|
|
Post by emy on Oct 17, 2010 20:39:36 GMT -5
Quote:
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Oct 17, 2010 20:40:02 GMT -5
There seems to have to be an overwhelming number of "false accusations" towards the man before anyone will consider looking into a matter against an overseer. Especially a sovereign, foreign one. The overseers are usually Americans or some other white, western person who is set up to show the natives the right way of worship. The white overseer has sacrificed so much and is in a foreign land and is largely separate and sovereign in his decisions. He can hide whatever affairs he wants. His "sacrificial" status assures the money rolls in from his home country. talking about overseers , are there any native overseers in third world countries? |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Oct 17, 2010 22:52:04 GMT -5
There seems to have to be an overwhelming number of "false accusations" towards the man before anyone will consider looking into a matter against an overseer. Especially a sovereign, foreign one. The overseers are usually Americans or some other white, western person who is set up to show the natives the right way of worship. The white overseer has sacrificed so much and is in a foreign land and is largely separate and sovereign in his decisions. He can hide whatever affairs he wants. His "sacrificial" status assures the money rolls in from his home country. talking about overseers , are there any native overseers in third world countries? No. Only white men have enough of the guidance of the holy spirit to be overseers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 6:37:02 GMT -5
Rational, I’m not going to respond to the individual points in your latest multi argument carve up of my previous post. I find this very tiresome and messy and besides I have learned that most people just scroll past them for the same reasons. Yes, churches have dealt with these matters very unsatisfactorily in the past, but they are now treating these matters very seriously nowadays (go ask some) and are willingly embracing sound doctrines on the matter, designed in conjunction with the police , social and child protection services. I will however, for the benefit of others, attempt to explain why the document you have already conceded is an excellent link, is designed the way it is. It was designed by the CCPAS and has the mark of approval of the UK’s largest Police Force (by far!), with whom it was undoubtedly drawn up in conjunction with. How you ignore the clear written advice in the document and select a flow chart to support your own nitpicking arguments confounds me? I can only assume you have not absorbed in any measurable detail the contents of the document into your own thought processes? The link to the Safe and Secure document is below. www.ccpas.co.uk/Documents/Safe%20and%20secure.pdfIt is a tremendous guide for anyone concerned about CSA within a church community. Perhaps Rational’s mistake is partly due to interpreting “guidelines” as hard and fast laws? They are what they are, very sound guidelines designed by the church community in conjunction with the police service and child protection agencies for application within church communities. Regarding CSA. We are all now agreed I’m sure, that these are criminal matters and the appropriate organisation for investigating these matters in most instances is the police service. They “MUST” be informed of all appropriate cases for their investigation. Like many other categories of crime, CSA in many cases can be very complex matters to investigate and requires a multi-agency approach, quite simply because the police do not possess the expertise, knowledge or resources to cope with matters which can be very specialised in nature and have far reaching outcomes. This is why response measures include in addition to the police, Church Child Protection Officers, Social Services, Child Protection organisations, Doctors, Nurses, psychologists and teachers etc. It is likely that in most cases peoples’ perception of CSA within a church community is more governed by their imagination of circumstances than the reality of matters. What does YOUR imagination tell you? Does it immediately conjure up an urgent, ongoing situation occurring on church premises, where a child has just been interfered with and requires an immediate response? If this is so then I can assure you this is the wrong perception to have. Such occasions are rare, or at least very uncommon. In the likelihood of such an occasion, matters will automatically take care of themselves. The police will inevitable be contacted within the immediate process of events thereafter. If a Church CPO is present on the building then they will be contacted and if someone has not already done so, the CCPO will ensure as part of their agreed responsibilities, that the police have been contacted. In these uncommon situations I can think of a multitude of reasons why it is an excellent idea for trained CCPO’s to be notified in the immediate aftermath of a CSA case. Apart from a calming and advisory influence on parties present and providing immediate care, they can be invaluable to the police in following some simple steps that would be of immense help to the police with their investigation, but that is another matter for another time. However, we are likely talking about considerably less that 1% of instances occurring with the church community? In reality, the vast majority of cases that come to light within