|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2010 9:26:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by to Scott on Nov 23, 2010 3:15:04 GMT -5
I note your reply on another thread re the Family Services and a particular worker.
My information is that you are way off the mark and should be quite careful in what you post on that particular site.
My further information is that you may be in the process of being "set up" and are being fed information that maybe untrue.
Please take this information in the spirit that it is intended.
There are people out there that would like to feed you untrue information with the intent to embarrass you and dilute your credibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Nov 23, 2010 9:08:59 GMT -5
I note your reply on another thread re the Family Services and a particular worker. My information is that you are way off the mark and should be quite careful in what you post on that particular site. My further information is that you may be in the process of being "set up" and are being fed information that maybe untrue. Please take this information in the spirit that it is intended. There are people out there that would like to feed you untrue information with the intent to embarrass you and dilute your credibility. Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts. The one that informed me about this is an individual that has a great concern about having known abusers continuing to stay in homes and being unsupervised around children. I have corresponded with them on several occasions, and understand their position on this matter and why they feel as they do. Others have also contacted me with concerns about this individual, and some of these have likewise spoken with the authorities. The information was given to the Family Services hotline, and as noted in the other thread the recommendation from Family Services was to report this individual to the local authorities at any convention he might be at. Again, if anyone has information that they feel should be reported, here is the name of the investigator that they should contact: Leigh LAMBERT Det.Sen.Constable 29449 Warragul CIU PH: 56 227153 FAX: 56 227155 leigh.lambert@police.vic.gov.au Thanks again for your concern! Scott  |
|
|
|
Post by victorian too on Nov 23, 2010 12:44:32 GMT -5
In response to "to Scott" aka "victorian" the Claytons worker who posts gratuitous advice to Scott.
Please don't post your nonsense here.
Please don't try and defend the indefensible.
Please abandon your silly little "playing both ends against the middle" games.
please aCCept that Scott's sources are more reliably informed than yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dingo on Nov 23, 2010 14:25:01 GMT -5
Bert told him to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by whoever on Nov 24, 2010 2:17:02 GMT -5
Silence is the fittest reply to folly.
|
|
|
|
Post by whoever on Dec 8, 2010 2:17:26 GMT -5
From the posts down below one could say;
"Oh what evil webs we weave
when first we practice to deceive"
|
|
|
|
Post by To Scott on Dec 8, 2010 15:58:45 GMT -5
Finally Scott, you got my drift.
The "He said, She said, I said etc" that has been going on must stop.
I commend your last post.
|
|
|
|
Post by I say again on Dec 13, 2010 14:11:47 GMT -5
Reading the posts today about a Victorian worker, it is about time that people understood that a small, very small, group of people are making unsubstantiated allegations against this man.
Sharon has plenty to say but there are NOT 2 workers who think he is guilty. The ONLY complaint has come from this small group of people who have NO evidence of impropriety.
The character assassination of this individual is absolutely immoral and the perpetrators should consider their actions very, very carfully in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2010 15:29:37 GMT -5
Reading the posts today about a Victorian worker, it is about time that people understood that a small, very small, group of people are making unsubstantiated allegations against this man. Sharon has plenty to say but there are NOT 2 workers who think he is guilty. The ONLY complaint has come from this small group of people who have NO evidence of impropriety. The character assassination of this individual is absolutely immoral and the perpetrators should consider their actions very, very carfully in the future. The above statement may well be true, but as I understand it the people who are making the allegations are identifiable (although I don't know who they are). By contrast, no matter how integrous the above statement may be, it lacks credibility by virtue of its annonimity. My hope and prayer is that the overseer has made appropriate enquiries into the matter, taking into account the sensitivities of all concerned, before allowing this man to attend and preach at conventions. If he has done so, without fear, favour or malice and with complete fairness, impartiality and concern to everyone involved, then he gets my support even if it transpires he has made the wrong decision ! |
|
moline
Junior Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by moline on Jan 29, 2011 1:34:24 GMT -5
does anyone know if the victorian australia CSA has been to court if it has been or when it is
|
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Jan 29, 2011 1:49:12 GMT -5
I understand there was a hearing on 25 Jan, the defendant did not appear and the magistrate has set another date
|
|
|
|
Post by pinky on Jan 29, 2011 3:47:08 GMT -5
I understand there was a hearing on 25 Jan, the defendant did not appear and the magistrate has set another date Interesting. One would guess a magistrate would have little tolerance for a no-show without good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by emmarr75 on Jan 29, 2011 4:39:24 GMT -5
Pinky
He may not have been required to be present. It will depend on the type of hearing I think (not a legal expert).
|
|
|
|
Post by pinky on Jan 29, 2011 5:22:37 GMT -5
Pinky He may not have been required to be present. It will depend on the type of hearing I think (not a legal expert). I read pa1ag1's comment to mean another hearing date was set, due to the non-attendance of the defendant. Maybe he meant it in another way? |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jan 29, 2011 12:19:43 GMT -5
Pinky He may not have been required to be present. It will depend on the type of hearing I think (not a legal expert). I read pa1ag1's comment to mean another hearing date was set, due to the non-attendance of the defendant. Maybe he meant it in another way? The worker was not required to appear in court that day. It was a procedural hearing that was very short, and the purpose was for setting the court date for his plea hearing. That hearing is scheduled for Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court on March 22. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jan 29, 2011 14:40:31 GMT -5
Recon how much this court case is costing the friends? And they say it is too expensive to have married workers with children.
|
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Jan 29, 2011 17:32:30 GMT -5
At a guess, because the defendant is not employed, he would be entitled to legal aid.
