NEW: CSA-Incest Account

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 16:34:20 GMT -5 @ram said:

Jul 30, 2013 16:16:53 GMT -5 @clearday said:

All we hear so far is you and rational claiming there are big physical abuse problems among the F&Ws, but you offer no proof of it and no solutions except URLs to read. What is YOUR agenda?

You need to pay more attention to my posts. Several times I have clearly stated that I am aware that child physical abuse does occur within the F&W's sect, just as YOU are aware. I have clearly stated that I do not know the degree of this abuse, that it may be less than society in general or it may be moreso. Also, that I hoped your views were right, although I exercised caution and keep an open mind.

You also know fine what my agenda is. Simply put, to have all other forms of abuse, not just the other forms of child abuse, added to the awareness and protection measures thus far given to CSA. Not a very noble goal, is it?

It is a counterproductive agenda to some degree. We need to concentrate on where we have actual evidence of significant problems of abuse today. By spreading efforts around it detracts from the known needs.

You know dashed fine that already sufficient information has been provided by people on this board over the last 1-2 days that are very indicative of child physical abuse at least, being more prevalent than previously given recognition to. The only way that I can personally indicate this further is to trawl through websites and 2x2 books for relevant testimonies. I know they are there because I read them several years ago. I do not have the time to go reading all that stuff again, at least at the moment. I am satisfied with what I read in the past, and for the present, sufficient has come out that even a very cautious mind would conclude "there appears to be more to this than meets the eye!"

You have done nothing to convince me that it is more prevalent than what I previously expected. Perhaps you surprised yourself though.

In my view this is sufficient to embrace the other forms of child abuse in any awareness, education and preventative measures. The F&W's sect is NO different from other sects or denominations in regard to abuses occurring and does not warrant special dispensation. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that certain people just simply do not want to consider other forms of abuse than CSA. I suspect the true reasons lie beyond the rightful protection of children and may have something to do with perceived responses from the workers, or difficulty in introducing such things to the fellowship?

Everybody wants to consider all forms of abuse. Nobody wants to place a lot of effort on forms of abuse where there is not sufficient evidence that it is a significant problem. It's that simple. If there are signs of lots of physical abuse, I'm there! But I live among F&Ws every day and have done so for nearly 6 decades. I personally look for, and don't see or hear of a significant physical abuse problem. I personally see indirect evidence of and rumours of CSA to a considerable degree. That's where I am coming from and believe me, I do hear rumours of bad stuff all the time, but physical violence rumours are practically non-existent.

[Deleted]

CD SAID:

It is just a part of the solution, solutions being something you and ram have been extremely short in providing here. If you can't provide proof of a big problem, at least you could do something positive and start providing some suggested solutions to the massive problem you insist does exist.

In one recent post you thanked me for providing URLs to professional sites that would provide the solutions you are looking for. One of them will even go as far as design your own particular child abuse policy and guidelines. Now you accuse me of not suggesting solutions?

What do you actually want? I see a very simple answer to a problem which is clearly there, even on the evidence of posts over the last 24 hours or so! Get the CCPAS to design your child abuse and vulnerable person abuse protection policy. They are a charity. They will appreciate a donation. Then slip it in along with the CSA stuff. Bingo! Problem solved. They even have a "model" policy that you can download once you register with them.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 16:58:20 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 30, 2013 16:34:20 GMT -5 @ram said:

You need to pay more attention to my posts. Several times I have clearly stated that I am aware that child physical abuse does occur within the F&W's sect, just as YOU are aware. I have clearly stated that I do not know the degree of this abuse, that it may be less than society in general or it may be moreso. Also, that I hoped your views were right, although I exercised caution and keep an open mind.

You also know fine what my agenda is. Simply put, to have all other forms of abuse, not just the other forms of child abuse, added to the awareness and protection measures thus far given to CSA. Not a very noble goal, is it?

It is a counterproductive agenda to some degree. We need to concentrate on where we have actual evidence of significant problems of abuse today. By spreading efforts around it detracts from the known needs.

But you are ignoring the evidence! There is sufficient there to be concerned about it. You know as well as I do that there is more to this than meets the eye!

If it is a resource issue be honest enough and say that. I am honestly beginning to wonder if there is agendas that are not being disclosed, such as not wanting to upset the workers, or raising further issues will upset the fellowship, or we don't want any more on our plate. If it truly is a resource issue, face up to the obvious and explain your stance. Accept the problems, show genuine concern and state that it is hoped top address these other issues whenever available resources will allow. I can accept that. These things are always incremental or progressive.

You know dashed fine that already sufficient information has been provided by people on this board over the last 1-2 days that are very indicative of child physical abuse at least, being more prevalent than previously given recognition to. The only way that I can personally indicate this further is to trawl through websites and 2x2 books for relevant testimonies. I know they are there because I read them several years ago. I do not have the time to go reading all that stuff again, at least at the moment. I am satisfied with what I read in the past, and for the present, sufficient has come out that even a very cautious mind would conclude "there appears to be more to this than meets the eye!"

You have done nothing to convince me that it is more prevalent than what I previously expected. Perhaps you surprised yourself though.

Even what has been produced over the last 1-2 days? If you were "consciously" aware of these reports then you have been ignoring the problem.

In my view this is sufficient to embrace the other forms of child abuse in any awareness, education and preventative measures. The F&W's sect is NO different from other sects or denominations in regard to abuses occurring and does not warrant special dispensation. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that certain people just simply do not want to consider other forms of abuse than CSA. I suspect the true reasons lie beyond the rightful protection of children and may have something to do with perceived responses from the workers, or difficulty in introducing such things to the fellowship?

Everybody wants to consider all forms of abuse. Nobody wants to place a lot of effort on forms of abuse where there is not sufficient evidence that it is a significant problem. It's that simple. If there are signs of lots of physical abuse, I'm there! But I live among F&Ws every day and have done so for nearly 6 decades. I personally look for, and don't see or hear of a significant physical abuse problem. I personally see indirect evidence of and rumours of CSA to a considerable degree. That's where I am coming from and believe me, I do hear rumours of bad stuff all the time, but physical violence rumours are practically non-existent.

And you have just admitted to being in the category of persons mentioned specifically in one of the articles I posted. Child abuse can be so well hidden that it does not surface because people tend to measure its presence by what they see. Because you are not aware of it, then it is not there. There is ample evidence to show it occurs within the sect to a level which deserves proper address through policies and procedures, just like everybody else does.

[Scott Ross]

Jul 30, 2013 16:46:56 GMT -5 @ram said:

Jul 30, 2013 16:39:41 GMT -5 fixit said:

My agenda is the elimination of child sexual abuse in the fellowship.

A very noble agenda, but a limited one. Also very restricting. How do you plan to tackle the legal responsibilities of workers (where it applies) with regards to ALL forms of child abuse? Remember, they are right in the firing line if they uphold the Matt.10 principle by going from house to house.

You seem to want to dilute the serious CSA problem that we have by incorporating it into something wider.

Not dilute. That is false. You have completely ignored even the best advice and information from professional bodies in order to remain comfortable with your restricted agenda. I am following the guidance of the professionals. Are you? Or do you know better than them?

Sort of like "we shouldn't focus on murder because theft and murder are connected".
If separate cases of murder and theft occur, do we ignore one and pursue the other, or do we devote appropriate available resources to both?

A very noble agenda, but a limited one.


