|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 19, 2012 18:13:54 GMT -5
In normal family life, this may well be true...however there are families that have grown up in the fellowship for years, their children are "isolated" from "normal" sex behaviours and how to know what is normal and what is abnormal and HOW to HANDLE any of that. The isolation of the children growing up in the fellowship tend to make them ideal targets for not only CSA as youngsters, but for acquaintance and/or date rape as adults, because sex has always been an subject well covered up in the fellowship. I think that the fellowship's children typically are being a little more exposed to these things in this day and age, but there still are some parents that cannot bring themselves to speak much about sex, much less sexual crimes with their growing children. I think sex education along with CSA education is an IMPERATIVE needful thing for the families in general within the fellowship. Maybe this was true when your generation and mine was growing up, but our children's generation? I don't think so! Then why are we still having trouble with CSA? There are many of the professing families who are home schooling their children, so they are not around the "worldly" children to hear what goes on in the "world"...so they still are in isolation from this kind of info. Fact is, I think perhaps there are MORE children in professing families who have far less to do with outside children due to the home schooling and the parents want it thus to keep the world's effect off of those children.....there are pro's and con's for home schooling, Emy and when it's done by a fellowshipper then there is far less information that the child gets as far as protecting themself from such heinous acts esp. those coming from workers/elders who are supposedly thought to be above board and blameless. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2012 18:22:38 GMT -5
A conviction and a complete investigation are 2 different things. Why a "complete investigation" before someone is warned, eh? When a "complete investigation" is done, then there are going to be "legal charges" or a "legal dismissal". This would not protect the children in the meantime. Emy, due to the reluctant nature of CSA victims to want to discuss what has happened at the time it has happened, this gives time to the offender to move, to get their push in for their "greatness of service" or some other wording sjuch as Ray Hoffman used for Ira Hobbs.....but also gives more time for the "grooming of more victims" and likely more accounts of CSA for that offender. Why not protect the children beyond that, eh? Why do you have to have an investigation even started yet to want to protect the children. And no you don't have to make the children anxious in the meantime...THIS is when parents and other responsible adults within the social group to be the ones who keep their eyes open and their children within their knowledge of where they are 24/7. I understand the reservations about publicizing sexual offenders who have only been charged, however the safety of children far outweighs the damage to reputation if the alleged offender proves innocent. |
|
mira
New Member
Posts: 35 
|
Post by mira on Apr 19, 2012 18:34:38 GMT -5
As for Emy and Kiwi, I agree, keep it quiet. It is giving too many a bad name, especially the guilty ones...................Sweep it, sweep it......... I have to agree. The more we debate other issues the more we're sweeping the actual issue we're discussing under the mat (or is it carpet?). The issue here is a man in the north of NZ who is a known CSA offender who has a meeting in his home and meets with children whose parents are unaware of his past. Noels, surely you cannot support that? The very LEAST thing that should happen is a letter to every parent in the area advising them of this mans past. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 19, 2012 18:38:28 GMT -5
In the interests of ballance, does anyone know of cases where accusations of child sexual offending amongst friends and workers has proven to be unfounded?
