Attention Tasmanian/Victorian friends!

[JO]

Aug 18, 2010 22:10:17 GMT -5 emy said:

Aug 18, 2010 15:21:51 GMT -5 JO said:

...

I don't even have a problem with workers staying in homes where there are children as long as:

1. Workers are not upheld as some kind of infallible Christ substitute.

2. A parent is present whenever workers are with a child.

I totally agree with #1.

The second one is hardly practical. It would mean that if I have workers staying in my basement bedrooms, I can't let my kids go down to the playroom in the basement, unless I go, too. If my kids are playing outside away from the house when a worker decides to take a walk, I have to go out to be sure s/he doesn't make contact with a child alone.

I think it might be better to take one of the courses and learn how to instruct my child in a way that keeps him/her safe but allows normal affection - if there is such a course.

And constant supervision isn't an option for the other possible offenders, such as teachers, coaches, "funny uncles," parents of their friends, or that 60% of parents themselves who molest.

That's like saying we should have no laws in society because the police can't supervise every citizen all of the time. Society would be a whole lot worse if there were no laws in place.

If workers accepted that this is the rules for staying in homes where there are children, and parents accepted the rules, and children were taught how to keep themselves safe, then it would go a long way towards eliminating this problem.

Workers would know that if they want to be affectionate with the children they do it when a parent is present. They don't invite a child into their bedroom, they don't enter a child's bedroom when a parent is not there, and they don't cuddle the kids in the playroom basement.

I follow those rules myself, and you're suggesting that workers should be exempt because they can't be enforced?

[Deleted]

If CSA issues concerning workers are addressed without serious changes made to the domestic operations of the work, then in time ESA will replace CSA. Our elderly spinsters and widows living on their own, etc, will replace children as the most vulnerable group. If the temptations and opportunities are not addressed we will have Elders Sexual Abuse on our hands.

The unique domestic arrangements of the workers needs to be strictly controlled to protect the many from the few. Yes it's an indictment of the society we live in, where naivity and innocence of reality become foolishness through lack of guard.

[Jesse_Lackman]

Aug 18, 2010 22:16:22 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

or that 60% of parents themselves who molest.

Uh.... without looking at Jesse's figures he posted, I think it was 60% of the abuse cases were by relatives.

The way you posted it would be that 6 of 10 parents abuse their kids.....

Scott

Here is the percentage of the total for parents, relatives, unmarried partners of parent, foster parents, and legal guardians as perpetrators of CSA;

2008 65.7% click for -> Source

That number comes from what's bolded below;

Sexual abuse by perpetrator for 2008;

 

Parent                            16,322
Child Daycare Provider             1,001
Foster Parent                        206
Friends or Neighbors               2,335
Legal Guardian                        69
Other                             13,056
Other Professionals                  349
Other Relative                    17,688
Residential Facility Staff           170
Unmarried Partner of Parent        5,276
Unknown or Missing                   378
-----------------------------------------
total                             60,253

[Jesse_Lackman]

I agree with others that the child itself is the first line of defense, but children, well teenagers, don't always like to talk about this kind of thing. So the next lines of defense would be those closest to children, parents, relatives, adults responsible for children. Whenever you want to fix a problem you have to have a clear impartial view of what the problem actually is. The data above outlines it, the convictions and breaking the silence stories on WINGS are close. And remember what Lin said, people would probably be less likely to turn in parents and relatives 30-40 years after abuse than friends and neighbors simply because of family ties.

The workers are taking this training, what about the rest of us?

Not hearing the sound of breaking china doesn't mean the bull isn't in the china shop - we don't have to break china to get things done.

[Deleted]

Firstly Jesse, it's all very well the workers taking this training (which is not only commendable but very necessary) but are they looking at the worker domestic environment in order to eliminate as far as possible, Worker CSA?

For the unique form of ministry they operate, THIS is the first port of call. Then build upwards and outwards of that. No point in hacking off the weeds if you leave the roots in the ground, which in my opinion, is the domestic arrangements which provide unique opportunities for CSA to flourish.

Awareness alone will not be sufficient. In their unique way of life that awareness needs to be founded upon change. The awareness of CSA amongst them not only justifies the change, it makes change essential.

Never mind the flower, get the root!

[sharonw]

Aug 19, 2010 2:40:14 GMT -5 @ram said:

If CSA issues concerning workers are addressed without serious changes made to the domestic operations of the work, then in time ESA will replace CSA. Our elderly spinsters and widows living on their own, etc, will replace children as the most vulnerable group. If the temptations and opportunities are not addressed we will have Elders Sexual Abuse on our hands.

The unique domestic arrangements of the workers needs to be strictly controlled to protect the many from the few. Yes it's an indictment of the society we live in, where naivity and innocence of reality become foolishness through lack of guard.