In regard to WINGS..... yes it is a limited agenda. Our whole purpose is in regard to dealing with the issue of CSA. I have mentioned before that people have wanted us to expand that to spiritual abuse, other issues of sexual abuse etc.

It ain't a gonna happen, as WINGS was formed with one purpose in mind, and that is clearly stated.

Our objective is to provide information, support and guidance on every aspect of CSA and to support victims of CSA. Our ultimate hope is to encourage change within the fellowship in order to protect others from the devastation that occurs through CSA, especially when its impact is trivialized or ignored

wingsfortruth.info/

As has been stated before, anyone that wishes can start a website, gather volunteers and work together on other issues.

I think that WINGS has been effective in its objective stated above, and will continue to limit itself to the one issue that it was created to address.

As far as previous statements made that we focus on workers only, that is also false. We focus on the abuse, the abuser and the victims/survivors. If it seems that the focus is on workers, it would only be because those are the cases that have been reported and/or investigated.

[sharingtheriches]

Jul 30, 2013 15:29:07 GMT -5 rational said:

Jul 30, 2013 12:39:43 GMT -5 @clearday said:

That works well if you have something to report.

There is lots that can be done. We need to nurture a culture in which all violence is unacceptable, every bit of it. One of the advantages of that is that kids don't get bamboozled into "this is for your own good" or "this hurts me more than it hurts you" nonsense. All that has to go out the window so there is no confusion for kids. Kids need to know that everyone is on their side and there is no tolerance for any violence. Workers should preach the non-violence aspect of Jesus' teachings and relate it to a non-violent home life. If that sort of culture is not cultivated, then some violence will slip under the radar disguised as legitimate disciplinary measures.

People need to take religion/god out of the child rearing business. It is tough to teach non-violence when a huge part of the message is "If you don't do as I say, you will burn in hell for all eternity."

Well, we need to inform the workers that their previous generations peers taught things wrong. That sparing the rod doesn't have to mean spoiling the child. Don't beat the kids, but show them how penalization will be their punishment or show them how to do the opposite of what they've done wrong. This old thing of parents telling the children this or that in a corrective way and then when the children ask"why" the parents are not to just say "Because I say so"....I have seen this mental child abuse nearly all my life amongst the 2x2 families. I haven't seen real bad corporal punishment...but the child gets corrected and then parents don't want to tell them "why"....this is not teaching the child anything other then the fear of their parents scolding! Beating, physical abuse is bad, but IMO experience the mental is worse!

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 17:12:25 GMT -5 @ram said:

Jul 30, 2013 16:58:20 GMT -5 @clearday said:

It is a counterproductive agenda to some degree. We need to concentrate on where we have actual evidence of significant problems of abuse today. By spreading efforts around it detracts from the known needs.

But you are ignoring the evidence! There is sufficient there to be concerned about it. You know as well as I do that there is more to this than meets the eye!

If it is a resource issue be honest enough and say that. I am honestly beginning to wonder if there is agendas that are not being disclosed, such as not wanting to upset the workers, or raising further issues will upset the fellowship, or we don't want any more on our plate. If it truly is a resource issue, face up to the obvious and explain your stance. Accept the problems, show genuine concern and state that it is hoped top address these other issues whenever available resources will allow. I can accept that. These things are always incremental or progressive.



You have done nothing to convince me that it is more prevalent than what I previously expected. Perhaps you surprised yourself though.

Even what has been produced over the last 1-2 days? If you were "consciously" aware of these reports then you have been ignoring the problem.

Everybody wants to consider all forms of abuse. Nobody wants to place a lot of effort on forms of abuse where there is not sufficient evidence that it is a significant problem. It's that simple. If there are signs of lots of physical abuse, I'm there! But I live among F&Ws every day and have done so for nearly 6 decades. I personally look for, and don't see or hear of a significant physical abuse problem. I personally see indirect evidence of and rumours of CSA to a considerable degree. That's where I am coming from and believe me, I do hear rumours of bad stuff all the time, but physical violence rumours are practically non-existent.

And you have just admitted to being in the category of persons mentioned specifically in one of the articles I posted. Child abuse can be so well hidden that it does not surface because people tend to measure its presence by what they see. Because you are not aware of it, then it is not there. There is ample evidence to show it occurs within the sect to a level which deserves proper address through policies and procedures, just like everybody else does.

You present some interesting arguments. First, you become aware of a few incidences of physical abuse over the last century of 2x2ism and you declare it a significant problem. Statistical analysis will argue against you that you do not have anywhere near the number of examples required to suggest physical abuse is anywhere near the norm of the population. If we have 200 allegations of CSA, then you have to find 1800 allegations of physical abuse and abuse of neglect to indicate that there is a problem equal to the society in general. But you have a handful?

Then you argue that it is there even though the evidence is not there. It must be there. And you argue that because I don't see it or hear of it, I am now in the category of blind idiot who just doesn't see it because it is there even though there is scant evidence of it. I can well accept that people cover up physical abuse, but they cover up sexual abuse equally as well yet we know of many cases of CSA, and few of CPA.

Finally, you claim I don't see it because it is so well hidden. Yet somehow, lots of statistics are generated for the general population. Hidden for us but not for them. That must mean that the F&Ws are much better at hiding their physical abuse. That isn't a bad argument, they are good at hiding the bad stuff that would bring shame of any kind. Sure we're good at coverups, but are we really that good?


Find some criminal convictions. There are plenty of CSA criminal convictions so if these crimes are much greater, there must be many more.

I would suggest to keep up the research. Keep bumping your CPA thread back to the top once in awhile. Set up a free web site somewhere, invite stories. Maybe something will emerge with a bit of patience and persistence.

[fixit]

Jul 30, 2013 18:00:31 GMT -5 sharingtheriches said:

Well, we need to inform the workers that their previous generations peers taught things wrong. That sparing the rod doesn't have to mean spoiling the child. Don't beat the kids, but show them how penalization will be their punishment or show them how to do the opposite of what they've done wrong. This old thing of parents telling the children this or that in a corrective way and then when the children ask"why" the parents are not to just say "Because I say so"....I have seen this mental child abuse nearly all my life amongst the 2x2 families. I haven't seen real bad corporal punishment...but the child gets corrected and then parents don't want to tell them "why"....this is not teaching the child anything other then the fear of their parents scolding! Beating, physical abuse is bad, but IMO experience the mental is worse!

I've seen more physical and mental abuse in public places than I have among the friends.

A lot of people raised in the fellowship speak glowingly of their upbringing and are even thankful for the physical discipline of their parents.

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-physical abuse or excusing it, just offering some balance to the discussion.

[fixit]

Jul 30, 2013 18:07:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Find some criminal convictions. There are plenty of CSA criminal convictions so if these crimes are much greater, there must be many more.

I would suggest to keep up the research. Keep bumping your CPA thread back to the top once in awhile. Set up a free web site somewhere, invite stories. Maybe something will emerge with a bit of patience and persistence.

Bring it on! If there are in fact many more convictions and prison terms for physical abuse than CSA among friends and workers I'd be keen to know about it.

