Vic/Tas requests help from senior workers

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2010 22:28:43 GMT -5 rational said:

Oct 22, 2010 11:31:00 GMT -5 @ram said:

Rational. In the circumstance I gave, there is no suggestion of abuse of any kind.

Really? In the circumstance when I inquired about the bruise he replied that it was from falling down the stairs and then tried to pull his shorts to cover it. When I asked if he was embarrassed he said it was something that he couldn't talk about. It might have been but since he stated it was from falling down stairs (improbable) and then was embarrassed to talk about the cause of the bruise it seemed suspicious. Possibly, but it was observed that he had been interacting as usual up until that day and the other members had been reaching out to include him without success. That coupled with the fact that this normally gregarious boy now physically, as well as emotionally, withdrew from groups of people people also generated concern.

Really? Do you think it is genetic? Would that be a recessive gene that carries the 'dealing with children' trait? That is like saying men make better doctors.
Well, in this case it turns out that there was cause for concern. When the social worker came to talk with the boy he almost immediately began to explain that he had been molested while on a church sponsored camping trip the previous month. He was upset because he had just learned that the abuser was going to become the leader of his activity group and had applied force when the boy said he had to tell someone because it was so upsetting.
He did bruise easily due to a vitamin K deficiency. And the unexpected bruise showing up made the abuser very angry and this also caused a lot of the distress that was noted in the boy's behavior.
Oddly enough, these were among the excuses that the abuser had said the boy should use when questioned about the mark. The abuser did not know that due to the vitamin K deficiency a fall down stairs would have resulted in a multitude of bruises. These are the subtle things that one has to consider when evaluating a child's story regarding bruises.
Right. That was what the church advisor had said. It is all part of life and we should just wait and see how it played out. It was only after the investigation began that it was learned that the advisor has been approached by the abuser and told that the boy was spreading lies about the incident. The advisor said he that would keep that in mind and not believe everything he heard.
I am so glad I took the risk and decided to report directly to the authorities or I might have had my judgment swayed by the talk and warnings about the boy spreading lies from others.
Why? In this case they did not prevent he abuse nor protect the boy from the abuser after the fact.

Their trained staff are valuable radar operators and can scramble the appropriate services whenever a real threat is identified.

Waiting until a 'real threat' is identified is a disservice to the children. Not reporting a suspicion is a disservice.

I have a hunch that your experience of working directly with children at risk for any extended period of time is limited.

rational, I think you get the point that in most cases where there is concern for a child there is no cause for alarm about abuses of any kind. The great majority of circumstances have very innocent explanations and do not require alarmist approaches to the authorities.

This is all about appointing proper methods of prevention and protective measures in a church environment and the good common sense in appointing church child protection measures and officers.

I think your experience in the real world is somewhat limited.

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2010 22:38:45 GMT -5 rational said:

Oct 22, 2010 17:59:50 GMT -5 @ram said:

Okay emy, as a supporter of "no organisation," how do YOU propose to introduce proper child protection measures without some form of organisation?

I think it was for no additional organizational parts.
People in the existing organization can be trained. Train and educational materials are readily available.

Oh, yet I have stated several times in various posts that I believe the practices followed in other churches could be adapted for the simple way in which the F&W's sect operates. Training and education are very essential along with rigorous control standards. Eductation and training without controls is like a body without a skeletal structure.

Should it be assumed that you are still laboring under the idea that eliminating overnights will reduce he cases of child abuse even though there has been very little, if any, evidence supporting your premise?

Taking reasonable steps to eliminate opportunities will have a marked effect. It is sheer common sense. The agencies involved in these matters regard overnight stays, especially protracted ones as high risk practices and raise red flags of alarm at the idea. It is you who are labouring under false pretences. Prevention is better than cure.

Perhaps she was over reacting to your groundless claim.

Or perhaps the claim has substance and a raw nerve was touched. I am far from being the only one to have these perceptions about her position.

How do YOU think your apparent indifferent remarks are being received not just by myself, but by the victims of CSA and their parents, etc.

Hopefully as a difference of opinion.

It would be good if this was true. However, I have evidence that at least in some cases of currently professing people my views are shared.

