|
Post by rjkee on Jul 6, 2011 6:54:31 GMT -5
Where can the photo be viewed?
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Jul 6, 2011 12:05:09 GMT -5
Evidently the claims that Tommy Gamble had removed him from the work was just whitewash. This sickens me- how can we respect those in charge if the statements (not allegations anymore) are not taken seriously? Why was the man even at convention in the first place? How is what he has done make him any less evil than Noel Tanner?
Who's going to alert the authorities? If the workers won't deal with the man then the authorities must although I understand (and don't disagree) there are those that say the police should have been informed at the outset of the scandal blowing up.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 6, 2011 12:29:03 GMT -5
This las is obviously not the Lloyd S from Canada.
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Jul 6, 2011 15:55:42 GMT -5
We in Ireland don't give a d*mn who the poster is. That's not the issue at hand so stop trying to derail a discussion about a very serious situation.
(Sorry las, not meaning to belittle you personally. I'm grateful for your input.)
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 6, 2011 19:11:30 GMT -5
What a disgrace - Fermanagh convention photo features the older worker who was removed from the work for abusing young girls. Oh yes Craig Fulton - your message about keeping the home safe holds lots of weight when you allow a man who abused others in their own home to appear in a workers photo. Who is the older worker? or what are his initials?
|
|
meg1
Junior Member
Posts: 146
|
Post by meg1 on Jul 6, 2011 19:31:33 GMT -5
Evidently the claims that Tommy Gamble had removed him from the work was just whitewash. This sickens me- how can we respect those in charge if the statements (not allegations anymore) are not taken seriously? Why was the man even at convention in the first place? How is what he has done make him any less evil than Noel Tanner? Who's going to alert the authorities? If the workers won't deal with the man then the authorities must although I understand (and don't disagree) there are those that say the police should have been informed at the outset of the scandal blowing up. I have been mulling this post today. I have a couple of thoughts. They are all in regard to the safety of victims. So here goes... The first thing that I wonder is to whom the statements were made? By whom? About what? (If statements have been made to the police that is a good first step) The second thing that I wonder about is when the photo mentioned was taken. (It may have been before or after the convention and does not necessarily indicate that the individual attended convention) Given these wonders, I do understand the emotional hurt that such a photo would cause to victims. In Ireland I do not know how the law works, but in my country if I have knowlege of abuse of a child, or even reasonable suspicion I must report to the police. Also, if I have knowlege of a person within proximity to a child who has been abused by the person, I must report if there is a restraining order in place. And I would feel morally bound to report even if there was no order. So I must report legally, even if I was not a witness or the recipient of a disclosure. The police personell that I have worked with have been very supportive and quick to act. I appreciate that.
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Jul 7, 2011 17:57:12 GMT -5
The first message in this thread mentions Craig Fulton's "message about keeping the home safe". Where and when was this message delivered by Craig? Robert
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Jul 8, 2011 6:11:16 GMT -5
Evidently the claims that Tommy Gamble had removed him from the work was just whitewash. This sickens me- how can we respect those in charge if the statements (not allegations anymore) are not taken seriously? Why was the man even at convention in the first place? How is what he has done make him any less evil than Noel Tanner? Who's going to alert the authorities? If the workers won't deal with the man then the authorities must although I understand (and don't disagree) there are those that say the police should have been informed at the outset of the scandal blowing up. I have been mulling this post today. I have a couple of thoughts. They are all in regard to the safety of victims. So here goes... The first thing that I wonder is to whom the statements were made? By whom? About what? (If statements have been made to the police that is a good first step) The second thing that I wonder about is when the photo mentioned was taken. (It may have been before or after the convention and does not necessarily indicate that the individual attended convention) Given these wonders, I do understand the emotional hurt that such a photo would cause to victims. In Ireland I do not know how the law works, but in my country if I have knowlege of abuse of a child, or even reasonable suspicion I must report to the police. Also, if I have knowlege of a person within proximity to a child who has been abused by the person, I must report if there is a restraining order in place. And I would feel morally bound to report even if there was no order. So I must report legally, even if I was not a witness or the recipient of a disclosure. The police personell that I have worked with have been very supportive and quick to act. I appreciate that. The