In the mean time I'll start looking for broken bones, gaping wounds and bruises on kids in the church - especially after workers have visited.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 18:19:07 GMT -5 fixit said:

Jul 30, 2013 18:00:31 GMT -5 sharingtheriches said:

Well, we need to inform the workers that their previous generations peers taught things wrong. That sparing the rod doesn't have to mean spoiling the child. Don't beat the kids, but show them how penalization will be their punishment or show them how to do the opposite of what they've done wrong. This old thing of parents telling the children this or that in a corrective way and then when the children ask"why" the parents are not to just say "Because I say so"....I have seen this mental child abuse nearly all my life amongst the 2x2 families. I haven't seen real bad corporal punishment...but the child gets corrected and then parents don't want to tell them "why"....this is not teaching the child anything other then the fear of their parents scolding! Beating, physical abuse is bad, but IMO experience the mental is worse!

I've seen more physical and mental abuse in public places than I have among the friends.

Unless a person has personally experienced this in their own environment, this statement is very likely true of anyone in relation to their group.

A lot of people raised in the fellowship speak glowingly of their upbringing and are even thankful for the physical discipline of their parents.

And a lot of people speak to the contrary. Most children want nothing to do with the sect once they are old enough to leave home. This is a "glowing" reference!

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-physical abuse or excusing it, just offering some balance to the discussion.

But you have already said you don't want balance, you are only interested in eradicating CSA from the F&W's.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 18:33:05 GMT -5 fixit said:

Jul 30, 2013 18:07:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Find some criminal convictions. There are plenty of CSA criminal convictions so if these crimes are much greater, there must be many more.

I would suggest to keep up the research. Keep bumping your CPA thread back to the top once in awhile. Set up a free web site somewhere, invite stories. Maybe something will emerge with a bit of patience and persistence.

Bring it on! If there are in fact many more convictions and prison terms for physical abuse than CSA among friends and workers I'd be keen to know about it.

In the mean time I'll start looking for broken bones, gaping wounds and bruises on kids in the church - especially after workers have visited.

This kind of response reveals an ignorance of the subject under discussion.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2013 18:07:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 30, 2013 17:12:25 GMT -5 @ram said:

You present some interesting arguments. First, you become aware of a few incidences of physical abuse over the last century of 2x2ism and you declare it a significant problem. Statistical analysis will argue against you that you do not have anywhere near the number of examples required to suggest physical abuse is anywhere near the norm of the population. If we have 200 allegations of CSA, then you have to find 1800 allegations of physical abuse and abuse of neglect to indicate that there is a problem equal to the society in general. But you have a handful?

Then you argue that it is there even though the evidence is not there. It must be there. And you argue that because I don't see it or hear of it, I am now in the category of blind idiot who just doesn't see it because it is there even though there is scant evidence of it. I can well accept that people cover up physical abuse, but they cover up sexual abuse equally as well yet we know of many cases of CSA, and few of CPA.

Finally, you claim I don't see it because it is so well hidden. Yet somehow, lots of statistics are generated for the general population. Hidden for us but not for them. That must mean that the F&Ws are much better at hiding their physical abuse. That isn't a bad argument, they are good at hiding the bad stuff that would bring shame of any kind. Sure we're good at coverups, but are we really that good?


Find some criminal convictions. There are plenty of CSA criminal convictions so if these crimes are much greater, there must be many more.

I would suggest to keep up the research. Keep bumping your CPA thread back to the top once in awhile. Set up a free web site somewhere, invite stories. Maybe something will emerge with a bit of patience and persistence.

1) Can you elaborate on your understanding of "few" over the last century. There has been at least half a dozen clear examples referred to over the last 1-2 days, along with sources (as yet unchecked) where others are known to be found. You even referred to a book which contained several (additional) references, i.e. if you were being serious.

You have been keen to warn others about misrepresenting your arguments. Where have I suggested that the problem is anywhere near the norm for the general population. Go back and read my understanding on this. How large does a problem such as this have to be before it merits interest? Are you suggesting that out of all the sects and denominations and non-religious groups and organisations, who address child abuse issues as a whole, that somehow the F&W's sect is different? Haven't we heard enough of that in the past? Are the F&W's peculiarly selective with their abuse?

You readily pointed out that a substantial part of CSA in the sect had nothing to do with the workers but with the fellowship, yet it is well known that other forms of abuse accompany many cases of CSA, but somehow this does not happen in the sect, even though rational pointed out a couple of references which clearly shows it does. Regarding evidence of the presence of the problem. That most certainly is there. You are just ignoring it. Granted the extent of the problem is unknown. Proper enquiry is required to give us and idea of the likely extent, not an easy thing to do with the Secret Sect. Nonetheless, sufficient evidence is there to raise concerns. Wisdom dictates following the example of every other organisation and sect in addressing these issues rather than being fearful of the fall-out within the sect.

Not being aware of CPA within the sect has nothing to do with being a blind idiot. It is a common fact identified by Child Protection organisations, clearly pointed out to you to explain lack of awareness. If you would properly read the links provided, you would not need to invest in more mulberry bushes.

How many cases of really bad child abuse become known in comparison to the many that don't in the general public. Why do you think there is such huge awareness campaigns and guidance?

[fixit]

I'm still waiting for a list of convictions of friends and workers for physical abuse of children.

It shouldn't be hard for Ram or Rat to compile such a list if physical abuse is a serious problem in the church.

Here's a few convictions related to child sexual abuse in the fellowship:


Douglas Haora Martin – admits making intimate video recordings up girl’s skirts between June & November 2012
Martin (57), previously an Assistant Principal at Lincoln High School, admitted making 20 intimate ‘upskirt’ videos of 17 victims including a 14-year-old girl and other school pupils. After initially denying charges and seeking name suppression, he later admitted making the recordings and did not appeal the lifting of the order for name suppression. He had been an elder in the Christchurch fellowship.

Anthony Nathan Siegel sentenced to 10 years in prison for child molestation – July 2012
Anthony N. Siegel, 41, of the 1000 block of Picardy Lane, pleaded guilty in St. Charles County Circuit Court in May to first-degree statutory sodomy and first-degree child molestation, both felonies and was sentenced to 10 years in prison today after admitting he had sexual contact with two female relatives younger than 14 beginning in 2006.

David Lamar Hamill April 2012 – man gets prison in computer porn case
Pleaded guilty to computer electronic child exploitation and was sentenced to three years in prison followed by 12 years on probation with standard sex offender conditions.

George Scandalis December 2011 – pleads guilty
Scandalis pleaded guilty of indecent assault and battery on a child and enticement of a child. He was sentenced to 2 years probation and ordered to register as a sex offender.

Ernie Barry (worker) 2011 – convicted of multiple offences of child abuse
Ernie Barry was convicted and sentenced to six months jail, but after an appeal this was suspended for 2 years. The conviction relates to multiple offences of sexual abuse of a child while Ernie Barry was a senior worker in Victoria and Tasmania, Australia.

Mylon Ralph Bramer Oct 2010 – Texas Daycare Owner’s Husband
The husband of a long-time Texas daycare owner pleaded guilty to four counts of indecency with a child by contact or touching and one count of sexual assault of a child. He was sentenced to 14 years on each charge to run concurrently in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division.

Bruce Waddell (worker) convicted of Sexual Assault in Canada October 2010
Went to the police to confess he had molested a seven-year-old girl while staying with her family six years ago and evaded a jail sentence. He told authorities about all of the victims.

Peter Mousseau (worker) convicted of 4th degree Criminal Sexual Conduct June 2010
Convicted of Assault With Intent to Commit Sexual Penetration and Criminal Sexual Conduct 4th degree (Multiple Variables).