Frankly I find it frustrating that apologists for the status quo are more concerned about "false accusations" and "gossip" than protecting children from the sexual predators amongst us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2012 18:48:27 GMT -5
If someone has been charged with a CSA offence, who should know? Some of the church guidelines I've seen cast quite a wide net. When our daughter was first away from home for school she frequently attended meeting with a man who had a 'cease and desist' on contact with juveniles. (He is identified on the WINGS site). I believe that we should have been informed about this, although nothing untoward happened. So based on that experience, I think that everyone within the catchment of a common convention or conventions should be informed. I think I am safe in saying that if a known offender lives near a college, that college would feel NO responsibility to advise the parents. At least we were told in parent orientation that nothing of our child's personal life would be reported to us (including grades). We were clearly instructed that they are now adults.  The more appropriate comparison between a meeting responsibility with a college kid vs college responsibility and a college kid is to ask what the college would do if one of their staff were CSA offenders. That is a much closer parallel than the college's responsibility toward their kids from CSA offenders in the surrounding city area. You probably have a good idea how the college admin would deal with a staff member who is a CSA offender. As far as What's concern about an offender in meeting goes, it is true that as young people age toward adulthood, their "need to know" declines in circumstances like this. Although there are legal ages for many things, legal age does not define the exact age when vulnerability goes from 100% one day to 0% the next day. Some kids are totally safe at 16, others may be still somewhat vulnerable at 20. It's like reporting CSA suspicions, if you have doubts, then you report. Similarly with older kids, if you are not sure if you should take steps to protect them, then you should take steps to protect them and not even debate whether 17, 18,19, etc is the "right" age. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2012 19:07:13 GMT -5
In the interests of ballance, does anyone know of cases where accusations of child sexual offending amongst friends and workers has proven to be unfounded? Frankly I find it frustrating that apologists for the status quo are more concerned about "false accusations" and "gossip" than protecting children from the sexual predators amongst us. Some years ago I worked with one of the friends who was falsely accused and ultimately cleared of all charges against him. In fact, it was Googl-ing concerning that incident that first led me to the TMB. The point I would make in his case is that adequate disclosure policies would not have hurt him any more than he was hurt by gossip and suspicion surrounding the case. Honest disclosure would have been better than the rumour and innuendo that surrounded him for about two years. Basically, his life was hell during that time, but mainly for reasons that have nothing to do with the friends; he was not allowed near his other children until he was eventually cleared. After the friends learn how to deal with CSA, the next step is to learn how to deal with forgiveness of the offender and where possible, rehabilitation of the offender. I believe they won't get to the second stage until they get past the first. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2012 19:09:46 GMT -5
Students away from home are vulnerable though. Students and adults 'need to know' not only incidents of sexual abuse but also harassment. most universities go to great lengths to protect the students. I taught at one for a while and they had free rape prevention courses, free self defense courses, they offered escorts at no charge to people who were afraid to walk on campus alone after dark, free counseling etc. Universities tend to work very hard at creating a safe environment--and there are always campus police who handle (very vigorously) things like rape and harassment. True--they don't necessarily tell Mommy everything that is going on at the campus---but that is just part of treating the young adults like adults. Apples and Onions to be comparing the two situations. The only thing that I really see in common is that at the University (like at meetings) you do have a privileged class--who people want to protect. Star athletes, professors who bring in lots of grant money....they are ALMOST revered as much as workers (but not quite) All good points, ckirkham. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2012 19:24:48 GMT -5
I think I am safe in saying that if a known offender lives near a college, that college would feel NO responsibility to advise the parents. At least we were told in parent orientation that nothing of our child's personal life would be reported to us (including grades). We were clearly instructed that they are now adults. The more appropriate comparison between a meeting responsibility with a college kid vs college responsibility and a college kid is to ask what the college would do if one of their staff were CSA offenders. That is a much closer parallel than the college's responsibility toward their kids from CSA offenders in the surrounding city area. You probably have a good idea how the college admin would deal with a staff member who is a CSA offender. As far as What's concern about an offender in meeting goes, it is true that as young people age toward adulthood, their "need to know" declines in circumstances like this. Although there are legal ages for many things, legal age does not define the exact age when vulnerability goes from 100% one day to 0% the next day. Some kids are totally safe at 16, others may be still somewhat