statements were not made to the police. So far as I know and may be wrong, one victim told a senior worker of the abuse a few years ago but the worker didn't take the claim any further. Somehow the accusations were brought to Tommie Gamble's attention last year and Tommie I'm told, went straight to the accused and questioned him. It seems the accused admitted to the abuse but I'm told, didn't express any remorse. I believe he was removed from the work at that time and I, like many others, understood that the accused would be excommunicated just as Noel Tanner was. To learn that this is not the case is a devastating blow for at least some of his victims. I am acquainted with two of them. The photograph was taken at Fermanagh convention this year. I have learned that the accused was expected at convention with a suitably comfortable chair labelled with his name. The worker in charge at Fermanagh (Wilson Greene) either doesn't know of the claims made (unlikely given his name wasn't on last years workers list and the general widespread talk of the situation) or evidently doesn't care. There is no obligation to report suspected abuse in Northern Ireland to the police. It's up to the victim to make the report and supply a statement in order for the legal process to begin. I know one victim is considering by-passing the workers at this point.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 8, 2011 11:12:43 GMT -5
The statements were not made to the police. So far as I know and may be wrong, one victim told a senior worker of the abuse a few years ago but the worker didn't take the claim any further. Somehow the accusations were brought to Tommie Gamble's attention last year and Tommie I'm told, went straight to the accused and questioned him. It seems the accused admitted to the abuse but I'm told, didn't express any remorse. I believe he was removed from the work at that time and I, like many others, understood that the accused would be excommunicated just as Noel Tanner was. To learn that this is not the case is a devastating blow for at least some of his victims. I am acquainted with two of them. The photograph was taken at Fermanagh convention this year. I have learned that the accused was expected at convention with a suitably comfortable chair labelled with his name. The worker in charge at Fermanagh (Wilson Greene) either doesn't know of the claims made (unlikely given his name wasn't on last years workers list and the general widespread talk of the situation) or evidently doesn't care. There is no obligation to report suspected abuse in Northern Ireland to the police. It's up to the victim to make the report and supply a statement in order for the legal process to begin. I know one victim is considering by-passing the workers at this point. Wow emerald. I hope you can encourage and convince your acquaintances to do the right thing and go to the authorities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 11:40:04 GMT -5
emerald, there may be no legal obligation to report this matter to the police in NI (or the UK), but there nevertheless exists a moral, civic and christian obligation to do so. There is also a professional attitude to consider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 15:36:27 GMT -5
There is no obligation to report suspected abuse in Northern Ireland to the police. It's up to the victim to make the report and supply a statement in order for the legal process to begin. I know one victim is considering by-passing the workers at this point. Emerald, are you certain that there is no legal obligation to report abuse (I understand that it is more than mere suspicion at this stage) in Northern Ireland to the police? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 16:07:47 GMT -5
There is no obligation to report suspected abuse in Northern Ireland to the police. It's up to the victim to make the report and supply a statement in order for the legal process to begin. I know one victim is considering by-passing the workers at this point. Emerald, are you certain that there is no legal obligation to report abuse (I understand that it is more than mere suspicion at this stage) in Northern Ireland to the police? Matt10 Matt 10, I can't speak specifically for NI although I would find it hard to imagine it being very different from the rest of the UK. Over here it is generally a moral and civic obligation to report such unless it is occupations such as doctors, nurses, social workers etc, where it is usually occupational discipline that demands such not the actual law. Over here there is considerable publicity in making the reporting of such matters everyone's (moral and civic) responsibility and according to some of my sources this is believed to be far more successful than instituting mandatory reporting. Of course, this may be true for society in general, but for backward, unknown sections of society........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 16:22:10 GMT -5
Ram I am not a lawyer but we have the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (link below) of which Section 5 may apply in circumstances where a person has knowledge of the criminal offence of child abuse having occurred. If I was in a position of responsibility and did have knowledge of such an offence having taken place within my sphere of responsibility then I would be checking carefully with my lawyer what my legal obligations were. Actually, I wouldn't be checking with my lawyer, I would be going straight to the police, Matt10 www.legislation.gov.uk/apni/1967/18#commentary-c2032466