Darren Briggs (worker) convicted of child sexual abuse in MI February 2010
A New York man convicted of fourth degree criminal sexual conduct on 11-year-old boy.

Richard Hedahl, WA, convicted of child molestation June 2009
A man in the State of Washington pled guilty and is now convicted of 1 count of Assault in the 3rd degree with sexual motivation for a person under the age of 14.

Noel Tanner (worker) convicted of child sexual abuse
Convicted in 1984 for sexual offences in the Republic of Ireland. In January 1991, he was again convicted for sexual offences against adolescent boys.

Darren Jacksch (professing man) convicted of CSA at convention 2008
An Alaska professing man convicted of sexually assaulting a boy at Juneau convention – May 2008.

Kenneth Lyle Akkerman (Friend, now Ex-Friend) 2007
Convicted in 2007 of electronic solicitation of a child under16 years of age.

Tim Severud (worker) convicted of child sexual abuse December 2007
A worker on the Minnesota USA Staff was charged and pled guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct for molesting a 10-year-old girl. He was release from prison in July 2012.

Lonnie Haken (professing man) guilty of child sexual misconduct 2007
A professing man from Minnesota USA was convicted of 4 counts of “Criminal Sexual Conduct” with a 12-year-old.

Ruben Mata (worker) convicted of child sexual abuse November 2006
Sentenced to 36 years to life. He was not eligible for parole. He died in prison on October 2, 2007.

Donald Curtis (professing man) convicted of child Pornography 2005
A teacher in possession of thousands of images of child pornography. The courts sentenced him to a jail term of 141 days, which was suspended, and a three-year period of probation. He was ordered to provide a sample of DNA and to register under the Sexual Offences Registration System. His teacher certificate was revoked.

Noel Harvey (ex-worker) convicted of child abuse offenses 2003
Had been a worker in NSW, Australia in the 1970s. Left the work and was married at the time of his arrest. He was convicted of child sex offenses.

Stanley Jordan (professing man) guilty of child pornography 2002
Sentenced to three months home detention for possession of child porn images.

George Garner (Mississippi) convicted of child sexual abuse 2002
Convicted on November 27, 2002; sentenced to 15 years with 13 years suspended. Served 2 full years time in prison.

Ray Bullick convicted of sexual crimes committed in Minnesota 1997
Ray had a meeting in his home. Prior to his marriage he had been a worker for many years.

Curtis Jacobsen (worker) pleads guilty to child sexual abuse 1997
Pled guilty to 1 count of sexual abuse to a minor. He was in the work on the Oregon USA staff at the time of the abuse and subsequent arrest.

Walter (Ted) Moore (professing man) found guilty of child sexual abuse June 1996
Professing man found guilty of child sexual abuse and sentenced to 7-20 years in prison for day-care incident.

[Deleted]

Fixit, you clearly do not understand the dynamics involved in child abuse, particularly in relation to a group as secretive as the F&W's. Even in the scant details you have provided I can identify at least "five" cases where physical violence to some serious degree was used in the commission of the offences. Remember, cases of one form of child abuse often are accompanied by other forms of abuse. I wonder what further "evidence" would come to the fore if we were to explore the fuller details of each case?

Remember too, most acts of physical CSA are in reality just cases of child physical abuse with a sexual motive!

The fact that a significant amount of CSA is found in the lay members IS circumstantial evidence of the high likelihood that other forms of abuse occurring.

Are you suggesting that the accounts of child physical abuse which have been presented are false on account none of them appear to have resulted in convictions?

I want to take these arguments back to their correct starting point, not one which demands a high level of smashed skulls and fractured ribs over a short period of time, before interest and action is justified.

Do you accept there is a risk of physical, emotional or neglect occurring within the fellowship?

Do you accept that child protection is first and foremost about providing safe environments for children to play and develop?

Do you accept that child protection tactics are necessary wherever a perceived risk is identified, not when a large number of serious abuse cases actually occur?

What is so different about the F&W's sect that it does not need to address perceived threats of child abuse, which have been adequately identified on these threads? You and CD are of the opinion that CSA is the "worst" of all forms of child abuse, something you readily identify is at significant levels in the sect, even within the lay fellowship, yet you cannot bring yourselves to accept these same people may be guilty of "lesser" forms of child abuse. Are the F&W's selective about what type of child abuse they pursue? Is it on the worst form (perceived) that they want to indulge in?

At this present time we are at the point a few short years ago when I was having the same arguments, but all people wanted to focus on was CSA and in relation to the workers at that.

Here is an acceptable way out for you. Perhaps this is your true position?

1) You accept there is a risk of all types of child abuse occurring within the sect and that often (generally speaking) different types of abuse are very closely linked?

2) All Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents, therefore the whole church should rejoice when measures are introduced to protect even "one" child in the church. One harmed or suffering child, by whatever means of abuse in the church fellowship is one too many. If all efforts made, were to relieve the suffering of that one child, then all the efforts would be worthwhile. The amount of abuse cases is therefore irrelevant. It is the perceived risks that is important and worth acting upon, if only to prevent as far as possible, that one casualty. This is the reality of child protection, not justifying inaction through lack of statistics, or demanding high figures before you get off your backside. Act on perceived risks to "prevent" as far as is reasonably possible!

3) You find CSA particularly abhorrent and wish to devote time to addressing this particular issue of child abuse within the sect. We all need specialists and you want to specialise. This is commendable. However, you recognise the risks, if not the actuality, of other forms of child abuse within the sect, but you cannot do everything. Therefore you want to focus on CSA and leave the other issues to others.

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 3:33:51 GMT -5 @ram said:

Jul 30, 2013 18:07:27 GMT -5 @clearday said:

You present some interesting arguments. First, you become aware of a few incidences of physical abuse over the last century of 2x2ism and you declare it a significant problem. Statistical analysis will argue against you that you do not have anywhere near the number of examples required to suggest physical abuse is anywhere near the norm of the population. If we have 200 allegations of CSA, then you have to find 1800 allegations of physical abuse and abuse of neglect to indicate that there is a problem equal to the society in general. But you have a handful?

Then you argue that it is there even though the evidence is not there. It must be there. And you argue that because I don't see it or hear of it, I am now in the category of blind idiot who just doesn't see it because it is there even though there is scant evidence of it. I can well accept that people cover up physical abuse, but they cover up sexual abuse equally as well yet we know of many cases of CSA, and few of CPA.

Finally, you claim I don't see it because it is so well hidden. Yet somehow, lots of statistics are generated for the general population. Hidden for us but not for them. That must mean that the F&Ws are much better at hiding their physical abuse. That isn't a bad argument, they are good at hiding the bad stuff that would bring shame of any kind. Sure we're good at coverups, but are we really that good?


Find some criminal convictions. There are plenty of CSA criminal convictions so if these crimes are much greater, there must be many more.

I would suggest to keep up the research. Keep bumping your CPA thread back to the top once in awhile. Set up a free web site somewhere, invite stories. Maybe something will emerge with a bit of patience and persistence.

1) Can you elaborate on your understanding of "few" over the last century. There has been at least half a dozen clear examples referred to over the last 1-2 days, along with sources (as yet unchecked) where others are known to be found. You even referred to a book which contained several (additional) references, i.e. if you were being serious.

