|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 15, 2010 14:04:06 GMT -5
To be Fair, I have never seen a negative remark from W.I.N.G.S. in regards to Ray Hoffman's letter. That is the main reason I had never mentioned my doubts and/or confusion to Ray's patting Ira on the back and NOT patting the Peruvian worker on the back as well. Seemed a bit unfair to me at the time the letter was sent out.
So W.I.N.G.S. does NOT deserve to be put into a "bad light" in that regard, Lin or Jesse....so please don't place that at their door.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Oct 15, 2010 15:00:07 GMT -5
Scott, I think you and the other folks at WINGS are doing the right thing for the fellowship. I would think that anyone in the fellowship, if they stood back to view the overall picture without excessive bias in their thinking, would realize the complete irony of what they are seeing.
They would see that here is a way that is promoted as the one true way with each member and especially the leaders, having personal access to God the heavenly father. Then they would see what they would consider an outside agency that came into being expressly to assist in correcting a grave evil that was growing within their own midst.
How is it possible to resolve these two incongruous scenes? It is not.
So that is the answer to the declaration, "Ray had to do what he did." He was caught in a situation similar to the poor Dutch boy of legend who stuck his finger in the dike to preserve the country. What he did was buy a little time.
He would know in this modern age with rapid communication the word would get out fairly quickly. But if he could communicate across his area of overseership in a manner that would settle, smooth over and obscure (I call it "worker speak" and I fully realize that term comes across as somewhat non-respectful) for a time until a more permanent solution could be implemented.
I have no problem with that as it is what any good manager would do to temporarily shore up things in a crisis. The problem is that in the shoring up, protecting the illusion of the one perfect way is getting more shoring up than correcting the evil that started it in the first place. It is the worker speak manner of reporting that makes all the difference, but only those who aren't very interested in seeing through the cloak to what is really the truth of the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 15, 2010 17:32:08 GMT -5
To be Fair, I have never seen a negative remark from W.I.N.G.S. in regards to Ray Hoffman's letter. That is the main reason I had never mentioned my doubts and/or confusion to Ray's patting Ira on the back and NOT patting the Peruvian worker on the back as well. Seemed a bit unfair to me at the time the letter was sent out. Maybe the offenses were quite different? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2010 18:00:42 GMT -5
whatever happened to the Peruvian worker, by the way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 15, 2010 18:15:12 GMT -5
whatever happened to the Peruvian worker, by the way? Amazingly enough.... he's in Peru.....  |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 15, 2010 18:21:23 GMT -5
Scott, I think you and the other folks at WINGS are doing the right thing for the fellowship. I would think that anyone in the fellowship, if they stood back to view the overall picture without excessive bias in their thinking, would realize the complete irony of what they are seeing.
They would see that here is a way that is promoted as the one true way with each member and especially the leaders, having personal access to God the heavenly father. Then they would see what they would consider an outside agency that came into being expressly to assist in correcting a grave evil that was growing within their own midst.
How is it possible to resolve these two incongruous scenes? It is not.