a church community are either historical, or are not immediately ongoing. Historical cases may range from a few hours to more than 30 years! In these vast bulk of cases we are not dealing with emergency situations, where a fast “blue light” response is required. Yes, the police must be informed AND the priority is to ENSURE that they ARE informed! This is the role of a CCPO. In an emergency situation nobody is going to argue “who” contacts the police OR argue over correct protocol. A CCPO will first ensure that the police have been contacted or will do so themselves. In confused situations like emergencies, very often people assume “others” have contacted the police, or will do, or there may be difficulties in actually making contact with the police, etc. It happens all the time and nobody knows that more than the police who assisted with the compilation of the document. By notifying a CCPO comes the guarantee that the proper contact will be made. The guy who comes across the unfortunate matter may be going out the door to some appointment elsewhere. He might say “oh I’ll phone the police,” as he leaves..... You get the drift! Most instances (almost all) of CSA within church communities will be picked up at church services or church activities where members of the church community come across signs which may indicate that case of CSA is occurring or has occurred within the homes of the members or during the course of church activities. As mentioned, they will either be historical or not immediately ongoing. It is to cater for the real life scenarios that the guidelines have been drawn up. We are not dealing primarily with emergency situations, but with matters which need to be dealt with properly as soon as possible. Delays of a few hours or even days will in most situations have little or no significance. CCPO’s has an important contact role for people in the church. Remember, people often fear going to the police with mere suspicions in case they are wrong. However, there is nothing wrong with good intent in these circumstances, but it is far easier for them to approach a responsible person in the church. The (approved) guidelines in the document linked above which are designed for any person within the church community who has concerns or suspicions of CSA are listed below in chronological order: GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO A CHILD WHO MAY HABE BEEN ABUSED . DON’T ASK QUESTIONS . DON’T MAKE PROMISES YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP, E.G. NOT TELLING ANYONE ELSE . ACCEPT WHAT YOUR HEAR WITHOUT PASSING JUDGEMENT . TELL THE CHILD WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO .MAKE CAREFUL NOTES (the circumstances, what the child said, what you said, etc) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY WITHIN AN HOUR. INCLUDE TIMES AND DATES OF INCIDENT/RECORDING AND KEEP THE NOTES SAFELY . CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN, OR, IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY . LISTEN AND PASS ON TO THE CHURCH PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR. DO NOT QUESTION OR INVESTIGATE . THE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICE OR CCPAS These are the guidelines approved by the agencies likely to be involved in CSA cases occurring within a church community. However, that is what they are, i.e, “guidelines.” They are NOT law. Nevertheless they will be excellent guidelines to follow in most circumstances. Common sense and circumstances will dictate where other measures may apply. Very often in historical (irrespective of time limit) or even suspected ongoing cases of CSA, people who have been advised to go to the police simply do not do so for a wide variety of reasons. Let's use the current Victoria case as a "hypothetical" example. Here we have at least ten victims of worker CSA, some going back thirty years. Most if not all have made their abuse known to others and have been advised to report the matter to the relevant authorities. However, so far, only one person has done so. Yet if all these persons had discussed their cases with a Church Child Protection Officer, it is likely far more of the cases would have been reported. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 18, 2010 6:53:14 GMT -5
MAKE CAREFUL NOTES (the circumstances, what the child said, what you said, etc) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY WITHIN AN HOUR. INCLUDE TIMES AND DATES OF INCIDENT/RECORDING AND KEEP THE NOTES SAFELY
. CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN, OR, IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY
. LISTEN AND PASS ON TO THE CHURCH PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR. DO NOT QUESTION OR INVESTIGATE
. THE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICE OR CCPAS"
This seems to circumvent the first person knowing of an incident reporting directly to the authorities...why is that even reccommended? Wouldn't most authorities this day and age have someone who would know how to find out these things from a child without trauma? Don't they have a psychologist or social worker on board or one easy to retain for such things.?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 7:09:05 GMT -5