Not saying this is the case, but it is an option for people who do not have the financial means to engage a lawyer of their own.
- also, I was not aware of whether the defendant was required to attend in this instance so simply said the defendant did not attend. My apologies if this sounded like he was dodging the hearing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rothschild on Jan 29, 2011 20:35:35 GMT -5
the defendant is entitled to legal aid. But that's not good enough where significant reputations are at stake.
Story is, wealthy friends are bankrolling a strong legal defence.
Contrast that with the level of support that victims have received. Nothing, would be a fair guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Jan 29, 2011 21:37:25 GMT -5
the defendant is entitled to legal aid. But that's not good enough where significant reputations are at stake. Story is, wealthy friends are bankrolling a strong legal defence. Contrast that with the level of support that victims have received. Nothing, would be a fair guess. As this is a criminal case, not civil, the Department of Public Prosecution (DPP) is prosecuting. Their resources are considerable and are a match for any legeal defence engaged to argue for the defendant. The "wealthy friends" (if this is the case) may well end up backing a losing horse. And yes, if it is the case that "wealthy friends" are paying for the defence, it is reprehensible that they are not assisting the victims. Such a charitable attitude... I dearly hope that it is not the case - supporting such evil is utterly abhorrent. |
|
|
|
Post by Rothschild on Jan 29, 2011 21:45:00 GMT -5
does DPP get involved in all criminal cases in magistrate's courts? My memory of limited legal studies is not. It would probably be merely a police prosecutor in this case, unless other victims came forward to police.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockafella on Jan 29, 2011 22:47:47 GMT -5
Yes, police prosecutor not DPP. "Wealthy friends" supporting the criminal?  ? I very much doubt that. Most of my friends want him to get his just desserts. Anyone that is supporting him is definitely on the wrong horse. |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jan 30, 2011 0:16:41 GMT -5
Wealthy friends did support IH because they felt sorry for him. they did not feel sorry for Jean Austin whose life was ruined by IH. Even the overseers said that IH had "suffered enough". Rockafella, I appreciate that you are against the perpetrator. I hope you realize the depth of cover up in the work and the complete lack of compassion and mercy for the victim. When the perpetrator gets more help than the victim, something is deeply wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rothschild on Jan 30, 2011 6:41:33 GMT -5
My cousin Rockafella, if not "wealthy" friends then friends with enough cash to throw at a legal defence of a confessed child molester.
Incredible but true. I got it from an overseas worker, so it seems true.
ts, some victims of EB are suffering deeply. Let's find out how much support they've got from workers or friends? Is anyone helping with their counselling costs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Jan 30, 2011 9:58:25 GMT -5
Wealthy friends did support IH because they felt sorry for him. they did not feel sorry for Jean Austin whose life was ruined by IH. Even the overseers said that IH had "suffered enough". Rockafella, I appreciate that you are against the perpetrator. I hope you realize the depth of cover up in the work and the complete lack of compassion and mercy for the victim. When the perpetrator gets more help than the victim, something is deeply wrong. Do you have proof of these statements ts? Do you know Jean Austin? IH never went to court so what did the so called wealthy friends support. You know how you get welthy? You work. |
|
|
|
Post by Rothschild on Jan 30, 2011 16:03:58 GMT -5
we Rothschilds got wealthy by ripping people off. Ha! ;D
Those little people deserved to be ripped off, who cares for them? and we love the privilege and position our wealth brings us. That's how it all works, guys.
(a person who toils honestly will hopefully never be dirt poor, but also will never be filthy rich)
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 30, 2011 16:08:48 GMT -5
Here are 3 statements that help destroy credibility of the posters:
..if it is the case that "wealthy friends" are paying for the defence, it is reprehensible that they are not assisting the victims.
I hope you realize the depth of cover up in the work and the complete lack of compassion and mercy for the victim.
I got it from an overseas worker, so it seems true.
First statement: "they are not assisting the victims". Paying for defense and assisting victims is not mutually exclusive.
Second: "complete lack of compassion" - a very broad assumption
Third: "I heard it..." Need I say more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockafella on Jan 30, 2011 18:11:50 GMT -5
Hope you didn't include me Emy!
Fact No. 1.
EB needs a solicitor. Cost, probable a couple of grand. All criminals have to have representation. The cost is usually provided for by family if they do not have funds. (or through legal aid).
Fact No. 2.
The workers ARE supporting the victim. They are NOT supporting EB in this matter.
Fact No. 3.
The victim/s are getting all the assistance they ask for from the friends.
|
|
?