[Claire]

mixed thoughts.

surely if this topic is like anything else, there is no single "100% complete and correct" solution.

personally, i still favour education in this area being a mandatory subject in school from first grade. teaching children where their boundaries are, where it's ok to tell people to stop. i don't want this to be left to families to decide whether or not they want to tell little Freddy about "nasty, dirty things that only happen in bad families" - all children need to be told what is normal in C21st society, and they need to know from an early age.
I have a friend who is a senior teacher in a middle school which has such classes on the curriculum. She told me once it's shocking and very saddening to realise what some children believe is normal - simply because that's what they've learned at home.

and, really, most of childhood seems to be learning that you have to listen to adults ... with forced invasions into our personal space
"shake hands with Uncle John" ... "give Aunty Jane a kiss" ... "Freddy, I *told* you to shake hands ..." ... "go on, Aunty is waiting ... "
No.
Don't kiss or otherwise touch kids just because they're too small to say no to an adult. I don't care if you're uncle john or aunty jane in reality, or through some other link, you don't kiss kids unless they choose to kiss you. If they don't want to even shake hands with you, that's ok, too.
Hey, they're allowed to say 'no' to adults.

I also believe that education is necessary to help children cope with the moment and make their own decisions about what to do next.
When I was 10 and being fondled, I wouldn't have gone to the police in a million years. I didn't want it known. Of all the reasons why, maybe hardest of all to overcome, I knew that the information would have broken up the long friendship between my father and this man.
As it turned out, I had the strength to threaten, and the threat worked.
That was enough for me at the time.
Now of course I wonder whether he spent many years doing this to other girls - and wonder if the infromation should have been on file somewhere. But to be 10, to know that nothing really bad had happened, and to know that this sharing this information might be like setting a match to gasoline ... no way of knowing how big the bang ... it's hard to take a step to tell someone.

c

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2010 22:40:34 GMT -5 emy said:

Oct 22, 2010 17:59:50 GMT -5 @ram said:

Okay emy, as a supporter of "no organisation," how do YOU propose to introduce proper child protection measures without some form of organisation?

You clearly support maintaining the status quo. Your sensitivities are touched when there is an inference you may not be genuine in your approach to child protection, yet in the same breath almost, you clearly indicate you are all for protecting the workers and the system over protecting children in the fellowship.

That is not true. I disagree with you on the best way to protect them

[color=BlueSo I can conclude that you disagree with implementing the approved controls and measurures currently adopted by other churches the world over to safeguard the children in their midst. Those same measures which are supported by Governments, churches, child protection agencies, social services, etc, even if they are styled towards the F&W's sect, with due care to maintain the standards through a rigorous approach?

Your sensitivities appear to have been touched (calling my remarks "nasty") by my suggestion that your "no organisation" is indicative of disregard for child protection.

Children can be protected without directives from an organization.

So the F&W's church do not need to direct their workers in child protection measures? After all, they are an organisation. They employ workers who have contact with and work with children.How do YOU think your apparent indifferent remarks are being received not just by myself, but by the victims of CSA and their parents, etc.

If they think I am indifferent, they are mistaken.

I am delighted to hear it. Appearances can be deceptive. There's no doubt you come across as being very biased. I'm not complaining about that. I am just pointing out a fact of life. I am very likely the same.

One example. The other day you asked why I as an ex had a dog in this fight. You found it strange. Yet rational, a self confessed atheist also had a dog in the same fight, yet your questions were directed solely at me. It could be argued that I had at least as much right as rational, if not moreso, to be involved in these matters than he, yet it did not occur to you to ask him the same questions. I wonder why that is? Bias perhaps?
If my remarks are nasty, then what does that suggest of your own?