Interestingly enough, when WINGS was coming into being, it happened because of a mix of professing folks and exes. It was decided that there was a need for a place that people could turn to for information and help when affected by CSA. A password protected area of another board was set up where people could gather to discuss ideas. These ideas came almost exclusively from those who had been abused or had kids abused within the truth fellowship. As a matter of fact, I had very little to contribute to the formation of WINGS, but somehow ended up as the administrator.....  So.... when people think of it as an 'outside agency', that isn't completely true. Especially now with the addition of some professing folks to the group. Scott 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2010 19:50:14 GMT -5
whatever happened to the Peruvian worker, by the way? Amazingly enough.... he's in Peru..... Well I suppose that's where you would most likely find a Peruvian--but, I suspect you mean he's still in the work. Hmmm. Of course, I don't know the whole story, but ... |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 15, 2010 20:45:21 GMT -5
I am against any plan that puts church members between the incident and reporting it to the authorities. Rational, I think you are missing the whole point with this one. Of course all appropriate cases should be reported to the police or other investigating agencies as soon as possible. In matters of ongoing or urgent cases it is highly likely the police would be the first point of reporting, due to urgency and logistics etc. Not according to the publication you referenced. The path is through a church member. I see that as a possible problem. As has been the case in the past, church members have been known to divert reporting to the authorities. Explain that logic. Someone suspects CSA so instead of going directly to the authorities they go to a church member. How does having the middleman ensure anything but the possibility of delay or diversion. What exactly is that role? The victim's guardians report the event to the authorities and the authorities investigate. Do you really think having someone in the middle adds to the process? Would it be an improvement to have a chain of 2 or 3 people making the link? Yet that was the first thing that that publication mentioned - Report to the church member. So why do you think the publication wanted people to go to church members first? Yet the part of the publication done by the church states take the complaint to the church member while the included publication from the police says to go to the police first. I think you are right in saying that an outside agency should be consulted and a policy be developed. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 15, 2010 21:56:46 GMT -5
Amazingly enough.... he's in Peru..... Well I suppose that's where you would most likely find a Peruvian--but, I suspect you mean he's still in the work. Hmmm. Of course, I don't know the whole story, but ... No, he was living with his brother down there last I heard. I received a lot of emails that were in support of him, and looked really hard at that whole situation. (got to correspond with some really nice people as well!) Remember, he is an 'alleged' abuser, and although I would think that Ray felt he had good reason to do what he did, there were a lot of people that were upset with how that was handled and don't think that he should have been lumped in with the other worker. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 15, 2010 22:02:54 GMT -5
Do you really think having someone in the middle adds to the process? Would it be an improvement to have a chain of 2 or 3 people making the link?I think that there is a need to have a church individual who is there to help the authorities with an investigation. If there is an alleged instance of CSA, the church member can provide a list of other kids that this person has been around, and also help to provide contact information and be available to assist the authorities with information they may need. I am certainly not saying this individual should be any sort of 'middleman' though. The best place to report is always going to be to the authorities. However even in that situation, when the authorities contact the church it would be good to have someone there in a position to assist the authorities in any way they can. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 7:53:40 GMT -5
Do you really think having someone in the middle adds to the process? Would it be an improvement to have a chain of 2 or 3 people making the link?I think that there is a need to have a church individual who is there to help the authorities with an investigation. If there is an alleged instance of CSA, the church member can provide a list of other kids that this person has been around, and also help to provide contact information and be available to assist the authorities with information they may need. I am certainly not saying this individual should be any sort of 'middleman' though. The best place to report is always going to be to the authorities. However even in that situation, when the authorities contact the church it would be good to have someone there in a position to assist the authorities in any way they can. Scott There are some potential problems with a rule about reporting to a church member: 1. What if the church member just doesn't believe the alleged victim's story and decides to dissuade the victim from taking it any further? That can happen no matter how much training you have given your church members. 2. What if the church member is closely connected to the alleged offender which the victim is unaware of it? The chances of the church member trying to keep his/her friend out of trouble is pretty high. 3. What if the church member is a closet abuser him/herself? After all, the odds of that happening are small but significant. So there are some risks in reporting to a church member, albeit small imo. However, it is sheer lunacy to advocate that if a small child gives indications of being abused, they should be told to go directly to the police to report that abuse. A small child hardly understands that they have been abused by some clever abusers, let alone have the courage or know-how to go to the police and report the abuse. In real life, children rarely just walk up to an adult and say "I have been sexually abused so what should I do?" The reality is that small children only give adults clues by their behaviours and words and it takes perceptive adults to help them out. It is far better to advocate that small children speak to a church member about their abuse......otherwise almost no abuses will ever get reported to the police. The CCPAS brochure is excellent and is a great resource for any "behind the scenes" work that might be occurring in the F&W church. They have a "model" Child Protection Policy which can be obtained and then adapted to specific churches' needs. One of the things that concerns me about the "behind the scenes" work going on is that by its very nature of secrecy it is practically ensuring its failure. CCPAS states: "The implementation of a (child protection) policy demonstrates the church's commitment to child protection." While it is possible to develop a policy in secret, it is impossible to implement it in secret. The current church culture is secrecy, whispering and avoidance of important issues. The CSA issue is very important but children cannot be made much safer under such a culture. We need to start being more open about these issues, and we could start with doing some "in front of the scenes" work on a Child Protection Policy instead of "behind the scenes". There is no need for "behind the scenes" work to be done......development of a policy is a good thing and nothing to be ashamed or secretive about. The more open it is, the more great input that will be available, and the more ready people will be to learn, accept it, and implement it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 8:11:27 GMT -5
Rational, it is very clear to me that you don't understand the document or the procedures involved. The document was designed in conjunction with the largest police force in the UK. It carries their mark of approval. I think you have only one track thinking when you read the document. You are missing the obvious but I'm not going to go on downward spiralling journey in futile attempts to explain things to you. I've been there, done it and got sick of it.
