of 10 people that start out in the work choose instead to get married later in life. Many have found that 'the work' is a mine field in far to many ways.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on Oct 9, 2007 18:40:35 GMT -5
Nine out of 40 - 50 -- let's call that 20%, and serious problems with sexuality would not be all cases of child molestation. So the % of each "problem" would be considerably less. Is falling in love with a woman (or sister worker) and eventually marrying her a "problem"? (Asking because if celibacy is expected, it could be considered so.)
If workers are called by God to the work - yes, I know you don't believe that - then it can be expected that God will provide for their need. (not tempted above what they are able) Not all who go in the work have been called by God. There are a few examples here of some who apparently were not, right? But some are. And as clearday has stated well, some do not find it a burden to be celibate and others find strength to overcome their human desires, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Oct 10, 2007 2:49:09 GMT -5
Clearday wrote: There should be little, if any, investigation by the ministry. The reasons are simple. First, the ministry has many vested interests including the interest in protecting their own colleagues and the reputation of their ministry group and church overall. Because of these vested interests, they are the worst group to get involved in it. Secondly, the authorities have investigative skills that no one in the church has. This is particularly important with children as it takes special training and skills to properly interview an alleged child victim to determine the truth and get the "proof". The lack of both investigative skills and the problem of vested interests make the overseers completely inadequate for involvement. I agree 100%. In my own case, my dad deeply regretted the fact the he did not report [deleted] abuse to the police. He explained to me that when the matter was reported to the workers, he assumed that they would hold their internal enquiry to establish the facts about the allegations, and when confirmed, they would report [deleted] to the police. He was astounded when they immediately moved him to Dublin in the Irish Republic, in order to get him out of the British jurisdiction. Another victim's dad was a police detective - his instinct was to report [deleted] immediately when his son made the allegations. My dad preferred to 'lay hands suddenly on no man', and persuaded him to wait until after the internal enquiry. I guess that the workers moved [deleted] to the Irish Republic as they suspected the police detective was about to take action. To his credit, the overseer at the time, Willie Wilkin, acknowledged on his death bed that they had made a dreadful mistake. However, to this day, his successors have taken no action to redress the situation. Regards Robert members.lycos.co.uk/twobytwo/abuse.htm
|
|