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Jul 8, 2011 18:21:31 GMT -5
The first message in this thread mentions Craig Fulton's "message about keeping the home safe". Where and when was this message delivered by Craig? Robert Hi Robert, Craig spoke something along these lines at Fermanagh convention this year (2011).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 2:13:18 GMT -5
The first message in this thread mentions Craig Fulton's "message about keeping the home safe". Where and when was this message delivered by Craig? Robert Hi Robert, Craig spoke something along these lines at Fermanagh convention this year (2011). The 'Keeping the Home Safe' sermon is a familiar one and has very little to do with burglar alarms or keeping the Billy McRyans of this world away from your children. This sermon is all about keeping things out of your home which are perceived by the two-by-two hierarchy to be detrimental to your ability to give continued unswerving loyalty to the two-by-two system. Such things generally fall into the twin categories of entertainment and education. In my day it was primarily television but reference was also made from time to time to music, radios, children's comics, women's fashions, christian literature, the Secret Sect and people who were non-professing. In later years the focus at Fermanagh moved from television to personal computers and the internet in particular. The standard line was the dangers of such things in robbing one of one's time and the warning that God wasn't in them. Of course God wasn't in the Readers Digest either but there you are now. I'm not sure what was the overarching focus of Mr Fulton's modern day 'Keeping the Home Safe' sermon but I sincerely hope it wasn't the laptop. The Workers were the first people ever to bring a laptop into my parents' house and crept downstairs in the night to hook it up to the phone line while the rest of the house were sleeping. Strange people. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 6:13:22 GMT -5
Matt, if I'm not mistaken what prompted this part of the legislation was the sectarian troubles in Northern Ireland where many people withheld information relating to serious crimes. Even Catholic Priests were accused of withholding information on IRA suspects.
It appears that this piece of legislation is general by its definition of "relevant offences." The article 20 exemption (Sex Offenders NI Order 2008) does not apply to the case in question as it really deals with children and young persons (under 18 years) indulging in CSA against other minors.
I think all NI CSA offences are covered by Statutory Legislation, therefore the sentences for the offences will have maximum penalties. For this legislation to apply to the case in question the penalty for the offence(s) would need to be "fixed" in law. This usually applies in serious cases such as murder. The offender would need to be 21 years of age and liable on conviction to a term of at least 5 years imprisonment (fixed) even if it was his first offence.
Even without this piece of legislation common sense should be sufficient to direct someone to report matters to the authorities whenever they have reasonable grounds for suspecting CSA is or was occurring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 12:54:32 GMT -5
Ram
I understand that the article 20 exemption was designed to remove the requirement to report consensual non-exploitive sexual relations between young people under 18 where at least one party in the relationship is aged between 13 and 15. This would seem to support the view that the obligation under Section 5 of the 1967 Act therefore applies to all other parts of the Sex Offenders (NI) Order 2008 where the offence is a 'relevant offence' according to definition in Section 4(1A). The only thing I would appear to differ on is that I think the relevant offence test applies to offences in respect of which a person aged 21 or over may be liable to conviction to a term of imprisonment of five years i.e. offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is at least five years rather than a minimum of five years even if it was a first offence.
I agree that there is a strong moral obligation to report such matters to the authorities, however I suspect there may be an equally strong reluctance within some religious groups to report such matters on the basis that they may wish to avoid the obvious negative publicity that would inevitably follow any prosecution and therefore may prefer to deal with the issue internally. The point I have been trying to make here is that (if I am correct in my interpretation - and I'm no lawyer) there may be a legal obligation on the workers to report such matters (where they have information) and if they understand this this, then the idea of spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure may encourage them to act more than any moral obligation would. I think that failure to report such matters may indicate either that they do not take the issue of CSA seriously or that they believe thay are above or outside of the law. Or perhaps both. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 13:08:54 GMT -5
Matt I'm no lawyer either but the section 4 definition for "relevant offence" under the act clearly states:
Sect 1 (1a) a "An offence for which the sentence is FIXED by law."