I think it's been noted that widows, divorcees and wifes left at home when husband goes to work are sitting ducks IF and WHEN someone cannot controll their sexual urges.

I agree the domesticity of the workership needs changing quickly. Jesus noted that not ALL could be eunuchs, and from the way He put it...it was a minority that could. Paul said it wasn't a law, but he felt it not expedient to carry around a wife...so even Paul was NOT saying preachers could not be married at all...it was his own PERSONAL experience was all.

[ScholarGal]

Aug 19, 2010 6:13:08 GMT -5 Jesse_Lackman said:

Here is the percentage of the total for parents, relatives, unmarried partners of parent, foster parents, and legal guardians as perpetrators of CSA;

2008 65.7% click for -> Source

That number comes from what's bolded below;

Sexual abuse by perpetrator for 2008;

 

Parent                            16,322
Child Daycare Provider             1,001
Foster Parent                        206
Friends or Neighbors               2,335
Legal Guardian                        69
Other                             13,056
Other Professionals                  349
Other Relative                    17,688
Residential Facility Staff           170
Unmarried Partner of Parent        5,276
Unknown or Missing                   378
-----------------------------------------
total                             60,253

From reading these statistics, almost 80% are people in obvious positions of trust relative to the child.

When I was growing up, workers were treated like relatives in our home (some of them were relatives). The workers were given more trust than unrelated neighbors.

When the perpetrator is a parent, parent's significant other, caretaker, or guardian, then the situation can't be stopped until the child reports it to another person they trust. Alternatively, the abuse might be witnessed and then stopped by another person the child trusts.

Education is key.

• Educate the children on good touch and bad touch; explain that if someone gives them "bad touch" they need to tell a trusted adult.
• Educate the parents, caretakers, teachers, and guardians.
• Educate the adults who interact with children, including workers, regardless of their domestic arrangements.

Workers, teachers, clergy, and day care workers hold positions of trust. It's important that they know that abuse of that trust is unacceptable. It's also critical that they know how to respond if a child reports or discloses abuse by another trusted adult.

[Deleted]

Education is certainly the key. In the unique domestic environment enjoyed by the workers,
they should be educated:

1) Never stay in a house where there are unrelated children, young persons or vullnerable adults present, unless there are strict control measures in place.

2) Two workers at all times when associating with children, Y.P., or vulnerable adults. If it's good enough for preaching the gospel, it's good enough for playing with children! We should bear in mInd at all times, although it takes two to preach, it only takes one to "PREY!"

3) Wherever possible, workers should have separate rooms. When this is not possible then a policy of separate beds should be followed. Where this is not possible, the younger one can sleep on the floor.

4) Workers should not be left alone with children, especially in the home (even in a separate room), and most particularly when there is only one worker present.

5) Workers should realise that although most of them lead exemplary lives, such controls are necessary to protect the most vulnerable of the friends from the few weaklings. One CSA worker can have multiple victims. One CSA worker is way one too many. Root them out. the above will go a long way to preventing them.

6) Workers should examine their individual lifestyle and the temptations they face. They should be able to get out (with financial assistance) BEFORE anything happens!

Anyone who is genuinely serious about remedies for CSA in the worker environment will found their views and practicies on policies similar to the above. Much can be added to or built upon these quick guidelines. The workers MUST take second place to the protection of children. The worker domestic environment must be designed around sure measures to protect children, not the protection of children being wound around the worker domestic environment.

Always remember. Children first. Workers second.

[Deleted]

Sharon, you keep hitting the nail on the head. With a lot of Paul's advice we should bear in mind he did not foresee 2000+ years post Christ. He thought the Lord was coming again in his lifetime or thereabouts. A lot of his advice should be considered with this in mind.

[Deleted]

This is why thou art exalted my dear Bert.

What is clear Bert, is that a 2000 year wait was not forseen. Yes things had to happen first, but as Paul said already the anticChrist was amongst them. Flat wrong, I don't think so. They believed the return was not long off.

[Deleted]

Off Topic again.
I will do a new thread...

[Happy Feet]

Stepfathers were 10 times more likely than biological fathers to Sexually abuse their partners children at one time. I wonder if the statistics above relate to stepfathers. Although it does say unmarried partner of a parent in a separate category. I find the high figure of parents - (if it means biological parent) high compared to figures in the past.

[Deleted]

Aug 19, 2010 23:24:40 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

Stepfathers were 10 times more likely than biological fathers to Sexually abuse their partners children at one time. I wonder if the statistics above relate to stepfathers. Although it does say unmarried partner of a parent in a separate category. I find the high figure of parents - (if it means biological parent) high compared to figures in the past.