MAKE CAREFUL NOTES (the circumstances, what the child said, what you said, etc) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, PREFERABLY WITHIN AN HOUR. INCLUDE TIMES AND DATES OF INCIDENT/RECORDING AND KEEP THE NOTES SAFELY . CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN, OR, IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY . LISTEN AND PASS ON TO THE CHURCH PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR. DO NOT QUESTION OR INVESTIGATE . THE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICE OR CCPAS" This seems to circumvent the first person knowing of an incident reporting directly to the authorities...why is that even reccommended? Wouldn't most authorities this day and age have someone who would know how to find out these things from a child without trauma? Don't they have a psychologist or social worker on board or one easy to retain for such things.? Sharon, please read the second of the guidelines you quoted. They are designed to endure that the police ARE notified. In many cases they are not or its overlooked in the confusion or in any delays. The important thing is that the matter IS reported, not WHO reports it. On an evidential note, and this applies in most sexual offences like rape etc, the first person a child speaks to after an event or in disclosing details, is a very important witness. Not so much the second, third, fourrth etc, as a child or sex victim's testimony can become confused with increased telling. The first person spoken to by the child should not "interrogate" but try and establish just what the child is trying to say. The words used by a child at this stage are very important. Also in a case of recent occurrence the demeanour, physical condition of the child and clothing etc can all have high evidential value. In order that the first person spoken to by the child correctly remembers exactly what was said and took place, they should write these things down as soon as practicable after the event and keep them in support of their own testimony. The police will take possession of the notes as evidence. This is all dealing with the initial stages of events. Trained persons come into play as the case unfolds. As you will appreciate it may be days before such people are available. |
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Oct 18, 2010 7:09:55 GMT -5
Let's use the current Victoria case as a "hypothetical" example. Here we have at least ten victims of worker CSA, some going back thirty years. Most if not all have made their abuse known to others and have been advised to report the matter to the relevant authorities. However, so far, only one person has done so. Yet if all these persons had discussed their cases with a Church Child Protection Officer, it is likely far more of the cases would have been reported. I agree ram. Many people who have been abused are afraid to go to the authorities, but would feel more comfortable dealing with someone who they know and trust within the church environment. We have looked at the document and it seems to be a sound set of guidelines that could be applied for child protection within our group. Thank you for your good work in this important area of child protection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 7:13:39 GMT -5
Thank you spiders. The more people who read this police influenced document the better. They will get a far better understanding of things in respect of the reality of these matters rather than relying on their imagination. They should print it out and keep it to hand for their own guidance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 18, 2010 7:13:53 GMT -5
The guidelin es within the article are helpful....what might not work for the fellowship is the fact that there is no governing board that calls for accountability in the top hierarachy of people. There are a few other religions that are set up much the same...the ministerial lefel is the controlling level and do not have anyone who calls for accountability within that sect of religion.
Otherwords, as in the fellowship, it seems the workers are a law unto themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 7:55:30 GMT -5
Sharon, you are right. It is not the guidelines or requirements which are the real problem. It is the "mindset" and culture. However, the CSA crisis cannot now be avoided and this issue may be a blessing in disguise in dealing with the control factor and lack of accountability.
Something has got to give and it won't be the need to address CSA issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Oct 18, 2010 8:55:09 GMT -5
There has been discussion in the past of worker accountability and worker job description.
Traditionally, the worker's role is ill defined. A young person going in to the work has little idea of what is expected. The "body language" of the work is that of great responsibility but when important issues come up responsibility is shirked to protect the status quo. The claim is that there is "on the job training", "there are no rules", "we are guided by the Holy Spirit", "We only preach the gospel", "We are not police". A young worker goes into the work not really understanding anything about what he is supposed to be doing.
In fact, there is a great responsibility when you assume spiritual leadership of people. Reporting CSA and other abuses that affect the spiritual well being of the people in your care is one of those responsibilities.
However, one is eyeball deep into the ministry before he understands this responsibility. I mean, a person might not want to be involved with CSA issues or any other abuse issues. But he's already sold all, quit his job and given five or six years of his life before he realizes that he has accepted a role he didn't want.