If the document has the approval of the police and thereby the Crown Prosecution Service then it meets the standards required by the appropriate agencies for reporting these matters.
As the CCPAS document clearly points out, churches are often on the "frontline" when it comes to helping children and families, both within their congregations and the local community. It is therefore "crucial" that there are appointed persons within churches to deal with these issues, especially in the initial stages of reporting.
The document clearly states that a church (and that will include the F&W's church), should have a child protection policy. This policy needs to include (inter alia):
Details of how to respond if there are concerns or suspicions of abuse.
A named contact and deputy in the church to co-ordinate concerns and take action.
It is plain common sense to have a trained co-ordinator in these matters. Many people may have suspicions or concerns which may be unfounded (very often this is the case). Most instances are NOT ongoing life or death matters where the first instinctive response would be to contact the police.
Most are not urgent and matters can be reported to and discussed with the CP co-ordinator who has been appointed and trained in CSA matters, eg how to notice signs of possible abuse etc. This person is trained how to respond and to co-ordinate within the church all contact with the police, social services, courts, victims, families, congregation etc. The police are not sitting in churches waiting on matters to be reported to them.
In any ongoing matter that comes to light in real life, real world situations, a matter will be reported to the police right away with churches that have the proper policies in place. It may take the police an hour or two to respond depending on the grading of the situation. A trained person can be invaluable to the police and a subsequent prosecution by knowing "how to respond!"
Training in how to respond covers covers item 1 of Clearday's concerns and should also cover items 2 & 3, albeit the human element can be present in any case, even with attending police officers!
Think of a church child protection co-ordinator as being part of a "response team" involving the police, social services, doctors, nurses, psychologists etc, who all have an important part to play. Try NOT to see them as "separate" from the "response."
Depending on the circumstances they may have a very important part to play, both initially and in dealing with the aftermath. One of their keys roles in the initial stages is to ensure the police or other relenant agency is notified asap in appropriate cases. They are part of a multi-agency approach towards the problem.
If there's no co-ordinator immediately available at the time something serious comes to light in the Church of England, do you think they are going to wait until they get back from the shops, or even holiday, before reporting it to the police?