You have been keen to warn others about misrepresenting your arguments. Where have I suggested that the problem is anywhere near the norm for the general population. Go back and read my understanding on this. How large does a problem such as this have to be before it merits interest? Are you suggesting that out of all the sects and denominations and non-religious groups and organisations, who address child abuse issues as a whole, that somehow the F&W's sect is different? Haven't we heard enough of that in the past? Are the F&W's peculiarly selective with their abuse?

You readily pointed out that a substantial part of CSA in the sect had nothing to do with the workers but with the fellowship, yet it is well known that other forms of abuse accompany many cases of CSA, but somehow this does not happen in the sect, even though rational pointed out a couple of references which clearly shows it does. Regarding evidence of the presence of the problem. That most certainly is there. You are just ignoring it. Granted the extent of the problem is unknown. Proper enquiry is required to give us and idea of the likely extent, not an easy thing to do with the Secret Sect. Nonetheless, sufficient evidence is there to raise concerns. Wisdom dictates following the example of every other organisation and sect in addressing these issues rather than being fearful of the fall-out within the sect.

Not being aware of CPA within the sect has nothing to do with being a blind idiot. It is a common fact identified by Child Protection organisations, clearly pointed out to you to explain lack of awareness. If you would properly read the links provided, you would not need to invest in more mulberry bushes.

How many cases of really bad child abuse become known in comparison to the many that don't in the general public. Why do you think there is such huge awareness campaigns and guidance?

A half dozen is a "few" over a century and you will find that some of those you do uncover were a result of what is now non-practiced corporal punishment, both normal and overzealous. If you are going to establish that there is an actionable problem today, right now, there should be hundreds of readily available examples from the past. Having a few says "yes it does happen". We all agree on that. I am completely sure that it does happen even today. Is it endemic in the system? There is absolutely no evidence of it. However, I would encourage you to keep looking and asking. If you do establish a risk profile for 2x2 kids that is anywhere near the general population, then we have something to examine.

So far, your efforts are beginning to establish that the 2x2's actually do have a very low risk profile for CPA, even in the earlier days when CPA was more rampant in society. However, I will leave that judgment open until more data is examined. The truth is there somewhere, and I wish you all the best in finding it.

Should you determine that there is not a problem today anywhere near the statistical problem of the general population, then we will be ready to discuss the reasons why it is a nearly non-existent problem. Until then, let's try to establish the actual risk profile of 2x2 children today. Keep up the good work!

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 8:06:44 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 31, 2013 3:33:51 GMT -5 @ram said:

A half dozen is a "few" over a century and you will find that some of those you do uncover were a result of what is now non-practiced corporal punishment, both normal and overzealous. If you are going to establish that there is an actionable problem today, right now, there should be hundreds of readily available examples from the past. Having a few says "yes it does happen". We all agree on that. I am completely sure that it does happen even today. Is it endemic in the system? There is absolutely no evidence of it. However, I would encourage you to keep looking and asking. If you do establish a risk profile for 2x2 kids that is anywhere near the general population, then we have something to examine.

So far, your efforts are beginning to establish that the 2x2's actually do have a very low risk profile for CPA, even in the earlier days when CPA was more rampant in society. However, I will leave that judgment open until more data is examined. The truth is there somewhere, and I wish you all the best in finding it.

Should you determine that there is not a problem today anywhere near the statistical problem of the general population, then we will be ready to discuss the reasons why it is a nearly non-existent problem. Until then, let's try to establish the actual risk profile of 2x2 children today. Keep up the good work!

I simply haven't researched it. I no longer have access to some of my research information. My position right from the start is that I do not know what the level of physical abuse is in the fellowship. However, unless you have been absent from these boards for a few years AND have an insufficient understanding of the correlation of different abuses in many cases, then you would accept there exists an unacceptable risk to 2x2 children, in view of the importance of providing a safe environment for children to grow and develop.

By saying that physical abuse (not simply low key physical chastisement)occurs, perhaps daily, suggests that you do in fact accept the presence of risk? Are a "few" physically abused kids here and there every once in a while worth discarding under the banner of "low risk?" Are the "few" kids who are very likely suffering long term today, worth forgetting about because we seek large numbers of highly emotive rib smashing, skull crushing incidents to react to, rather than be protective through proactive means?

I think we have already established the presence of risk? The real question is, is it an acceptable risk? I personally have no doubts whatsoever that at least a small number of children in the fellowship, perhaps many more(?) are suffering continual abuse today, which could be stopped through proper education and policies.

The real starting ground is if there is a risk to even one child, then we want to address that risk. It is a fallacy to reject child prevention methods simply because we believe the statistics may be lower than the general population at large. Are we prepared to live with the risks as we know them? Do we accept the risk level may be higher, even far higher than we are aware?

[Scott Ross]

Fixit, you clearly do not understand the dynamics involved in child abuse, particularly in relation to a group as secretive as the F&W's. Even in the scant details you have provided I can identify at least "five" cases where physical violence to some serious degree was used in the commission of the offences. Remember, cases of one form of child abuse often are accompanied by other forms of abuse. I wonder what further "evidence" would come to the fore if we were to explore the fuller details of each case?

But in those cases, the charge was not in reference to CPA, but CSA. For example, in the George Scandalis case listed, the charge was 'assault and battery' and 'enticement'. However, if you read the account, this was based on the groping, not a physical beating.

George Scandalis, 67, and his lawyer, Leonard J. Henson, declined comment after the brief court hearing.

Worcester Police arrested Scandalis, of 8 Schofield Road, Hopkinton, on Friday.

The victim, a 14-year-old boy, told police that on Aug. 10, he was walking on Park Avenue when a silver Lexus SUV pulled up next to him, according to a report filed in court by Worcester Police Detective Mark Tivnan.

The driver, later identified as Scandalis, asked if he could use the boy's cell phone for an emergency.

Police said the boy got into the SUV. Scandalis sent a text message to himself with the boy's phone and then groped the boy, the report said.

Scandalis, who works as an analyst at a Waltham company, later sent several text messages to the boy asking if he wanted Scandalis to perform a sex act on the boy.

The text messages stopped, police said, until Aug. 19, when the boy received a message that said "Hi."

The boy's family reported the incident to police. Officers tracked the phone to Scandalis and found that he had a 2010 Lexus SUV registered to him.

On Aug. 20, Tivnan - posing as the boy - said he sent a text message to Scandalis, and arranged a meeting that day in Worcester.

When Scandalis arrived, police arrested him.

Scandalis is charged with indecent assault and battery on a child aged 14 or older and enticement of a child younger than 16.


Read more: wingsbts.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=csainthenews&action=display&thread=78#ixzz2aczapaVV

Remember too, most acts of physical CSA are in reality just cases of child physical abuse with a sexual motive!

Which makes them CSA, correct?

The fact that a significant amount of CSA is found in the lay members IS circumstantial evidence of the high likelihood that other forms of abuse occurring.


I am sure there are other forms of abuse occurring. This is true. However, in regard to WINGS, our focus is on CSA.

Are you suggesting that the accounts of child physical abuse which have been presented are false on account none of them appear to have resulted in convictions?

I don't think that they are false. However, if they are a part of the underlying issue of CSA, then by working to eradicate instances of CSA, the likelihood is that CPA issues leading to CSA will also be partly eradicated as well.

I want to take these arguments back to their correct starting point, not one which demands a high level of smashed skulls and fractured ribs over a short period of time, before interest and action is justified.