[sharonw]

Oct 23, 2010 4:10:23 GMT -5 Claire said:

mixed thoughts.

surely if this topic is like anything else, there is no single "100% complete and correct" solution.

personally, i still favour education in this area being a mandatory subject in school from first grade. teaching children where their boundaries are, where it's ok to tell people to stop. i don't want this to be left to families to decide whether or not they want to tell little Freddy about "nasty, dirty things that only happen in bad families" - all children need to be told what is normal in C21st society, and they need to know from an early age.
I have a friend who is a senior teacher in a middle school which has such classes on the curriculum. She told me once it's shocking and very saddening to realise what some children believe is normal - simply because that's what they've learned at home.

and, really, most of childhood seems to be learning that you have to listen to adults ... with forced invasions into our personal space
"shake hands with Uncle John" ... "give Aunty Jane a kiss" ... "Freddy, I *told* you to shake hands ..." ... "go on, Aunty is waiting ... "
No.
Don't kiss or otherwise touch kids just because they're too small to say no to an adult. I don't care if you're uncle john or aunty jane in reality, or through some other link, you don't kiss kids unless they choose to kiss you. If they don't want to even shake hands with you, that's ok, too.
Hey, they're allowed to say 'no' to adults.

I also believe that education is necessary to help children cope with the moment and make their own decisions about what to do next.
When I was 10 and being fondled, I wouldn't have gone to the police in a million years. I didn't want it known. Of all the reasons why, maybe hardest of all to overcome, I knew that the information would have broken up the long friendship between my father and this man.
As it turned out, I had the strength to threaten, and the threat worked.
That was enough for me at the time.
Now of course I wonder whether he spent many years doing this to other girls - and wonder if the infromation should have been on file somewhere. But to be 10, to know that nothing really bad had happened, and to know that this sharing this information might be like setting a match to gasoline ... no way of knowing how big the bang ... it's hard to take a step to tell someone.

c

Thanks Claire for sharing...it's true that adults are horrid, they tell children to do things like giving them kisses etc.

Reminded me of my step son-in-law....when he'd go to pick up his daughter at his mother-in-law's, "Grammie" would tell the little girl to kiss her goodbye. The sil was livid...but not for the reasons Claire brought up, he was jealous of that little girl. We all thought it normal for a grandmother and granddaughter to kiss one another hello and goodbye. I never demanded that out of the stepgrandkids myself and I never hugged them unless they came and wanted a hug.

Also we have to realize that 10 yrs old and younger would not see the need to tell someone about advances made toward them esp. IF nothing really happened. Perhaps parents ought to teach the kids that a "threat" should be told about. And I don't think it hurts to explaine to these younger children the why of things...because sometimes kids that do not understand the why get it into their heads that grownups can't do anything but tell them things that the child sees no reason for.

[sharonw]

Emy, I can understand Ram's confusion as to your stance on CSA and how to "prevent" it. You have only "disagreed" with what he has offered but you have never come forth with your own proposal of how to prevent CSA in the fellowship/workership.

I was told once IF I wanted to really help someone that I'm disagreeing with, to do so with a proposal of how to take care of the issue in a different manner...not to put someone down with a disagreement, but offer a solution.

[Deleted]

Thanks Sharon. May I point out as kindly as I can that this type of observation is being made by some professing people, even some involved in the very things we are talking about and it is to emy's detriment.

I would also like to point out that during the karma period, whilst "others" were anxiously keen to plunge emy well into the red with "smites," that I single-handedly restored her position several times and ensured she was buoyantly in the black with "exalts" before the system was removed from this board!

[emy]

Oct 23, 2010 8:55:37 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Emy, I can understand Ram's confusion as to your stance on CSA and how to "prevent" it. You have only "disagreed" with what he has offered but you have never come forth with your own proposal of how to prevent CSA in the fellowship/workership.

I have no training in the field, other than teacher training from several years ago. However, I support parent/worker training and immediate reporting and that is what the senior workers who attended the IL meetings are supporting. So don't accuse me of "disregarding" CSA.

So, Ram, are you saying that professing people are complaining about my OPINION in other venues? Maybe everyone could consider my opinion as fairly typical, but somewhat more enlightened about f&w issues than most of the friends. Consider that when you wonder how proposals will fly. ;D

It's true that Rat doesn't have any more right to a dog in the fight than you do,Ram, but it just so happens that I know he has extensive experience in dealing with needy people. That counts.

And besides, he is pointing out the holes in your suggestion that the church needs to have an "officer" (more organization) who would stand between the victim and immediate reporting, which the law does not recommend. And how is that position different from having an overseer stand between? That is what would be status quo.

One last thing.. I don't think you would find a handful of f&w who would be of the opinion that anyone "employs" the workers.