Phew!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 16, 2010 8:46:46 GMT -5
whatever happened to the Peruvian worker, by the way? He's living a life of a very poor Peruvian! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 16, 2010 8:48:38 GMT -5
Well I suppose that's where you would most likely find a Peruvian--but, I suspect you mean he's still in the work. Hmmm. Of course, I don't know the whole story, but ... No, he was living with his brother down there last I heard. I received a lot of emails that were in support of him, and looked really hard at that whole situation. (got to correspond with some really nice people as well!) Remember, he is an 'alleged' abuser, and although I would think that Ray felt he had good reason to do what he did, there were a lot of people that were upset with how that was handled and don't think that he should have been lumped in with the other worker. Scott This is very true....fact is, the handling of the Peruvian was the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of the friends and probably a lot of the workers....I know that it became the last straw for a few friends and they exited because of that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 11:25:50 GMT -5
No, he was living with his brother down there last I heard. I received a lot of emails that were in support of him, and looked really hard at that whole situation. (got to correspond with some really nice people as well!) Remember, he is an 'alleged' abuser, and although I would think that Ray felt he had good reason to do what he did, there were a lot of people that were upset with how that was handled and don't think that he should have been lumped in with the other worker. Scott This is very true....fact is, the handling of the Peruvian was the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of the friends and probably a lot of the workers....I know that it became the last straw for a few friends and they exited because of that. Well that sounds like a sad outcome all the way around. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 16, 2010 15:49:05 GMT -5
This is very true....fact is, the handling of the Peruvian was the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of the friends and probably a lot of the workers....I know that it became the last straw for a few friends and they exited because of that. Well that sounds like a sad outcome all the way around. One time someone wrote to me and told us that this exworker was living on pennies a day...shocked me! Some had mentioned even in the MI debacle that any worker sent home because of an allegation should receive monetary assistance UNTIL he is proven to be guilty. The Peruvian exworker also told that he had NO idea why he'd been excommunicated out of the work.....some of the friends in the states were begging the workers involved with this to let the "church" handle this as in Mt. 18, I think it is...but they were denied that privileged and was told that 3 or 4 workers had gotten together and made the decision for that excommunication. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 15:57:50 GMT -5
Well that sounds like a sad outcome all the way around. One time someone wrote to me and told us that this exworker was living on pennies a day...shocked me! Some had mentioned even in the MI debacle that any worker sent home because of an allegation should receive monetary assistance UNTIL he is proven to be guilty. The Peruvian exworker also told that he had NO idea why he'd been excommunicated out of the work.....some of the friends in the states were begging the workers involved with this to let the "church" handle this as in Mt. 18, I think it is...but they were denied that privileged and was told that 3 or 4 workers had gotten together and made the decision for that excommunication. Refresh my memory. What was the rationale for this Peruvian fellow to suddenly leave the country and drop from sight? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 16:05:37 GMT -5
One time someone wrote to me and told us that this exworker was living on pennies a day...shocked me! Some had mentioned even in the MI debacle that any worker sent home because of an allegation should receive monetary assistance UNTIL he is proven to be guilty. The Peruvian exworker also told that he had NO idea why he'd been excommunicated out of the work.....some of the friends in the states were begging the workers involved with this to let the "church" handle this as in Mt. 18, I think it is...but they were denied that privileged and was told that 3 or 4 workers had gotten together and made the decision for that excommunication. Refresh my memory. What was the rationale for this Peruvian fellow to suddenly leave the country and drop from sight? The letter on WINGS says he was being investigated by the authorities regarding CSA. That said, it would seem a little odd that he didn't know he was being investigated. If his name was cleared, I would think Ray would have been delighted to send out that letter, but I'm not in that state and don't anything other than what I read on WINGS. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 16, 2010 16:08:21 GMT -5