Now, if there were a simple worker training program describing these responsibilities, that would help people know if the wanted to go into the work or not. That training program could also be designed as a screening process and even background check. It would be advantageous to know the difficulties and rewards of the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 9:16:18 GMT -5
There has been discussion in the past of worker accountability and worker job description. Traditionally, the worker's role is ill defined. A young person going in to the work has little idea of what is expected. The "body language" of the work is that of great responsibility but when important issues come up responsibility is shirked to protect the status quo. The claim is that there is "on the job training", "there are no rules", "we are guided by the Holy Spirit", "We only preach the gospel", "We are not police". A young worker goes into the work not really understanding anything about what he is supposed to be doing. In fact, there is a great responsibility when you assume spiritual leadership of people. Reporting CSA and other abuses that affect the spiritual well being of the people in your care is one of those responsibilities. However, one is eyeball deep into the ministry before he understands this responsibility. I mean, a person might not want to be involved with CSA issues or any other abuse issues. But he's already sold all, quit his job and given five or six years of his life before he realizes that he has accepted a role he didn't want. Now, if there were a simple worker training program describing these responsibilities, that would help people know if the wanted to go into the work or not. That training program could also be designed as a screening process and even background check. It would be advantageous to know the difficulties and rewards of the work. An excellent trawl of reasons why openness and training are necessary. Night meetings at convention, or complete days could be given over to addressing these issues. That's just one example of where they could be discussed. People are trapped before they realise what "the work" involves. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 18, 2010 9:37:10 GMT -5
I agree ram. Many people who have been abused are afraid to go to the authorities, but would feel more comfortable dealing with someone who they know and trust within the church environment. Would they still be comfortable, knowing that the person they were confiding in would immediately notify authorities? What would be the difference in reporting it themselves? According to several who post on TMB, "other people" have been routinely taking CSA to authorities for years. And they STILL don't have expertise and resources to handle it?? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 9:44:02 GMT -5
Rational, I’m not going to respond to the individual points in your latest multi argument carve up of my previous post. I find this very tiresome and messy and besides I have learned that most people just scroll past them for the same reasons. Yes, churches have dealt with these matters very unsatisfactorily in the past, but they are now treating these matters very seriously nowadays (go ask some) and are willingly embracing sound doctrines on the matter, designed in conjunction with the police , social and child protection services. As long as it is recommended to the members to let church members be the gateway for these cases there is way for abuse. I picked the flow chart because it clearly outlines what the church recommends. Reporting directly to the police is the last step from that guide. In the text it is point 6 of 6. You think allowing the church to filter the reports is nitpicking? Of course. I failed to understand the difference between a "guideline" and a "law". Shame on me. I have no problem with the guidelines - I have a problem with church members being designated as the preferred gateway. Exactly. And the police state that they be reported to them first. I am not familiar with the efficiency of the child protection agency in the UK but in the US a 1 or 2 page form presented to CPS starts the investigation moving forward. CPS knows who to contact if they need help. No. It brings to mind organizations that, when informed of cases of child abuse, go out of their way to cover up the crime and persuade the victims not to report to authorities. As you said - this is not usually the case. Usually there is no immediate urgency. Gives people even more time to work out solutions. Correct, it is rare so why are you mentioning it? It does, however, still allow the church to impart its spin to the report. It is actually the role of the victim/guardian. Again, an emergency situation. Rare.You are saying that the reason to have this handled by a church member is because someone in the child protective may not be doing their job? And you don't think the parents/guardians would be smart/concerned enough to follow up? And who is to say that the church member was not on his way out the door to deliver a sermon? You are adding inks into the communication chain to cover the potentiality of broken links? The best way is to reduce the number of links. Exactly. The parents/guardians file the report. And this is why education of parents and children is so important. Why pass it on? Why not file the report? And the majority of the guidelines are excellent. In some cases because the church members have advised them not to. At the time what do you think they were advised? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 9:47:23 GMT -5