Most statutes in NI and the rest of the UK include maximum sentences (not fixed) which a presiding Judge or Magistrate can vary according to the details of the case. Fixed sentences seem to be Northern Ireland thing which I admit I am not 100% clear about, but seem to be applied for a variety of serious matters including murder (and probably many offences related to terrorism?).
It is the term "Fixed Sentence" which in my view would exclude the majority of csa cases because the accused would have to face the further prospect of a (fixed) sentence of five years or more. The offences reported would have to be punishable by a Fixed Sentence subject to at least that term of imprisonment. Most cases of CSA at least over here would not fall into that category of sentence. However, workers would have no way of knowing the severity of each case or the potential penalties or even if they had a responsibility to report or not.
Regarding the reluctance of clergy to report csa matters. There have been many advances in this field in recent years over here. Every one of the churches (not many I admit) that I have had contact with in this respect have shown a willingness in this field that suggests an over-keenness to be seen to be clean. There is a clear moral, Christian and civic message getting through. Unfortunately groups like the workers have slipped under the radar. It is frustrating.
I am having difficulty finding a site that defines "fixed sentences" in Northern Ireland. This appears to be a different way of determining the application and management of prison sentences from the rest of the UK. I will try later when I have more time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 14:05:25 GMT -5
Matt 10,
FYI I was very recently talking to a female Family Protection Officer from my home force about the subject of mandatory reporting. The general opinion is that this has proved counter-productive because in many cases people don't want to see or hear about the things they would then become mandated to report. This has even proved to be the case with some even in professional organisations and workplaces where occupational procedures are in force to have such matters reported and disciplinary proceedings can result from non-compliance.
The general drive here is to raise awareness of the issues and place a civic and moral responsibility on everyone to report such matters. This has encouraged people to openly talk about the issues and to discuss any suspicious incidents. With forced reporting people often bury their hunches before others are aware of them because they fear their responsibilities.
However, insular groups like the 2x2s fear the real world and will tend to bury their responsibilities no matter the approach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 14:29:26 GMT -5
Matt I'm sure you noticed that Section 5 (1) places a duty on everyone who knows or believes an offence has been committed to report the matter to a constable within a reasonable time.
Even if all cases of CSA or whatever abuse were covered by this legislation, in most cases the first people to find out about CSA is the child's own parents or friends etc. Workers have a way out here. If anyone attempted to tell them about suspected cases, even if it involved fellow workers, all they need to do is to remind the parents or whoever that it is THEIR legal duty to report the matter to the police. Once a worker becomes involved they also have this responsibility. Unfortunately this can breed a climate of "I don't want to know!"
Section 5(2) offers further ways out, at least in more minor cases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 14:46:18 GMT -5
Ram
I think our difference of opinion is down to whether Section 5(1A)(a) and 5(1A)(b) are both required to be met (an AND) or whether they are two entirely separate tests (an OR). However it's Saturday night here so there are traditions to be fulfilled but I will explore further tomorrow along with your other points. There's nothing quite like two non-lawyers debating the law is there? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 15:09:03 GMT -5
Ram I think our difference of opinion is down to whether Section 5(1A)(a) and 5(1A)(b) are both required to be met (an AND) or whether they are two entirely separate tests (an OR). However it's Saturday night here so there are traditions to be fulfilled but I will explore further tomorrow along with your other points. There's nothing quite like two non-lawyers debating the law is there? Matt10 Matt, no matter what we're singing from the same hymnsheet. This legislation is not rocket science. I have steadily been becoming less prone to the idea of mandatory reporting. It seems very simple, but in practice can be complex in application. This piece of law confirms that for me and catapults me further away from the principle. However, the alternatives merely provide a shell for the snail-like approach of the workers. FWIW Sections 5(1) a and (b) both have to be met. Note the use of "and" at the end of the former. If you were referring instead to 4(1A) a and b, both these subsections appear to be inclusive elements of section 4 (1).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 3:24:43 GMT -5
Ram, My apologies, yes I was referring to the 'relevent offence' test in 4(1A)(a) and (b) and whether these are inclusive. My view is that the absence of the 'and' at the end of paragraph (a) indicates that both do not have to be met. I agree it is a little ambiguous but I can find no sentences fixed by law in the 2008 Order which therefore begs the question as to why it was necessary to exempt article 20 of the Order. I also came across the attached NSPCC article together with the attached factsheet which seem to support mandatory reporting in Northern Ireland. As to proving a way out for the workers, I would think that the court would take the view that given their position of authority within the sect they would have to have a pretty good defence against a charge under Setion 5(1). I doubt that merely having informed the parents would be an acceptable defence. Regardless of what the law says, I hope this dialog has provided at least some food for thought amongst those preaching about keeping your home safe. And I'm quite sure that the two-by-two corporate pocket is sufficiently deep to stretch to taking profession legal advice. It would be cheaper than hiring a defence lawyer. Matt10 www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/findings/mandatoryreportingni_wda51129.htmlwww.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/lawonsex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2011 4:28:40 GMT -5
Matt, my apologies. I need a better understanding of "fixed sentences" in Northern Ireland. The NSPCC certainly does support mandatory reporting in virtually all cases of CSA. However, although I think this piece of legislation can apply to the workers I think in most cases it would be difficult to enforce.