PS. Thank you for the exalts. I never took the whole game seriously, but thanks anyway.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2010 11:13:29 GMT -5 emy said:

Oct 23, 2010 8:55:37 GMT -5 sharonw said:

Emy, I can understand Ram's confusion as to your stance on CSA and how to "prevent" it. You have only "disagreed" with what he has offered but you have never come forth with your own proposal of how to prevent CSA in the fellowship/workership.

I have no training in the field, other than teacher training from several years ago. However, I support parent/worker training and immediate reporting and that is what the senior workers who attended the IL meetings are supporting. So don't accuse me of "disregarding" CSA.

So, Ram, are you saying that professing people are complaining about my OPINION in other venues?

Your posts have not been well received by some. I'm glad you are clarifying your position. Hopefully that may make a difference

It's true that Rat doesn't have any more right to a dog in the fight than you do,Ram, but it just so happens that I know he has extensive experience in dealing with needy people. That counts.

With due respect to rational, I too have considerable experience in speaking to people, especially in a frontline investigative role, very often in dealing with the issues we are discussing over many years. I think that should count for a lot!

And besides, he is pointing out the holes in your suggestion that the church needs to have an "officer" (more organization) who would stand between the victim and immediate reporting, which the law does not recommend. And how is that position different from having an overseer stand between? That is what would be status quo.

He is expressing his opinions. The church needs to take on board more responsibility and accountability in reducing csa in its ranks. By his and your position it seems all the churches in the UK, USA and Australia have ALL got it wrong. There's a lot more to the immediate reporting issue than immediate reporting. I think you have not read the material provided which has the support of the pertinent agencies.

One last thing.. I don't think you would find a handful of f&w who would be of the opinion that anyone "employs" the workers.

Emy, I have found a handful. That's not the issue. At least in England this could well be a legal issue. New laws make it a criminal offence for any person to apply for work which involves contact with children, in either a paid or voluntary capacity, without being first being registered with the Independent Safeguarding Authority who have been set up to vet persons in these type of situations. This is the way things are going. The general direction of things elsewhere, particularly in a legal and moral context, partly explains why I take the stand that I do. Ultimately the F&W's church will have to conform to recognised standards. They cannot be a law unto themselves

PS. Thank you for the exalts. I never took the whole game seriously, but thanks anyway.

Neither did I, but despite our apparent differences of opinion even at that time I did not like what was happening. I will take this opportunity to exalt you again!

[sharonw]

It's extremely frustrating when someone who wants things to look upward in regards to cleaning the felllowship up in a manner that would speak to law and order and then have a few who fight that tooth and toenail because they cannot see the forest for the trees...otherwords status quo has always worked in their opinion even though the law is stating it hasn't! Why any of us exes even try to help much less give a darn is simply surprising considering that our concerns are thrown back in our face.

I stay interested simply because of my own personal experience with having had a male worker try to seduce me. I know how that made me feel, but I actually was old enough to finally work it out in my head and heart. Although the answer I came up with has been proven wrong. I thought the worker was an abnormality as far as workers go, but I'm learning that hey! He was just one of many! I think my recoil from that information is harsher then my recoil was from him!

I hate to think about how a younger child would have handled that kind of seduction! And that's why I have some very grave concern for the workership as well as the priesthood for the Catholics! There has to be something about the celibate life that brings on this issue.....God made us like we are for a reason and it was said in the bible it is better to marry then to burn. I think we're seeing what that "burning" is all about in the continuing of unfolding CSA cases rolling out of the fellowship and the Catholic church...someone mentioned about the rate of one per month for the fellowship! That soon gets amountable!

[ronhall]

While it is good to bring forth ideas and discuss them extensively, the ideas brought up on this forum fit more in to the category of brain storming than anything else. To digress into lengthy arguments defeats the intended purpose by making this thread unreadable by those in responsible positions. They are definitely not going to wade through 13 pages, much of it acrimonious postings, at least I wouldn't if I were them.

Several ideas that came up here might have merit, but being lost in the mass of words, I really don't know what can be done. Perhaps there is someone who reads here that is close to a person of responsibility and can boil all the commentary down to a reasonable list of practical proposals. Who knows, it is quite likely these same things were discussed at the workers' meeting.