I agree ram. Many people who have been abused are afraid to go to the authorities, but would feel more comfortable dealing with someone who they know and trust within the church environment. Would they still be comfortable, knowing that the person they were confiding in would immediately notify authorities? What would be the difference in reporting it themselves? Have you forgotten that to a great extent we are talking about children and child protection. In historical cases where the victims are adults, it is up to these adults whether or not they wish to complain. After speaking to a responsible person an adult may or may not decide to go ahead with a complaint. No one can force them. With children, there is no "maybes" about it. They need protection and "Child" protection officers are a good way to go.According to several who post on TMB, "other people" have been routinely taking CSA to authorities for years. And they STILL don't have expertise and resources to handle it?? |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 18, 2010 9:59:47 GMT -5
According to several who post on TMB, "other people" have been routinely taking CSA to authorities for years. And they STILL don't have expertise and resources to handle it?? Since I am part of the fellowship "other people" (pardon my lack of expression) would be the informed people of the general population outside of the fellowship. And the authorities don't have the expertise and resources to handle it, according to your statement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 10:35:45 GMT -5
Are you referring to abuses in the "F&W's" church? "Routinely?" I thought the percentages was very low? Who doesn't have the expertise and knowledge to handle it? Please explain. Since I am part of the fellowship "other people" (pardon my lack of expression) would be the informed people of the general population outside of the fellowship. And the authorities don't have the expertise and resources to handle it, according to your statement. So you disagree with church communities designing child protection policies? Or, do you feel the F&W's fellowship is not a church community and should be regarded as "other people?" The police (at least in the UK) certainly do not possess the specialist expertise and resources required to deal with many aspects arising from CSA cases. That's why child protection services, social services, doctors, psychologists, nurses, teachers, etc can all be called upon to form a multi-agency response to a case. The expertise and resources are provided by the various agencies and professions making up the response. I suspect this applies in most cases in the western world. As far as Church Child Protection Officers are concerned, they will form a valuable liaison between the various factions which make up the multi-agency response and the church community which has appointed them. Just think of the difference this could make in Victoria right now, especially if it was children involved? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 10:42:52 GMT -5
CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN, OR, IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAY
THE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICE OR CCPAS
Rational, I just wonder if you did read the guidelines.
Also, did you read the heading above the flow chart.
This flowchart should not be regarded as a substitute for a child protection policy.
Boy, talk about splitting hairs which have been split which have been split.
The document has been designed (not by me) but by those best placed to design them. I'll go with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 12:07:24 GMT -5
The police (at least in the UK) certainly do not possess the specialist expertise and resources required to deal with many aspects arising from CSA cases. That's why child protection services, social services, doctors, psychologists, nurses, teachers, etc can all be called upon to form a multi-agency response to a case. The expertise and resources are provided by the various agencies and professions making up the response. I suspect this applies in most cases in the western world. In most parts of the world the CSA cases are worked by a social service agency and the police are called in for the criminal part of the activity. In most cases when you make report of CSA to the police they immediately hand it to the appropriate social service agency. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 12:18:14 GMT -5
CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN, OR, IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAYTHE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICE OR CCPAS
Exactly - go through the church member and they will make the contact. They should contact the authorities. I did read it. It is saying that this flow chart is not to be considered a substitute for developing an actual policy, just in case some organization decided to copy it, post it, and claim they had a child protection policy in place. I have no problem with the creation of a policy. I have a problem with a church member being the gatekeeper. OK. Just hope that sometime down the road the church member gatekeeper does not decide to convince the victim that it was not a serious event and since the perp had repented that there is really no need to go to the authorities. Besides, the perp has been moved out of the area. Oh, but that could never happen. The gatekeeper is, after all, a trusted church member. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 12:25:19 GMT -5
I agree ram. Many people who have been abused are afraid to go to the authorities, but would feel more comfortable dealing with someone who they know and trust within the church environment. Perhaps the overseer who has been assigned. Or the local priest who has been designated to monitor these things. If people are afraid to go to the authorities is the reason usually because it will name the church members responsible as a criminal? This is certainly what the party line in the past has been. Why do you think going to the very organization that people are worried about hurting is going to be any easier than going to the authorities? Could it be because the victims feel that going to the authorities will certainly result in investigation but going to a gatekeeper they will have informed but the investigation may remain internal? Why do you think people are afraid to go to the authorities? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 12:51:08 GMT -5