vulnerable at 20. It's like reporting CSA suspicions, if you have doubts, then you report. Similarly with older kids, if you are not sure if you should take steps to protect them, then you should take steps to protect them and not even debate whether 17, 18,19, etc is the "right" age. I would argue that as they grow older the risk of being victimized declines, but the need to know remains the same. If there's a sexual offender in the midst of a meeting, everyone should know, because it's everyone's job to protect children. I believe that the risk to our daughter in this case was very low. But either she or we should have been told. The person in question had a conviction. He was also found in breach of a 'cease and desist', coming into contact with a minor when he was ordered not to. I wonder if better disclosure would have prevented that breach, or if other unreported breaches occurred. (In fairness to the offender, the offence was child pornography and the perp has never engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor) |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2012 20:18:06 GMT -5
As for Emy and Kiwi, I agree, keep it quiet. It is giving too many a bad name, especially the guilty ones...................Sweep it, sweep it......... What a pathetic thing to say  |
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 19, 2012 20:38:08 GMT -5
I think I am safe in saying that if a known offender lives near a college, that college would feel NO responsibility to advise the parents. At least we were told in parent orientation that nothing of our child's personal life would be reported to us (including grades). We were clearly instructed that they are now adults. The more appropriate comparison between a meeting responsibility with a college kid vs college responsibility and a college kid is to ask what the college would do if one of their staff were CSA offenders. That is a much closer parallel than the college's responsibility toward their kids from CSA offenders in the surrounding city area. You probably have a good idea how the college admin would deal with a staff member who is a CSA offender. As far as What's concern about an offender in meeting goes, it is true that as young people age toward adulthood, their "need to know" declines in circumstances like this. Although there are legal ages for many things, legal age does not define the exact age when vulnerability goes from 100% one day to 0% the next day. Some kids are totally safe at 16, others may be still somewhat vulnerable at 20. It's like reporting CSA suspicions, if you have doubts, then you report. Similarly with older kids, if you are not sure if you should take steps to protect them, then you should take steps to protect them and not even debate whether 17, 18,19, etc is the "right" age. very true. it is an interesting thing about vulnerability and weakness--humans start out completely helpless--and if they live long enough most are fairly vulnerable in their old age as well. someone mentioned doing what Jesus would do--you can't go too far wrong if you try to protect those who are vulnerable. I personally have always felt more of a calling toward the elderly--simply because many of them outlive friends and family and are alone and forgotten (whereas most children do have people interested in protecting them). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2012 21:20:22 GMT -5
In the interests of ballance, does anyone know of cases where accusations of child sexual offending amongst friends and workers has proven to be unfounded? I have looked into the issue of false accusations in general. Offhand, I don't recall the % of false accusations to true accusations but false accusations are in the realm of 5%, definitely under 10%. In the F&W situation, one example of false accusations is with the MI twins in which over 100 were falsely accused. Yes, those are prime excuses for apologists to put children secondary to protecting the pride and reputation of the system. When I broached a local worker on the subject of CSA a few years ago, false accusations were her prime concern. I knew then we had a looooong way to go to correct a destructive culture. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2012 21:29:10 GMT -5
The more appropriate comparison between a meeting responsibility with a college kid vs college responsibility and a college kid is to ask what the college would do if one of their staff were CSA offenders. That is a much closer parallel than the college's responsibility toward their kids from CSA offenders in the surrounding city area. You probably have a good idea how the college admin would deal with a staff member who is a CSA offender. As far as What's concern about an offender in meeting goes, it is true that as young people age toward adulthood, their "need to know" declines in circumstances like this. Although there are legal ages for many things, legal age does not define the exact age when vulnerability goes from 100% one day to 0% the next day. Some kids are totally safe at 16, others may be still somewhat vulnerable at 20. It's like reporting CSA suspicions, if you have doubts, then you report. Similarly with older kids, if you are not sure if you should take steps to protect them, then you should take steps to protect them and not even debate whether 17, 18,19, etc is the "right" age. I would argue that as they grow older the risk of being victimized declines, but the need to know remains the same. If there's a sexual offender in the midst of a meeting, everyone should know, because it's everyone's job to protect children. I believe that the risk to our daughter in this case was very low. But either she or we should have been told. The person in question had a conviction. He was also found in breach of a 'cease and desist', coming into contact with a minor when he was ordered not to. I wonder if better disclosure would have