Section 5 of the Act places a legal duty upon "every other person" other than the culprit, who has knowledge of the offence to report it to a constable within a reasonable time. This includes the victim, parents, friends and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. In most cases, but not all, the workers receive information further down the line from persons closer to the victim or the crime. Whilst "technically" the workers then have a responsibility to report the matter, they have the out clause that the lawful thing that the persons informing THEM, should have obeyed the law and gone to the police first. In other words, the victim if above non-age, their parents or whoever is first to know about the offence, has a legal duty to go to the police (within a reasonable time) rather than the workers. Anyone going to the workers is legally bound to go to the police. If they do not do so, they commit an offence and whilst the workers may technically also be guilty, it is far more likely they could be used as witnesses against those who come to them with the matter rather than going to the police.
Furthermore, no offence is committed by not reporting if restitution to the satisfaction of the victim is made. (Sect 5 (2))Oh, oh ! More carpet lifting ?? A great out here for an insular group like the 2x2s.
I think the concept of mandatory reporting in NI has its origins in the sectarian troubles where people harboured terrorists, kept stum about very serious matters and where the police enquiries were very seriously hampered by everyone knowing what happened in the pub but no one would give a statement to the police.
Anyway this would make a good subject to thrash out whilst lubricating the throat with some Irish oil.
The way I now see it for most cases (based upon people with knowledge of offences going to workers) is that the workers should in order to protect themselves:
1) Inform their informants to abide by their legal obligations to report the matter to the police within a reasonable time.
2) Establish whether or not this has been done. If not then they should take steps themselves to ensure it has been done, including reporting the matter themselves if need be.
This in my view would be a fair approach to the workers. In cases where workers have first hand knowledge (ie confessions from fellow workers or coming across incidents) then they have the primary responsibility to report the matter themselves.
|
|
|
Post by x4r3d2 on Jul 10, 2011 18:52:48 GMT -5
Just to clarify, as the question has been asked who this thread is referring to, it's not talking about NN who hasn't been accused of this behaviour. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Jul 11, 2011 4:47:52 GMT -5
Just to clarify, as the question has been asked who this thread is referring to, it's not talking about NN who hasn't been accused of this behaviour. Please correct me if I'm wrong. No, nothing to do with NN. And just to say that the workers name can't be mentioned unless they have been convicted - otherwise this could turn into a real gossip board.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2011 21:25:23 GMT -5
Who's going to alert the authorities? If the workers won't deal with the man then the authorities must although I understand (and don't disagree) there are those that say the police should have been informed at the outset of the scandal blowing up. Since you seem to have all the knowledge why don't you alert the authorities?
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jul 12, 2011 0:19:45 GMT -5
Who's going to alert the authorities? If the workers won't deal with the man then the authorities must although I understand (and don't disagree) there are those that say the police should have been informed at the outset of the scandal blowing up. Since you seem to have all the knowledge why don't you alert the authorities? Brilliant question. I would wonder why anyone there, who knows...ex teenager and others...what hinders you from doing the right thing?
|
|