How about taking it back to the original intent for focusing on the instances of CSA within the fellowship? They are instances which have lead to investigations and convictions. While there are also instances of CPA (such as the Michigan case) which led to investigations, CSA is an issue which has led to laws which also encompass instances of CPA in regard to mandatory reporting. I don't think that there is any argument there. Most states refer to child abuse as a whole as far as Mandated Reporters. This is addressed by law. Educating workers and friends about CSA leads to educating them about child abuse in general as well.

Do you accept there is a risk of physical, emotional or neglect occurring within the fellowship?

I do. That same risk is in all areas of the population. Same as CSA.

Do you accept that child protection is first and foremost about providing safe environments for children to play and develop?

I do.

Do you accept that child protection tactics are necessary wherever a perceived risk is identified, not when a large number of serious abuse cases actually occur?

I do. And that is why WINGS works to educate people about CSA.

What is so different about the F&W's sect that it does not need to address perceived threats of child abuse, which have been adequately identified on these threads? You and CD are of the opinion that CSA is the "worst" of all forms of child abuse, something you readily identify is at significant levels in the sect, even within the lay fellowship, yet you cannot bring yourselves to accept these same people may be guilty of "lesser" forms of child abuse. Are the F&W's selective about what type of child abuse they pursue? Is it on the worst form (perceived) that they want to indulge in?

For the most part, those in leadership positions within the fellowship have distanced themselves from anything which might be perceived as being 'organized'. With the focus on CSA issues, they have been placed in a position now to understand the need for both training and education concerning child abuse issues. That is all encompassing, as CSA is only one aspect of child abuse. They now know that wherever they are considered Mandated Reporters, they are to report any perceived child abuse they are aware of, NOT just CSA issues. The charges against both Jerome and Bill were for Failure to Report "Did knowingly fail to report suspected child abuse or neglect. This resulted in jail time and fines, NOT for CSA issues in regard to the law, but child abuse in general. The CSA was NOT the issue involved with the charges. I think that this results in a greater understanding within the worker ranks in regard to child abuse issues.

At this present time we are at the point a few short years ago when I was having the same arguments, but all people wanted to focus on was CSA and in relation to the workers at that.

And that focus has brought about changes within the fellowship in regard to all forms of child abuse hasn't it?

Here is an acceptable way out for you. Perhaps this is your true position?

1) You accept there is a risk of all types of child abuse occurring within the sect and that often (generally speaking) different types of abuse are very closely linked?

2) All Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents, therefore the whole church should rejoice when measures are introduced to protect even "one" child in the church. One harmed or suffering child, by whatever means of abuse in the church fellowship is one too many. If all efforts made, were to relieve the suffering of that one child, then all the efforts would be worthwhile. The amount of abuse cases is therefore irrelevant. It is the perceived risks that is important and worth acting upon, if only to prevent as far as possible, that one casualty. This is the reality of child protection, not justifying inaction through lack of statistics, or demanding high figures before you get off your backside. Act on perceived risks to "prevent" as far as is reasonably possible!

3) You find CSA particularly abhorrent and wish to devote time to addressing this particular issue of child abuse within the sect. We all need specialists and you want to specialise. This is commendable. However, you recognise the risks, if not the actuality, of other forms of child abuse within the sect, but you cannot do everything. Therefore you want to focus on CSA and leave the other issues to others.

I am of the belief that focusing on CSA it also brings attention to other forms of child abuse.

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 8:28:47 GMT -5 @ram said:

Jul 31, 2013 8:06:44 GMT -5 @clearday said:

A half dozen is a "few" over a century and you will find that some of those you do uncover were a result of what is now non-practiced corporal punishment, both normal and overzealous. If you are going to establish that there is an actionable problem today, right now, there should be hundreds of readily available examples from the past. Having a few says "yes it does happen". We all agree on that. I am completely sure that it does happen even today. Is it endemic in the system? There is absolutely no evidence of it. However, I would encourage you to keep looking and asking. If you do establish a risk profile for 2x2 kids that is anywhere near the general population, then we have something to examine.

So far, your efforts are beginning to establish that the 2x2's actually do have a very low risk profile for CPA, even in the earlier days when CPA was more rampant in society. However, I will leave that judgment open until more data is examined. The truth is there somewhere, and I wish you all the best in finding it.

Should you determine that there is not a problem today anywhere near the statistical problem of the general population, then we will be ready to discuss the reasons why it is a nearly non-existent problem. Until then, let's try to establish the actual risk profile of 2x2 children today. Keep up the good work!

I simply haven't researched it. I no longer have access to some of my research information. My position right from the start is that I do not know what the level of physical abuse is in the fellowship. However, unless you have been absent from these boards for a few years AND have an insufficient understanding of the correlation of different abuses in many cases, then you would accept there exists an unacceptable risk to 2x2 children, in view of the importance of providing a safe environment for children to grow and develop.

By saying that physical abuse (not simply low key physical chastisement)occurs, perhaps daily, suggests that you do in fact accept the presence of risk? Are a "few" physically abused kids here and there every once in a while worth discarding under the banner of "low risk?" Are the "few" kids who are very likely suffering long term today, worth forgetting about because we seek large numbers of highly emotive rib smashing, skull crushing incidents to react to, rather than be protective through proactive means?

I think we have already established the presence of risk? The real question is, is it an acceptable risk? I personally have no doubts whatsoever that at least a small number of children in the fellowship, perhaps many more(?) are suffering continual abuse today, which could be stopped through proper education and policies.

The real starting ground is if there is a risk to even one child, then we want to address that risk. It is a fallacy to reject child prevention methods simply because we believe the statistics may be lower than the general population at large. Are we prepared to live with the risks as we know them? Do we accept the risk level may be higher, even far higher than we are aware?

Here is where I see the fallacy of your argument. You suggest that if there is a risk of one child being beaten, then all sorts of resources should be poured into it. Let me give you an illustration of how it is a wrong approach.

Pretend you are the Minister of Health in your country. You are given a budget of $1 billion to spend on health problems. You have two health problems upon which to spend your budget: cancer and tuberculosis. Under your way of thinking, since there is some small risk of getting TB in the UK, you would allocate your budget to 50% cancer and 50% TB or something along those lines. But we both know the only responsible thing to do would be more like an allocation of 99% to 1% because it goes where the need is established.

That is what both you and rational are pushing here. You are pushing an allocation of resources into unestablished areas or areas of risk that so far appear small, while taking away from higher risk areas. The proper allocation for risk as established by a decade and a half of analysis by hundreds of observers of 2x2ism (mostly exes) is that the high risk is in the two areas of CSA and emotional/spiritual abuse. Physical abuse and abuse of neglect have never emerged as high risk areas over the last decade and a half of intense discussions starting with 2x2ListServe in the late 1990's.

If you can establish high risk (or even an average risk) for CPA, then we have something. However, so far thousands and thousands of discussions over the last 15 years has not identified it yet. I've been listening for about 15 years now and haven't seen it develop yet. Maybe you can change that.

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 8:33:45 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

Fixit, you clearly do not understand the dynamics involved in child abuse, particularly in relation to a group as secretive as the F&W's. Even in the scant details you have provided I can identify at least "five" cases where physical violence to some serious degree was used in the commission of the offences. Remember, cases of one form of child abuse often are accompanied by other forms of abuse. I wonder what further "evidence" would come to the fore if we were to explore the fuller details of each case?