prevented that breach, or if other unreported breaches occurred. (In fairness to the offender, the offence was child pornography and the perp has never engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor) Actually, to further refine the "need to know" aspect, it makes a difference whether the offender is a known offender (confessed, convicted or proven), and whether or not the offender is accused. Those are two different things. Full disclosure should occur with convicted offenders. However, start spreading information about an alleged offender and you could find yourself with a significant lawsuit on your hands. It is not appropriate to broadcast information about an alleged offender, but parents with vulnerable children need to know. In the NZ case, if the man is a convicted offender, then there should be extensive information available without reservation. If he is not on public record as convicted, then then information has to be restricted to the "need to know" group. The art of protecting children is always about risk mitigation, so common sense often has to be applied even when following Guidelines. However, if an error is to be made, the error should always be in favour of the children. |
|
jwatt
Senior Member
Posts: 211
|
Post by jwatt on Apr 19, 2012 21:32:21 GMT -5
A conviction and a complete investigation are 2 different things. Why a "complete investigation" before someone is warned, eh? When a "complete investigation" is done, then there are going to be "legal charges" or a "legal dismissal". This would not protect the children in the meantime. Emy, due to the reluctant nature of CSA victims to want to discuss what has happened at the time it has happened, this gives time to the offender to move, to get their push in for their "greatness of service" or some other wording sjuch as Ray Hoffman used for Ira Hobbs.....but also gives more time for the "grooming of more victims" and likely more accounts of CSA for that offender. Why not protect the children beyond that, eh? Why do you have to have an investigation even started yet to want to protect the children. And no you don't have to make the children anxious in the meantime...THIS is when parents and other responsible adults within the social group to be the ones who keep their eyes open and their children within their knowledge of where they are 24/7. I would hope this would be the first step, protect those children, while waiting to see if someone is guilty of this offence. There appears to be more concern for the guilty and to keep this quiet. If not found guilty then it has to b a huge relief for all concerned but at least children would be kept safe in the meantime. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 19, 2012 21:32:30 GMT -5
I have to agree. The more we debate other issues the more we're sweeping the actual issue we're discussing under the mat (or is it carpet?). The issue here is a man in the north of NZ who is a known CSA offender who has a meeting in his home and meets with children whose parents are unaware of his past. Noels, surely you cannot support that? The very LEAST thing that should happen is a letter to every parent in the area advising them of this mans past. I'm not sure you have this stated accurately. Here is what the OP said: But you are saying that even though a fair % of f&w know, the parents in the meeting do not? That seems unlikely unless that meeting is not connected to the "truth grapevine"! It hasn't even been said that they were not officially notified, so maybe they were. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 19, 2012 21:36:56 GMT -5
In the interests of ballance, does anyone know of cases where accusations of child sexual offending amongst friends and workers has proven to be unfounded? Frankly I find it frustrating that apologists for the status quo are more concerned about "false accusations" and "gossip" than protecting children from the sexual predators amongst us. I have looked into the issue of false accusations in general. Offhand, I don't recall the % of false accusations to true accusations but false accusations are in the realm of 5%, definitely under 10%. In the F&W situation, one example of false accusations is with the MI twins in which over 100 were falsely accused. Over how much time? I think by the thrid accusation there would have been concern about validity....if not with the second. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 19, 2012 21:39:37 GMT -5
In the interests of ballance, does anyone know of cases where accusations of child sexual offending amongst friends and workers has proven to be unfounded? Frankly I find it frustrating that apologists for the status quo are more concerned about "false accusations" and "gossip" than protecting children from the sexual predators amongst us. Yes, I do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2012 21:50:25 GMT -5
I have to agree. The more we debate other issues the more we're sweeping the actual issue we're discussing under the mat (or is it carpet?). The issue here is a man in the north of NZ who is a known CSA offender who has a meeting in his home and meets with children whose parents are unaware of his past. Noels, surely you cannot support that? The very LEAST thing that should happen is a letter to every parent in the area advising them of this mans past. I'm not sure you have this stated accurately. Here is what the OP said: But you are saying that even though a fair % of f&w know, the parents in the meeting do not? That seems unlikely unless that meeting is not connected to the "truth grapevine"! It hasn't even been said that they were not officially notified, so maybe they were. I believe mira has stated it correctly. It's not known what a "fair %" means, but I suspect that it means those F&Ws who are aware of such issues know about it. However, those F&Ws who operate as though there are few or no problems in the meetings would not know. That is "more than a fair %" of friends. Let's hope the report comes back now that the "need to know" folks have been informed. This situation is now under audit and we all hope that the NZ ministry will do the right thing. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 19, 2012 22:23:44 GMT -5