I think that the married stepparents are in the "parent" numbers. I haven't been able to confirm that but by looking at the other categories, it would appear that legal stepparents are not in any of the other categories. There is a category for unmarried partners of the biological parent so it stands to reason that the married but non-biological parents are included in the parent numbers. So the figures may be misleading in that sense as I too have understood that risk of CSA from a stepparent is much higher than from a biological parent, particularly that of stepfathers with post pubescent girls.

That said, some of the other numbers are remarkably high, considering that access to children is much more limited than with parents/stepparents. The "other" category is almost as high as parents/stepparents while "other relatives" is the highest. Are the "uncle" workers included in these categories?

What is equally worrying though is the culture of glorifying workers and the culture of secrecy amongst F&Ws. These two attitudes leave children not only vulnerable to assault by workers, but less likely to report it, or if reported to parents, less likely to be believed. The cards are stacked against the children of the friends when there is an abusive worker on the loose and living in their homes.

[Deleted]

Clearday, this is why it is essential that the domestic circumstances of the workers MUST be fashioned around the protection of children and other vulnerable people and NOT the protection of children fashioned around the domestic arrangements of the workers. First and foremost the workers MUST get that message and regulate themselves accordingly. That I'm sure would be the first recommendation of any outside agency whose advice would be sought on the matter.

[sharonw]

Aug 20, 2010 6:05:07 GMT -5 @ram said:

Clearday, this is why it is essential that the domestic circumstances of the workers MUST be fashioned around the protection of children and other vulnerable people and NOT the protection of children fashioned around the domestic arrangements of the workers. First and foremost the workers MUST get that message and regulate themselves accordingly. That I'm sure would be the first recommendation of any outside agency whose advice would be sought on the matter.

We keep looking at the male workers in this issue...but we have to remember that females are not above CSA either....so to protect all the children and ALL the workers, I think it is time the workers get back to having their own baches and IF and WHEN they have to spend nights away from their baches that it being very carefully done...probably preferably being quartered in a separate domicile such as a camper, garage apartment OR renting a motel room.

I think the workers would gladly embrace this as a protection to their names even.

[Deleted]

Shaz, I'm not just looking at this from a CSA standpoint, but from a standpoint of addressing all forms of inappropriate behavious from workers towards children, young persons and other vulnerable people, including some workers themselves.

As Christians (is that the right word), they not only owe it to the fellowship but to each other as well.

[sharonw]

Aug 20, 2010 8:12:48 GMT -5 @ram said:

Shaz, I'm not just looking at this from a CSA standpoint, but from a standpoint of addressing all forms of inappropriate behavious from workers towards children, young persons and other vulnerable people, including some workers themselves.

As Christians (is that the right word), they not only owe it to the fellowship but to each other as well.

True!

[ronhall]

If you don't want them staying at your house, just send them to us. We'll gladly take them off your hands. If a whole bunch of 'em come at once -- not a problem. There's a bunch of the friends around here that feel the same. All we have to do is make a few phone calls and it will all be taken care of.

We'll even take a renegade worker that's on the outs with the overseer for whatever reason if such a worker were to exist. Just send them over!

[Deleted]

ronhall,
I've got two spare rooms....put me on the call list please!

[Deleted]

What has become of E.?

[Rob Sargison]

Aug 22, 2010 21:11:31 GMT -5 bert said:

What has become of E.?

Check Ronhall or H'berry's spare rooms.

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2010 21:14:45 GMT -5 Rob Sargison said:

Aug 22, 2010 21:11:31 GMT -5 bert said:

What has become of E.?

Check Ronhall or H'berry's spare rooms.

I'll never tell!

[Deleted]

Better check under the carpets. More chance of success.

[rational]

Aug 17, 2010 3:22:35 GMT -5 Happy Feet said:

Child sexual abuse is rape, whether full intercourse takes place of not. The younger a person is when abuse occurs the more destructive the effects.

You might want to check your definitions prior to making your pronouncements.
You could also benefit from a little exploration of the lasting effects on the victim in relationship to the age of the abuse.

[rational]

Aug 19, 2010 6:18:26 GMT -5 Jesse_Lackman said:

I agree with others that the child itself is the first line of defense, but children, well teenagers, don't always like to talk about this kind of thing.

That is why the education needs to first start with the parents so their children will feel comfortable talking about this sort of thing.
Children talk about going out to the swings because their parents can discuss it without the uncomfortable remarks and looks.
Teach the parents that sex is a normal and natural part of life and have them start talking to their children at the earliest possible age.

Be honest - how many parents referred to a penis as a penis and the vulva as the vulva?

Or was it just referred to as "down there", like it was something magical?