One time someone wrote to me and told us that this exworker was living on pennies a day...shocked me! Some had mentioned even in the MI debacle that any worker sent home because of an allegation should receive monetary assistance UNTIL he is proven to be guilty. The Peruvian exworker also told that he had NO idea why he'd been excommunicated out of the work.....some of the friends in the states were begging the workers involved with this to let the "church" handle this as in Mt. 18, I think it is...but they were denied that privileged and was told that 3 or 4 workers had gotten together and made the decision for that excommunication. Refresh my memory. What was the rationale for this Peruvian fellow to suddenly leave the country and drop from sight? As far as I know he didn't leave the country due to anything other then going to his home country. As far as dropping from sight, according to Ray's letter, he and Ira perhaps were thought to have the same type of problem. I suppose JW would remember why he was even on the workers' list in Texas for a time....he was Ira's companion one year according to the list I had. But I know the last time he was at the NM conv. particularly for the Spanish conv. he was headed home to continue in the work there. And he didn't expect to be back to the states or that is what he told some of the friends there. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 16, 2010 16:11:02 GMT -5
Refresh my memory. What was the rationale for this Peruvian fellow to suddenly leave the country and drop from sight? The letter on WINGS says he was being investigated by the authorities regarding CSA. That said, it would seem a little odd that he didn't know he was being investigated. If his name was cleared, I would think Ray would have been delighted to send out that letter, but I'm not in that state and don't anything other than what I read on WINGS. As far as I've heard there were no legal charges against him, there was no legal investigation and he was NOT in the states when this came to a head...he was in Peru in the work there....that's why he didn't know! |
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Oct 16, 2010 17:32:01 GMT -5
Rational, it is very clear to me that you don't understand the document or the procedures involved. The document was designed in conjunction with the largest police force in the UK. It carries their mark of approval. I think you have only one track thinking when you read the document. You are missing the obvious but I'm not going to go on downward spiralling journey in futile attempts to explain things to you. I've been there, done it and got sick of it. If the document has the approval of the police and thereby the Crown Prosecution Service then it meets the standards required by the appropriate agencies for reporting these matters. As the CCPAS document clearly points out, churches are often on the "frontline" when it comes to helping children and families, both within their congregations and the local community. It is therefore "crucial" that there are appointed persons within churches to deal with these issues, especially in the initial stages of reporting. The document clearly states that a church (and that will include the F&W's church), should have a child protection policy. This policy needs to include (inter alia): Details of how to respond if there are concerns or suspicions of abuse. A named contact and deputy in the church to co-ordinate concerns and take action. It is plain common sense to have a trained co-ordinator in these matters. Many people may have suspicions or concerns which may be unfounded (very often this is the case). Most instances are NOT ongoing life or death matters where the first instinctive response would be to contact the police. Most are not urgent and matters can be reported to and discussed with the CP co-ordinator who has been appointed and trained in CSA matters, eg how to notice signs of possible abuse etc. This person is trained how to respond and to co-ordinate within the church all contact with the police, social services, courts, victims, families, congregation etc. The police are not sitting in churches waiting on matters to be reported to them. In any ongoing matter that comes to light in real life, real world situations, a matter will be reported to the police right away with churches that have the proper policies in place. It may take the police an hour or two to respond depending on the grading of the situation. A trained person can be invaluable to the police and a subsequent prosecution by knowing "how to respond!" Training in how to respond covers covers item 1 of Clearday's concerns and should also cover items 2 & 3, albeit the human element can be present in any case, even with attending police officers! Think of a church child protection co-ordinator as being part of a "response team" involving the police, social services, doctors, nurses, psychologists etc, who all have an important part to play. Try NOT to see them as "separate" from the "response." Depending on the circumstances they may have a very important part to play, both initially and in dealing with the aftermath. One of their keys roles in the initial stages is to ensure the police or other relenant agency is notified asap in appropriate cases. They are part of a multi-agency approach towards the problem. If there's no co-ordinator immediately available at the time something serious comes to light in the Church of England, do you think they are going to wait until they get back from the shops, or even holiday, before reporting it to the police? Phew!! Hi Ram While a Child Protection Coordinator (could be the position title I suppose) is a very desirable, if not essential officer off the modern church, how do you (or anyone posting on TMB) suggest that these positions be created, supported and funded in a church that has no organisational structure, no central governing body, no human resources department and is spread fairly thinly over many countries in all continents? Of course the positions would be voluntary in the f&w church as there is no formal financial or accounting structure either. It's a big challenge, no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 17:53:59 GMT -5
pa1ag1, I would suggest that in every field, one of the friends fill a role such as that, and on a voluntary basis. Ideally someone who has some interest or peripheral experience in the that sort of issue. They would take the training necessary to maintain the Child Protection Program and keep the friends in the field up to date on it.