I would argue that as they grow older the risk of being victimized declines, but the need to know remains the same. If there's a sexual offender in the midst of a meeting, everyone should know, because it's everyone's job to protect children. I believe that the risk to our daughter in this case was very low. But either she or we should have been told. The person in question had a conviction. He was also found in breach of a 'cease and desist', coming into contact with a minor when he was ordered not to. I wonder if better disclosure would have prevented that breach, or if other unreported breaches occurred. (In fairness to the offender, the offence was child pornography and the perp has never engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor) Actually, to further refine the "need to know" aspect, it makes a difference whether the offender is a known offender (confessed, convicted or proven), and whether or not the offender is accused. Those are two different things. Full disclosure should occur with convicted offenders. However, start spreading information about an alleged offender and you could find yourself with a significant lawsuit on your hands. It is not appropriate to broadcast information about an alleged offender, but parents with vulnerable children need to know. In the NZ case, if the man is a convicted offender, then there should be extensive information available without reservation. If he is not on public record as convicted, then then information has to be restricted to the "need to know" group. The art of protecting children is always about risk mitigation, so common sense often has to be applied even when following Guidelines. However, if an error is to be made, the error should always be in favour of the children. If the offender is charged, I believe you can tell people that, and you should. If the victim will not press charges I don't think there is much you can do. Of course, you could check it out in this book:  The book contains a sample media disclosure policy, letter to the church, and letter to the community. The book was written by Beth Swagman, Director of Safe Church Ministry for the Christian Reformed Church. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2012 23:24:51 GMT -5
Why a "complete investigation" before someone is warned, eh? When a "complete investigation" is done, then there are going to be "legal charges" or a "legal dismissal". This would not protect the children in the meantime. Emy, due to the reluctant nature of CSA victims to want to discuss what has happened at the time it has happened, this gives time to the offender to move, to get their push in for their "greatness of service" or some other wording sjuch as Ray Hoffman used for Ira Hobbs.....but also gives more time for the "grooming of more victims" and likely more accounts of CSA for that offender. Why not protect the children beyond that, eh? Why do you have to have an investigation even started yet to want to protect the children. And no you don't have to make the children anxious in the meantime...THIS is when parents and other responsible adults within the social group to be the ones who keep their eyes open and their children within their knowledge of where they are 24/7. I would hope this would be the first step, protect those children, while waiting to see if someone is guilty of this offence. There appears to be more concern for the guilty and to keep this quiet. If not found guilty then it has to b a huge relief for all concerned but at least children would be kept safe in the meantime. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Apr 19, 2012 23:46:50 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see how this scenario is played out and whether the course of action will be influenced by whether or not the guy has a brother senior in the ministry in Asia. Or even elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 0:39:59 GMT -5
I have looked into the issue of false accusations in general. Offhand, I don't recall the % of false accusations to true accusations but false accusations are in the realm of 5%, definitely under 10%. In the F&W situation, one example of false accusations is with the MI twins in which over 100 were falsely accused. Over how much time? I think by the thrid accusation there would have been concern about validity....if not with the second. I believe that once the investigation got going, the numbers increased exponentially. I recall when I was told it was 23 and I lost confidence in the credibility at that point, but it kept going up rapidly after that. The investigators must have thought they caught the Big One! |
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by simon on Apr 20, 2012 3:13:12 GMT -5
Steffan, I cannot verify for you whether the said elder is still taking the meetings in his own home, or not. I do not know which case you are talking about. I do know that in some instances in NZ, where an elder has been guilty of some misdemeanour, that the meeting has been left in his home, but someone else steps in to give out the hymns. In one case I know of, a relative of a “guilty elder” told me that elder was not to take meetings in his home for a certain length of time, and in that time the workers in the area were to attend each week, so that the friends would not suspect any untoward behaviour having taken place! A certain humility WAS present for a few weeks, apparently. But later an even more tragic event that took place in that home came to light later, that has caused a lot of heartache, and has never been resolved in a satisfactory way.