[Scott Ross]

Several ideas that came up here might have merit, but being lost in the mass of words, I really don't know what can be done. Perhaps there is someone who reads here that is close to a person of responsibility and can boil all the commentary down to a reasonable list of practical proposals. Who knows, it is quite likely these same things were discussed at the workers' meeting.

For those workers that may be reading here and have followed this thread, I am sure that they will just dismiss the crap and write down or remember anything that they think has merit.

Reading other peoples thoughts on the subject, and then looking at the source will give them good ideas. I know that some of them that come here to read will find a certain poster, click on their name and see what they have been posting. It is a good way to find good information.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that your posts are read by many as someone who is professing but doesn't have a problem pointing out the issues that you see in your area, plus offering how you think those issues could be addressed.

Scott

[rational]

Oct 23, 2010 3:49:41 GMT -5 @ram said:

rational, I think you get the point that in most cases where there is concern for a child there is no cause for alarm about abuses of any kind. The great majority of circumstances have very innocent explanations and do not require alarmist approaches to the authorities.

And I hope that you get the point that spinning hypothetical situations to determine what action should be taken is of little value.

More importantly I hope that people get the point that it is important to report any well founded suspicions to the authorities rather than try to come up with some reasons why the incident should not be reported.

This is all about appointing proper methods of prevention and protective measures in a church environment and the good common sense in appointing church child protection measures and officers.

No, this is all about trying to get people not to report their suspicions to the authorities.

I think your experience in the real world is somewhat limited.

I don't think the time I spent actually working with the victims and the families was limiting at all. Nor do I think spending time reading the abusers statements as well as their psychiatric work-ups was limiting. Testifying at the trials was perhaps tedious but certainly not limiting.

How many victims of CSA have you actually worked with for any length of time? From what you have posted I am guessing it is a very small number.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2010 23:27:45 GMT -5 rational said:

Oct 23, 2010 3:49:41 GMT -5 @ram said:

rational, I think you get the point that in most cases where there is concern for a child there is no cause for alarm about abuses of any kind. The great majority of circumstances have very innocent explanations and do not require alarmist approaches to the authorities.

And I hope that you get the point that spinning hypothetical situations to determine what action should be taken is of little value.

More importantly I hope that people get the point that it is important to report any well founded suspicions to the authorities rather than try to come up with some reasons why the incident should not be reported.

No, this is all about trying to get people not to report their suspicions to the authorities.

I think your experience in the real world is somewhat limited.

I don't think the time I spent actually working with the victims and the families was limiting at all. Nor do I think spending time reading the abusers statements as well as their psychiatric work-ups was limiting. Testifying at the trials was perhaps tedious but certainly not limiting.

How many victims of CSA have you actually worked with for any length of time? From what you have posted I am guessing it is a very small number.

Rational, I don't believe that you are so dumb that you cannot see what I was driving at. Repeatedly I have thrown my weight behind approved policies drawn up by the CCPAS, Police services, child protection organisations and social services in conjunction with the various churches.

It is not me who has a problem with that advice. I am not arguing against it. It is you. All I have been trying to do is explain to you, perhaps rather inadequately, the reasons behind appointing church child protection officers and the day to day realities they face.

Several times I have directed you towards guidelines in the approved document "Safe and Secure" which include the following (yet again).

CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERNS, OR IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY

Please read the above, then READ IT AGAIN. What does it say? You have been splitting hairs with this issue for the purpose of your own agenda.

If a child protection co-ordinator is available their responsibilities
include the following:

THE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN'S SERVICES, THE POLICE OR CCPAS

These are all part of the approved, agreed policies arrived at through a proper multi-agency approach. I suspect you do not wish to accept the fullness of the approved policies because the essence of them threatens your stand on other related issues. You need to maintain that distance?

Just for the record. For over 25 years I was at the frontline receiving end of the reporting of csa and just about every other imaginable woe that human nature can produce. I had to deal with things in the real world. I had to thoroughly investigate these matters.

In short your argument is not with me. I have no problem with the approved guidelines drawn up by the proper authorities. Perhaps you can contact CCPAS or the Metropolitan Police or any of the other parties involved and point out to them just where they have gone wrong? I'm sure they will appreciate your professional advice!