But in those cases, the charge was not in reference to CPA, but CSA. For example, in the George Scandalis case listed, the charge was 'assault and battery' and 'enticement'. However, if you read the account, this was based on the groping, not a physical beating.

George Scandalis, 67, and his lawyer, Leonard J. Henson, declined comment after the brief court hearing.

Worcester Police arrested Scandalis, of 8 Schofield Road, Hopkinton, on Friday.

The victim, a 14-year-old boy, told police that on Aug. 10, he was walking on Park Avenue when a silver Lexus SUV pulled up next to him, according to a report filed in court by Worcester Police Detective Mark Tivnan.

The driver, later identified as Scandalis, asked if he could use the boy's cell phone for an emergency.

Police said the boy got into the SUV. Scandalis sent a text message to himself with the boy's phone and then groped the boy, the report said.

Scandalis, who works as an analyst at a Waltham company, later sent several text messages to the boy asking if he wanted Scandalis to perform a sex act on the boy.

The text messages stopped, police said, until Aug. 19, when the boy received a message that said "Hi."

The boy's family reported the incident to police. Officers tracked the phone to Scandalis and found that he had a 2010 Lexus SUV registered to him.

On Aug. 20, Tivnan - posing as the boy - said he sent a text message to Scandalis, and arranged a meeting that day in Worcester.

When Scandalis arrived, police arrested him.

Scandalis is charged with indecent assault and battery on a child aged 14 or older and enticement of a child younger than 16.

Scott, I am not acquaint with the formal charge(s). The above suggests to myself (somewhat distant from the US legal system) that either we have two separate charges, i.e. "indecent assault" and battery (physical assault) or we have a composite charge of the two. Whatever it is, it appears we have sexual assault and common assault? Perhaps the two occurring together?


Read more: wingsbts.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=csainthenews&action=display&thread=78#ixzz2aczapaVV

Remember too, most acts of physical CSA are in reality just cases of child physical abuse with a sexual motive!

Which makes them CSA, correct?

As you are aware, when criminal charges are formulated, they must be competent and relevant to the circumstances and the available evidence. Several different charges may be appropriate to a certain crime, but the rule of thumb is if only one charge is proffered then the one most suitable to the evidence is chosen (or the one most likely to be proven). Of course more than one charge can apply. In the above example it looks as if both an indecent assault and common assault charges were proferred, at least initially?

The fact that a significant amount of CSA is found in the lay members IS circumstantial evidence of the high likelihood that other forms of abuse occurring.


I am sure there are other forms of abuse occurring. This is true. However, in regard to WINGS, our focus is on CSA.

Scott, I have NEVER criticised WINGS. Yes I would like to see it extending its boundaries, at least on an informative basis, but you have explained your mission statement and I am conscious that WINGS is a voluntary body (which I appear to be one of?) and thus are very much resource influenced. I have no problems with "specialisation." My two main gripes are that I disgree with those who make out CSA as being more horrific than other forms of abuse. It is not as simple as that. The other one is the dismissal of other forms of abuse within the fellowship and disregard for a need to address them. I even commend "fixit" if he wishes to specialise in CSA, but not if he maintains the blinkers regarding the importance of the other issues.

Are you suggesting that the accounts of child physical abuse which have been presented are false on account none of them appear to have resulted in convictions?

I don't think that they are false. However, if they are a part of the underlying issue of CSA, then by working to eradicate instances of CSA, the likelihood is that CPA issues leading to CSA will also be partly eradicated as well.

At last, someone talking sense. And the reverse is true of the other abuses. By addressing all forms of abuse, not just child abuse, there will be knock-on effects for each other. CSA can also benefit from addressing the other abuse issues.

I want to take these arguments back to their correct starting point, not one which demands a high level of smashed skulls and fractured ribs over a short period of time, before interest and action is justified.

How about taking it back to the original intent for focusing on the instances of CSA within the fellowship? They are instances which have lead to investigations and convictions. While there are also instances of CPA (such as the Michigan case) which led to investigations, CSA is an issue which has led to laws which also encompass instances of CPA in regard to mandatory reporting. I don't think that there is any argument there. Most states refer to child abuse as a whole as far as Mandated Reporters. This is addressed by law. Educating workers and friends about CSA leads to educating them about child abuse in general as well.

Regarding your last sentence. What was I saying about knock-on effects. FWIW I have no problem with a group specialising with CSA. My concern lies in the absence of methods and education to deal with the other abuse issues, which are not necessarily confined to the other forms of child abuse.

Do you accept there is a risk of physical, emotional or neglect occurring within the fellowship?

I do. That same risk is in all areas of the population. Same as CSA.

Keep talking Scott. You're my man!

Do you accept that child protection is first and foremost about providing safe environments for children to play and develop?

I do.

I want more of this! This is the best music I've listened to in a while!

Do you accept that child protection tactics are necessary wherever a perceived risk is identified, not when a large number of serious abuse cases actually occur?

I do. And that is why WINGS works to educate people about CSA.

It's a double CD! Great!

What is so different about the F&W's sect that it does not need to address perceived threats of child abuse, which have been adequately identified on these threads? You and CD are of the opinion that CSA is the "worst" of all forms of child abuse, something you readily identify is at significant levels in the sect, even within the lay fellowship, yet you cannot bring yourselves to accept these same people may be guilty of "lesser" forms of child abuse. Are the F&W's selective about what type of child abuse they pursue? Is it on the worst form (perceived) that they want to indulge in?

For the most part, those in leadership positions within the fellowship have distanced themselves from anything which might be perceived as being 'organized'. With the focus on CSA issues, they have been placed in a position now to understand the need for both training and education concerning child abuse issues. That is all encompassing, as CSA is only one aspect of child abuse. They now know that wherever they are considered Mandated Reporters, they are to report any perceived child abuse they are aware of, NOT just CSA issues. The charges against both Jerome and Bill were for Failure to Report "Did knowingly fail to report suspected child abuse or neglect. This resulted in jail time and fines, NOT for CSA issues in regard to the law, but child abuse in general. The CSA was NOT the issue involved with the charges. I think that this results in a greater understanding within the worker ranks in regard to child abuse issues.

Now you understand my concerns when people are dismissive about the other forms of child abuse? Workers need to be equipped with knowledge of their potential legal responsibilities wherever the see "any" form of child abuse, whether it is in the homes of the frinds, conventions, or indeed in the homes of unbelievers (if they still pursue a Matt.10 principle.

At this present time we are at the point a few short years ago when I was having the same arguments, but all people wanted to focus on was CSA and in relation to the workers at that.

And that focus has brought about changes within the fellowship in regard to all forms of child abuse hasn't it?

In accordance with what you report above. But as we are seeing, even from voluntary members of WINGS, we are having complete rejection of the issues.

Here is an acceptable way out for you. Perhaps this is your true position?

1) You accept there is a risk of all types of child abuse occurring within the sect and that often (generally speaking) different types of abuse are very closely linked?

2) All Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents, therefore the whole church should rejoice when measures are introduced to protect even "one" child in the church. One harmed or suffering child, by whatever means of abuse in the church fellowship is one too many. If all efforts made, were to relieve the suffering of that one child, then all the efforts would be worthwhile. The amount of abuse cases is therefore irrelevant. It is the perceived risks that is important and worth acting upon, if only to prevent as far as possible, that one casualty. This is the reality of child protection, not justifying inaction through lack of statistics, or demanding high figures before you get off your backside. Act on perceived risks to "prevent" as far as is reasonably possible!