First, a Child Protection Program has to be developed, preferably by a professional(s). If enough Friends and Workers get together on this, a professional could evaluate the church activities and risks, then produce a program tailored to the needs of the kids in the church. It may cost $50,000 or so (just a guess and could easily be less), but spread around the world amongst the overseers and involved friends, it would be a pittance to any one individual. I'll be the first to offer $1000 toward engaging a professional to do such a project.......if any of the "behind the scenes" people are reading this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Oct 16, 2010 18:07:53 GMT -5
pa1ag1, I would suggest that in every field, one of the friends fill a role such as that, and on a voluntary basis. Ideally someone who has some interest or peripheral experience in the that sort of issue. They would take the training necessary to maintain the Child Protection Program and keep the friends in the field up to date on it. First, a Child Protection Program has to be developed, preferably by a professional(s). If enough Friends and Workers get together on this, a professional could evaluate the church activities and risks, then produce a program tailored to the needs of the kids in the church. It may cost $50,000 or so (just a guess and could easily be less), but spread around the world amongst the overseers and involved friends, it would be a pittance to any one individual. I'll be the first to offer $1000 toward engaging a professional to do such a project.......if any of the "behind the scenes" people are reading this. Ok, you talked me into it. I will be the consultant. I will give you my bank details. ;D I suggest that if there are any issues to judge in the church that you find the person who is the least among you. Perhaps a victim of csa who wasn't believed for years and preferably someone poor. They will really understand the real issues. |
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Oct 16, 2010 18:09:10 GMT -5
Hey 'clearday' there would be enormous groundswell support for what you suggest, but none of the workers in charge would commit to anything like it.
They would only agree if they were forced by either police or an FBI type investigation. Or if an influential overseer with credibility in handling CSA stood up and put his reputation on the line by insisting that this happen.
I don't think you're going to find even that one man of great integrity and resolve, so the work will continue to be fertile ground for criminal sexual abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Oct 16, 2010 18:12:39 GMT -5
I'd also suggest that none of the "priesthood" be involved in the management and direction of this CP Body. They must be consulted, though.
It may be fortunate that nursing is a preferred profession for many female friends, as many of them would be well on their way towards being appropriately trained.
Ongoing traing would also be required - this would need to come out of the budget.
If the f&w church had a proper structure, this would be so much simpler. There would be much more transparency with these issues also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 18:22:33 GMT -5
Hi Pg1ag1 there's no doubt this whole thing of CP be a massive challenge for the F&W's church. I don't see the position of Co-ordinator being a big problem though, especially as a voluntary role.
At the moment I see considerable hurdles to be overcome with the F&W's church in designing policies, but as CD has pointed out there has to be a willingness to grasp the nettle and look for assistance. It just might be that the F&W's simplistic system would allow a simpler version to be implemented, but in order to ensure such a thing might work it would have to be fairly robust.
It would be extremely rare for two perps to be assigned together in the Worker system. The fact that the workers are sent out in pairs could be utilised in a programme of "self-policing," to a degree in order to compensate for the lack of administration and infrastructure within the church and the remote and autonomous way in which the workers operate, but such a system would have to be strictly governed. It's just one of my thoughts at the moment.
The thing is we can't afford to sit back and say it can't be done. Something must be done and it must be done soon. The longer the delay the greater the dissent within the sect. Also there is increasing potential for legal liability. Apart from legal responsibilities, no one would suggest implementing anything that was not "reasonable" in the circumstances. The problem is as I've discovered is that what one person considers as being reasonable, another views as draconian. The simple, insular and closed way in which the sect operates would in my view require a strong interpretation of "reasonable!" It must be fair and robust at the same time.
We also need to galvinise faith and prayer. Where there is a will there is a way.
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Oct 16, 2010 18:38:37 GMT -5
The person overseeing the program need not be a volunteer. I suspect that it would consume a lot of time and resources. Paying an individual to keep our children safe is also a mere pittance. If we calculate all the loss to the victims, therapy, resultant health issues, loss of church membership, court cases, fines, phone bills, anger and frustration that has been accrued regarding these CSA cases, pay a few individuals to keep track of things is a mere pittance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2010 18:49:13 GMT -5
ts, all the cards need to be put on the table to get this thing right. You are to be commended for highlighting other forms of abuse and problems with the worker lifestyle. It would not make any sense to address only CSA and ignore the other areas of concern. It would only take a little more time, effort and money (?) to go the whole hog. A complete approach is what's needed.
|
|