Punishment of that sort seems to miss the point somehow.
To be honest, I find your other questions, while more general, equally as profound. Many here feel that since "his co-helper died a few years back", that fear of man has been playing an increasingly larger role, along with a certain lack of fear of man....a feeling of, I stand above it all, untouchable. The independent observation definitely has some truth in it. We know here of several situations where no action has been taken, for such reasons as..." It could affect his children if I put him out", or " His wife has enough to suffer, and she would suffer more if we took the meeting away" , or "The person with the misdemeanour has a difficult nature". And such reasons are reasons enough to do nothing
We are living in scary times here.
So- why doesn’t he act ? Out of fear? Out of caution? Out of wisdom? Out of pride? We cannot judge that completely. Or is there a complacent feeling that most friends will be nobly loyal whatever?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 3:19:00 GMT -5
I agree it is the parents' responsibility, but more often than not, the parent is the offender. Emy, you wrote :"more often than not, the parent is the offender." Now to justify your statement you've switched to "a related adult" which is something very different. That could be an uncle, a cousin, a sibling, etc. Sometimes a parent, but more often another related adult. It probably includes a step-parent as well. Could you please quote an authoratative source that would back up your statement that "more often than not, the parent is the offender." As a mother of sons, my heart goes out to that mother and family, but that doesn't change facts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#DemographicsIncest between a child or adolescent and a related adult has been identified as the most widespread form of child sexual abuse with a huge capacity for damage to a child One researcher stated that more than 70% of abusers are immediate family members or someone very close to the family. Another researcher stated that about 30% of all perpetrators of sexual abuse are related to their victim, 60% of the perpetrators are family acquaintances, like a neighbor, babysitter or friend and 10% of the perpetrators in child sexual abuse cases are strangers..... I would suggest that "more often than not" it is the parents who are guilty of "child abuse," ie all forms, but especially physical and emotional abuse. With specific focus on "child sexual abuse" I would suggest that "more often than not" that it is "people who are close to home" who are the offenders. This includes all members of the family, extended family, step family, regular aquaintances and of course it also includes "Uncle Tom the Worker!" |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2012 3:29:56 GMT -5
In the interests of ballance, does anyone know of cases where accusations of child sexual offending amongst friends and workers has proven to be unfounded? I have looked into the issue of false accusations in general. Offhand, I don't recall the % of false accusations to true accusations but false accusations are in the realm of 5%, definitely under 10%. In the F&W situation, one example of false accusations is with the MI twins in which over 100 were falsely accused. Yes, those are prime excuses for apologists to put children secondary to protecting the pride and reputation of the system. When I broached a local worker on the subject of CSA a few years ago, false accusations were her prime concern. I knew then we had a looooong way to go to correct a destructive culture. The subject of false accusations is generally a red herring. In reality false accusations, ie those with a malicious intent are very uncommon. A higher percentage eminate from persons with some forms of mental health issues. Then there are those which are false alarms but were made with good intent, ie a genuine concern over some matter which investigation later proved to have an innocent explanation. Taking all these things into consideration I would guestimate that CD's 5% is not too far away from the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 5:09:43 GMT -5
I have looked into the issue of false accusations in general. Offhand, I don't recall the % of false accusations to true accusations but false accusations are in the realm of 5%, definitely under 10%. In the F&W situation, one example of false accusations is with the MI twins in which over 100 were falsely accused. Yes, those are prime excuses for apologists to put children secondary to protecting the pride and reputation of the system. When I broached a local worker on the subject of CSA a few years ago, false accusations were her prime concern. I knew then we had a looooong way to go to correct a destructive culture. The subject of false accusations is generally a red herring. In reality false accusations, ie those with a malicious intent are very uncommon. A higher percentage eminate from persons with some forms of mental health issues. Then there are those which are false alarms but were made with good intent, ie a genuine concern over some matter which investigation later proved to have an innocent explanation. Taking all these things into consideration I would guestimate that CD's 5% is not too far away from the truth. Is your percentage (or CDs) based on false charges as a percentage of total charges laid, or does it include false allegations where no charges are laid? Do you count multiple charges as 1 false allegation or as multiple false allegations? For example, false allegations are often made around messy divorce/estrangement cases, but no charges are laid. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Apr 20, 2012 5:11:36 GMT -5