[rational]

Oct 24, 2010 3:38:25 GMT -5 @ram said:

Rational, I don't believe that you are so dumb that you cannot see what I was driving at. Repeatedly I have thrown my weight behind approved policies drawn up by the CCPAS, Police services, child protection organisations and social services in conjunction with the various churches.

As I have said, it is only the policy of informing church members first that I disagree with.

It is not me who has a problem with that advice. I am not arguing against it. It is you. All I have been trying to do is explain to you, perhaps rather inadequately, the reasons behind appointing church child protection officers and the day to day realities they face.

I have too faced those realities and know that the one best piece of advice a group could offer to its members is to first report suspicions/knowledge of crimes to the
authorities.

Several times I have directed you towards guidelines in the approved document "Safe and Secure" which include the following (yet again).

CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERNS, OR IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY

And, as you can see, their initial suggestion is to report to a church member, and only directly to the authorities if that member is not available.

Please read the above, then READ IT AGAIN. What does it say? You have been splitting hairs with this issue for the purpose of your own agenda.

It is not splitting hairs nor any other body parts. It should be clear that I believe the report should be made directly to the authorities and not through a third person. Their initial suggestion is to report to a church member, and only directly to the authorities if that member is not available.

If a child protection co-ordinator is available their responsibilities
include the following:

THE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN'S SERVICES, THE POLICE OR CCPAS

It says 'should', not 'will'.

These are all part of the approved, agreed policies arrived at through a proper multi-agency approach. I suspect you do not wish to accept the fullness of the approved policies because the essence of them threatens your stand on other related issues. You need to maintain that distance?

I do not accept the policy because it does not specify that the report should first be to the authorities. Not certain what additional policy you think I am supporting.

Just for the record. For over 25 years I was at the frontline receiving end of the reporting of csa and just about every other imaginable woe that human nature can produce. I had to deal with things in the real world. I had to thoroughly investigate these matters.

The question was - Have you worked with the victims of CSA?

In short your argument is not with me. I have no problem with the approved guidelines drawn up by the proper authorities. Perhaps you can contact CCPAS or the Metropolitan Police or any of the other parties involved and point out to them just where they have gone wrong? I'm sure they will appreciate your professional advice!

My argument has never been with you. You asked if I would support a policy like the publication you linked and I stated I would not support it because it suggested reporting to someone who was part of the church and not directly to the authorities.

[rational]

Oct 23, 2010 18:30:14 GMT -5 sharonw said:

There has to be something about the celibate life that brings on this issue.....

To support your premise you would need to show that the fraction of sexual criminals within the RCC or the F&Ws is higher than in the general population. Do you have any details?

[Deleted]

I'm probably being over simplistic, but the problem I have with reporting to a church "authority" is the possibility that this person would tip the perpetrator off so he could fly the coop. If the reporting is directly with the police or other authorities, that doesn't seem as likely to happen.

[Deleted]

Whilst nothing can be ruled out, even with the police service, I think in this day and age this scenario is highly unlikely. Also, where is he going to fly the coop too? Most often these type of evasive actions are short-lived.

[rational]

Oct 24, 2010 16:25:48 GMT -5 @ram said:

Whilst nothing can be ruled out, even with the police service, I think in this day and age this scenario is highly unlikely. Also, where is he going to fly the coop too? Most often these type of evasive actions are short-lived.

Really? Yet this has been the case over and over again in groups of all sorts.

Of course, as Clearday stated - These people are mandated to report!

[Deleted]

Okay rational, I'm not going to press the quote facility for your last response to my post. It makes tiresome reading for the audience.

You disagree with the approved guidelines designed through a multi-agency approach involving the very authorities in question. That's your prerogative.

I have worked with many victims of csa at the early investigative stages. I do admit my involvement is of over 15 years antiquity now.

[Deleted]

Oct 24, 2010 16:28:35 GMT -5 rational said:

Oct 24, 2010 16:25:48 GMT -5 @ram said:

Whilst nothing can be ruled out, even with the police service, I think in this day and age this scenario is highly unlikely. Also, where is he going to fly the coop too? Most often these type of evasive actions are short-lived.

Really? Yet this has been the case over and over again in groups of all sorts.

Of course, as Clearday stated - These people are mandated to report!