It is much easier to talk/teach about inappropriate behavior is you can be specific about exactly what is inappropriate.

[ronhall]

Aug 23, 2010 11:29:26 GMT -5 rational said:

Aug 19, 2010 6:18:26 GMT -5 Jesse_Lackman said:

I agree with others that the child itself is the first line of defense, but children, well teenagers, don't always like to talk about this kind of thing.

That is why the education needs to first start with the parents so their children will feel comfortable talking about this sort of thing.
Children talk about going out to the swings because their parents can discuss it without the uncomfortable remarks and looks.
Teach the parents that sex is a normal and natural part of life and have them start talking to their children at the earliest possible age.

Be honest - how many parents referred to a penis as a penis and the vulva as the vulva?

Or was it just referred to as "down there", like it was something magical?

It is much easier to talk/teach about inappropriate behavior is you can be specific about exactly what is inappropriate.

When my brother and I were kids, our parents didn't have to worry about all that. We just saw the workers as cops and stayed out of sight, especially those that seemed too friendly, too stern or had facial hair. Even the ones that had gum or candy, it usually came out of a pocket and the wrapper was stuck so tight that it wasn't worth getting it.

There was one old man in the meeting that alway passed out treats. He had three levels of quality that corresponded to the three levels of goodness (or badness) that we exhibited during the meeting -- Beeman's gum, fruit flavored sucker or if we were really good a fruit flavored sucker with a large center of chocolate. Everyone got a treat, but we knew that he knew whether we were naughty or nice! :>) We also trusted him.

He was an Englishman who had a wife that didn't profess and they didn't have any kids. She always wore a fancy hat with feathers sticking out and they drove a bright yellow Hillman Minx convertible when the weather was sunny and a dull dark green Hillman Husky station wagon on regular weather days.

[sharonw]

Aug 23, 2010 12:40:51 GMT -5 ronhall said:

Aug 23, 2010 11:29:26 GMT -5 rational said:

That is why the education needs to first start with the parents so their children will feel comfortable talking about this sort of thing.
Children talk about going out to the swings because their parents can discuss it without the uncomfortable remarks and looks.
Teach the parents that sex is a normal and natural part of life and have them start talking to their children at the earliest possible age.

Be honest - how many parents referred to a penis as a penis and the vulva as the vulva?

Or was it just referred to as "down there", like it was something magical?

It is much easier to talk/teach about inappropriate behavior is you can be specific about exactly what is inappropriate.

When my brother and I were kids, our parents didn't have to worry about all that. We just saw the workers as cops and stayed out of sight, especially those that seemed too friendly, too stern or had facial hair. Even the ones that had gum or candy, it usually came out of a pocket and the wrapper was stuck so tight that it wasn't worth getting it.

There was one old man in the meeting that alway passed out treats. He had three levels of quality that corresponded to the three levels of goodness (or badness) that we exhibited during the meeting -- Beeman's gum, fruit flavored sucker or if we were really good a fruit flavored sucker with a large center of chocolate. Everyone got a treat, but we knew that he knew whether we were naughty or nice! :>) We also trusted him.

He was an Englishman who had a wife that didn't profess and they didn't have any kids. She always wore a fancy hat with feathers sticking out and they drove a bright yellow Hillman Minx convertible when the weather was sunny and a dull dark green Hillman Husky station wagon on regular weather days.

Pretty much the way we were taught about the workers particularly because they ruled the roost! Scared to death of them and it didn't help for the state overseer to pick me up and lay me across his knees and process to spank his hand on top of my arse! Never trusted him after that for I'd done nothing to be treated so coarsely!

[Scott Ross]

These are copied from the BTS board to here for informational purposes:

wingsbts.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=login

Aug 22, 2010 18:00:19 GMT -5 @admin2 said:

We have been reminded that the Vic/Tas workers in question have crossed state borders at times, with one having been in homes in NSW on many occasions.

Also several of the offences occurred in Qld. This is not hearsay but the subject of a formal report to authorities in that state.

So at least four states are involved in just this situation involving two workers from the Vic/Tas staff.

Aug 23, 2010 5:53:15 GMT -5 @admin2 said:

If victims in Qld and NSW wish to join with Vic/Tas victims in action against the worker/perpetrators of child sexual abuse, please in strict confidence contact one of us here at WINGS. We will put you in contact with the Vic/Tas victims.

Professionals amongst the civil authorities who deal with such criminal actions have stated that this is an important first step in finding healing.

Guilt includes those who are complicit in covering up these crimes. Nobody is above the law.

Here is the link to WINGS for reporting. Anyone can report information to WINGS, and someone will contact you with information regarding the above.

wingsfortruth.info/database.htm

You can also contact me at my regular email address listed below, or by PM.

Scott