The police (at least in the UK) certainly do not possess the specialist expertise and resources required to deal with many aspects arising from CSA cases. That's why child protection services, social services, doctors, psychologists, nurses, teachers, etc can all be called upon to form a multi-agency response to a case. The expertise and resources are provided by the various agencies and professions making up the response. I suspect this applies in most cases in the western world. In most parts of the world the CSA cases are worked by a social service agency and the police are called in for the criminal part of the activity. In most cases when you make report of CSA to the police they immediately hand it to the appropriate social service agency. Oh my goodness. And what do you think forms the major part of the enquiry.? It is the criminal investigation! Now who deals with that! You may be right that in some parts of the worls that social service agencies have been given the statutory rights to carry out full investigations, but In my part of the world the police lead the investigations. Social services etc support the police in their investigation, because it is the police who have the statutory powers as well as the investigative skills. In any case it is a joint effort. If you are quibbling about the UK prepared document because in some parts of the world social services are the main investigative agency, then simply adapt the document to read social service agency instead of police in the appropriate places. If you re-read the document, the advice gives three options of reporting matters, i.e, the police, social services or to the CCPAS themselves. All will ensure the correct action is taken. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 12:59:40 GMT -5
CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CONCERN, OR, IN THEIR ABSENCE, TAKE ACTION WITHOUT DELAYTHE CHILD PROTECTION CO-ORDINATOR SHOULD CONTACT CHILDREN’S SERVICES, POLICE OR CCPAS
Exactly - go through the church member and they will make the contact. They should contact the authorities. I did read it. It is saying that this flow chart is not to be considered a substitute for developing an actual policy, just in case some organization decided to copy it, post it, and claim they had a child protection policy in place. I have no problem with the creation of a policy. I have a problem with a church member being the gatekeeper. OK. Just hope that sometime down the road the church member gatekeeper does not decide to convince the victim that it was not a serious event and since the perp had repented that there is really no need to go to the authorities. Besides, the perp has been moved out of the area. Oh, but that could never happen. The gatekeeper is, after all, a trusted church member. Rational, I think you are living somewhat in the past. All agencies and churches etc have been guilty in the past of not dealing with these matters properly, including the police and social services. And let me tell you that mistakes still happen with these investigative bodies. However, in recent times the mainstream churches (at least), along with the police, social services agencies, child protection charities etc, have all been working on achieving the best way of reporting matters and ensuring they do get reported. That's where the Safe and Secure document comes from. It may not be fire-proof, but it is agreed guidelines by all the agencies involved in these matters. In the UK police forces have family protection or child protection units. These are teams made up of trained police officers and social workers who work in conjuction with other agencies and professionals in dealing with these type of problems. I'm sure that in the other countries you allude to they also operate a multi agency approach, irrespective of which dept takes the lead on it. The important thing is that matters GET reported and a competent Church Child Protect Officer will in these enlightened times report any matter forthwith. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 13:08:02 GMT -5
How many abused children do you know who would feel confident to march down to the authorities to report the abuse? Like zero maybe?
I don't know if this information is available, but I expect that if this were surveyed, we would find that essentially all children under 14 will have talked to a trusted adult before a report was made.
The problem with most churches is that when a child reports to someone, it's not always an evil adult who wants to protect the church.....often it will be just an adult who is not equipped to deal with it, doesn't know what to do next, doesn't know who to talk to, and nothing happens. When there is a trained person available amongst the church members, it will even help that "first responder" adult have someone to go to in order find out the next right step.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 13:14:57 GMT -5
Clearday, yet again you make infallible observations.
Put children to one side for the moment. Consider adult women who have been victims of sexual offences, rape even, or even domestic abuse. Many do not report these matters and of those who do, many only go to the police or social services AFTER having spoken to a trusted friend or other adult.
This is how things happen in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Oct 18, 2010 13:21:15 GMT -5
I know of a trained counselor who was also a worker who offered his services to the workers in the CSA cases. They just brushed him off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 13:38:24 GMT -5
They just brushed him off.
Hi ts, you don't know if the corner of a carpet had been lifted anywhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Oct 18, 2010 13:49:37 GMT -5
They just brushed him off. Hi ts, you don't know if the corner of a carpet had been lifted anywhere? yes, you hit the carpet tack on the head. "brushed off" is a polite term. |
|