You're not up to date rational with the progress made in these matters. Also, although it is common for criminals to flee from the scene of a crime or attempt to remain at large, it is difficult to remain at large indefinately. Most people at large are traced within a few hours or days.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2010 20:55:55 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

For those workers that may be reading here and have followed this thread, I am sure that they will just dismiss the crap and write down or remember anything that they think has merit.

Maybe true, although we're all subject to the emotionalism that unless you're a veteran of these forums, clouds the picture.

As ex's you've got several strikes against you to begin with, and unfortunately as a result, to some degree there is some contamination of those who get in touch with you, such as with like your opening post. By definition ex's don't want to have fellowship with "us" because because because because because because because because because because, - ah I don't think there's enough room here for all the becauses.

How much of an issue this is, is hard to tell, because there is no incentive for those who feel otherwise to write to you. On the other hand, it's good to know how others feel.

[Scott Ross]

Oct 24, 2010 18:11:38 GMT -5 @ettu said:

Oct 23, 2010 20:55:55 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

For those workers that may be reading here and have followed this thread, I am sure that they will just dismiss the crap and write down or remember anything that they think has merit.

Maybe true, although we're all subject to the emotionalism that unless you're a veteran of these forums, clouds the picture.

As ex's you've got several strikes against you to begin with, and unfortunately as a result, to some degree there is some contamination of those who get in touch with you, such as with like your opening post. By definition ex's don't want to have fellowship with "us" because because because because because because because because because because, - ah I don't think there's enough room here for all the becauses.

How much of an issue this is, is hard to tell, because there is no incentive for those who feel otherwise to write to you. On the other hand, it's good to know how others feel.

hmmm... I haven't quite figured out where you are coming from with your blanket statements about exes.

I know that in the last couple of years I have corresponded with about a dozen workers, and professing folks from all over. Likewise I have corresponded with a lot of exes.

Somehow all of them have had some sort of incentive to contact me. Not all do so to report something. Usually they have a question about something that they have read here on the board and want more info about.

Most of those friends and workers ARE veterans of these forums. They may read but never post.

I have no problem having fellowship with any Christians by the way. Always willing to have fellowship with those that enjoy fellowship with other Christians.

Scott

[Scott Ross]

Just rethought how many workers I have been in contact with and it is actually closer to 20.

[Deleted]

Oct 24, 2010 21:40:56 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

Just rethought how many workers I have been in contact with and it is actually closer to 20.

Well, while you're tooting your horn and feeling good about your connections, you might want to consider a reality check: that most friends can talk to or correspond with 20 workers any day of the week. And they'd be welcomed to. Unless of course you're an ex wanna be with an ax to unload on them.

The point I wanted to make Scott, concerning this thread, is that you are more likely to hear from malcontents. Complaint unfortunately has largely been the nature of these ex boards, and ex's. There's little or no reason for those feeling things are fine, or can talk freely with friends and workers to get in touch with you. So you're likely to have a skewed view. Whether there's any legs to what you've passed on, or it's a joke as someone mentioned, I don't know. Never the less, I suspect some thanks is due because these forums do provide a place to bring out dissatisfaction that otherwise might not be heard.

It's a delicate thing. Good luck to you and all.

[sharonw]

WOW! What side of the bed did he get up on?

[Deleted]

I guess if there's anyone here who can rev a guy up it's oor Scotty?

I think he took a wrong turning though? The sign said "Biter Rally," NOT "Biker Rally!"

[rational]

Oct 24, 2010 17:01:29 GMT -5 @ram said:

You're not up to date rational with the progress made in these matters.

Really? CSA and having it be covered up is no longer happening? And yet I seem to recall reports child has been abused and it was not reported...

From an article dated September 23, 2010:
If the bishops sincerely want to help the victims, they would be better off funding a neutral, independent site for counseling. They would be contributing to the healing of people who were harmed by priests and bishops, but they wouldn't be seen as trying to control the direction or context of that healing -- something they have no right to expect or demand anyway.

Also, although it is common for criminals to flee from the scene of a crime or attempt to remain at large, it is difficult to remain at large indefinately. Most people at large are traced within a few hours or days.

Has fleeing been a problem? I thought the biggest issues were non-reporting to authorities and moving the criminal out of the area?