The subject of false accusations is generally a red herring. In reality false accusations, ie those with a malicious intent are very uncommon. A higher percentage eminate from persons with some forms of mental health issues. Then there are those which are false alarms but were made with good intent, ie a genuine concern over some matter which investigation later proved to have an innocent explanation. Taking all these things into consideration I would guestimate that CD's 5% is not too far away from the truth. We need to be thinking about the damage 19 perpetrators can do while we wring our hands over the possibility of one false accusation. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 5:20:35 GMT -5
The subject of false accusations is generally a red herring. In reality false accusations, ie those with a malicious intent are very uncommon. A higher percentage eminate from persons with some forms of mental health issues. Then there are those which are false alarms but were made with good intent, ie a genuine concern over some matter which investigation later proved to have an innocent explanation. Taking all these things into consideration I would guestimate that CD's 5% is not too far away from the truth. We need to be thinking about the damage 19 perpetrators can do while we wring our hands over the possibility of one false accusation. Well, hang on. While I agree in principle about that not being the main determinant, you can't just ignore this either. That '1 in 20' credible but false allegation can be incredibly devastating to the person who has lived through it. While publicity is necessary to protect children, due diligence has to be exercised in invoking disclosure procedures, and care has to be taken to explain that charges don't mean that the person is guilty. Incidentally, in this NZ case have charges been laid? What is the recommendation in the guidelines regarding disclosure if allegations have been made and no charges laid? This situation occurs frequently, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 20, 2012 5:27:16 GMT -5
I appreciate the personal communication I have now engaged in with Steffan; the opening poster of this thread. There have been a number of posts by others on this thread. I feel no need to respond to them. Steffan and I will make further posts on this thread once we reach the point of being able to make them fully and meaningfully. Meanwhile I will post again what I wrote yesterday. However with assurance I can say that each and every instance of CSA allegation made to the ministry in New Zealand is fully looked into and dealt with according to standards that are right in the sight of God and man and will stand open audit. We are doing things correctly here in NZ. Advice is sought from professionals as appropriate and where necessary. In consulting with a professional * in such a matter recently he expressed appreciation for our way of handling CSA issues and said he wished all church groups that he dealt with handled them in such a manner.(*who has been in this field of work for decades and who has set up and administered a NZ police funded abuser rehabilitation program.)This man was recommended to us and in our consultations with him we have found him to be excellent; knowledgeable and helpful. Why would we need to consult further with a person who uses this thread to recommend herself? Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that our ministry also has communication with a member of the section of the New Zealand police force who is involved CSA matters. Noels wrote: This man was recommended to us and in our consultations with him we have found him to be excellent; knowledgeable and helpful. Why would we need to consult further with a person who uses this thread to recommend herself? Because I would think that you would want to consult with several people in the field, not just one. Your response is typical Noels talk. Not something that one would expect from someone concerned with CSA nor from a worker. It was you who recommended yourself noels as being a worker and spokesperson on this thread for the group. I stated my qualifications in this area due to my deep concern for victims of sexual abuse. I have given the last 20 years of my life working with victims and at times offenders. I see the heart break and broken lives every day in my rooms from lives who have been affected by this. If you are threatened by this then so be it. Your behavior has been so erratic on this board I doubt if one could trust your word. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I would think that you would value the input I could give not ridicule me for it. I have to keep quiet do I? I was one of the founding members of a sexual offender programme back in 1993 funded by probation. What is wrong with saying it? I was one of the first women in NZ to work on the programme with male sexual offenders but you will ridicule me for saying that. If you have consulted with Hamish D then great as I hav great respect for him in the field and he he was responsible for setting up programmes in NZ. One of the most respected psychologists in the field. I can see why he's not using your services, Lynn. At the same time applying a certain amount of pressure as a knowledgeable critic might also prove beneficial to the situation. |
|