3) You find CSA particularly abhorrent and wish to devote time to addressing this particular issue of child abuse within the sect. We all need specialists and you want to specialise. This is commendable. However, you recognise the risks, if not the actuality, of other forms of child abuse within the sect, but you cannot do everything. Therefore you want to focus on CSA and leave the other issues to others.

I am of the belief that focusing on CSA it also brings attention to other forms of child abuse.

Of course it does and that is commendable. What was I saying again about knock-on effects? However, it does not sufficiently address the other issues. As we are seeing, there is no shortage of ignorance about the issues. CSA would also benefit from higher profile being given to the other issues of abuse.

[jondough]

Just to point out something quite telling in regard to the issue of physical abuse, and the discussion going on right now;

Notice who is on what side of the issue?

Those of us that admit that CSA is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but see physical abuse as VERY rare in our fellowship. We are current 2X2's. In it every day, week, year. Some of us very involved. Really, no one would be closer to the problems - if there were any. Some of us have children, we are close to many other families with children.

Then the other side are you who claim physical abuse is a problem within our fellowship. Everyone of you who are claiming this, are people who are on the outside, and have been for some time. You still have a picture in your mind of how things were when you left. Believe you me, things are different.

The line is pretty much split between innies & exes on this issue.

So I ask you, who would have a better idea of what is currently happing TODAY?

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 9:13:53 GMT -5 jondough said:

Just to point out something quite telling in regard to the issue of physical abuse, and the discussion going on right now;

Notice who is on what side of the issue?

Those of us that admit that CSA is a problem that needs to be dealt with, but see physical abuse as VERY rare in our fellowship. We are current 2X2's. In it every day, week, year. Some of us very involved. Really, no one would be closer to the problems - if there were any. Some of us have children, we are close to many other families with children.

Then the other side are you who claim physical abuse is a problem within our fellowship. Everyone of you who are claiming this, are people who are on the outside, and have been for some time. You still have a picture in your mind of how things were when you left. Believe you me, things are different.

The line is pretty much split between innies & exes on this issue.

So I ask you, who would have a better idea of what is currently happing TODAY?

The other aspect of this is that the innies who are on this side of the argument are not the types who are in love with the system and who also acknowledge that the risk profile for CSA in the fellowship is high. So this isn't a bunch of innies whose heads are in the clouds saying that all is well all the time. All is not well, but there is just no evidence of a significant problem of CPA.

[Deleted]

I was never spanked, my parents didn't believe in it. However, growing up, it was obvious some folks were excessive in their use of physical discipline. Lately, though, I can't say that any of the friends seem inclined to spank their children. I think as society changed, so too did the fellowship folks, and I can remember the last time someone took their child out and spanked them because it startled me. Granted, that's just my small geographic area and only from observations at meeting, but I agree that generally speaking, the idea of 'spare the rod and spoil the child' has become more like 'spare the timeout and spoil the child.' The elder of the meeting I grew in believed in reasoning with their children--no physical discipline at all. That was an oddity back in the late 50's for sure.

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 9:39:24 GMT -5 hberry said:

I was never spanked, my parents didn't believe in it. However, growing up, it was obvious some folks were excessive in their use of physical discipline. Lately, though, I can't say that any of the friends seem inclined to spank their children. I think as society changed, so too did the fellowship folks, and I can remember the last time someone took their child out and spanked them because it startled me. Granted, that's just my small geographic area and only from observations at meeting, but I agree that generally speaking, the idea of 'spare the rod and spoil the child' has become more like 'spare the timeout and spoil the child.' The elder of the meeting I grew in believed in reasoning with their children--no physical discipline at all. That was an oddity back in the late 50's for sure.

It's much the same here. The baby boomers were the first to cut 'way back on spanking, and now their kids have almost eliminated it. I think there is still a slightly higher frequency of spanking among the F&Ws than in the general population (there always has been), but it is well on its way to its final extinction. I think that because it has been reduced so much, there is likely very little "excessive" spanking anymore.

What remains is the question of other forms of CPA. As ram and rational point out, these are typically hidden well (as are most crimes). However, CSA is equally well hidden yet plenty of those stories have come out while very few examples of egregious physical violence has come out beyond the experiences of excessive spanking.

If it is true that physical abuse has a lower risk profile among F&Ws, there are some specific reasons that could be attributed to it.

[Scott Ross]

Jul 31, 2013 9:06:46 GMT -5 @ram said:

Jul 31, 2013 8:33:45 GMT -5 Scott Ross said:

But in those cases, the charge was not in reference to CPA, but CSA. For example, in the George Scandalis case listed, the charge was 'assault and battery' and 'enticement'. However, if you read the account, this was based on the groping, not a physical beating.

George Scandalis, 67, and his lawyer, Leonard J. Henson, declined comment after the brief court hearing.

Worcester Police arrested Scandalis, of 8 Schofield Road, Hopkinton, on Friday.

The victim, a 14-year-old boy, told police that on Aug. 10, he was walking on Park Avenue when a silver Lexus SUV pulled up next to him, according to a report filed in court by Worcester Police Detective Mark Tivnan.

The driver, later identified as Scandalis, asked if he could use the boy's cell phone for an emergency.

Police said the boy got into the SUV. Scandalis sent a text message to himself with the boy's phone and then groped the boy, the report said.

Scandalis, who works as an analyst at a Waltham company, later sent several text messages to the boy asking if he wanted Scandalis to perform a sex act on the boy.

The text messages stopped, police said, until Aug. 19, when the boy received a message that said "Hi."

The boy's family reported the incident to police. Officers tracked the phone to Scandalis and found that he had a 2010 Lexus SUV registered to him.

On Aug. 20, Tivnan - posing as the boy - said he sent a text message to Scandalis, and arranged a meeting that day in Worcester.

When Scandalis arrived, police arrested him.

Scandalis is charged with indecent assault and battery on a child aged 14 or older and enticement of a child younger than 16.

Scott, I am not acquaint with the formal charge(s). The above suggests to myself (somewhat distant from the US legal system) that either we have two separate charges, i.e. "indecent assault" and battery (physical assault) or we have a composite charge of the two. Whatever it is, it appears we have sexual assault and common assault? Perhaps the two occurring together?


Read more: wingsbts.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=csainthenews&action=display&thread=78#ixzz2aczapaVV

Which makes them CSA, correct?

As you are aware, when criminal charges are formulated, they must be competent and relevant to the circumstances and the available evidence. Several different charges may be appropriate to a certain crime, but the rule of thumb is if only one charge is proffered then the one most suitable to the evidence is chosen (or the one most likely to be proven). Of course more than one charge can apply. In the above example it looks as if both an indecent assault and common assault charges were proferred, at least initially?

The fact that a significant amount of CSA is found in the lay members IS circumstantial evidence of the high likelihood that other forms of abuse occurring.


I am sure there are other forms of abuse occurring. This is true. However, in regard to WINGS, our focus is on CSA.

Scott, I have NEVER criticised WINGS. Yes I would like to see it extending its boundaries, at least on an informative basis, but you have explained your mission statement and I am conscious that WINGS is a voluntary body (which I appear to be one of?) and thus are very much resource influenced. I have no problems with "specialisation." My two main gripes are that I disgree with those who make out CSA as being more horrific than other forms of abuse. It is not as simple as that. The other one is the dismissal of other forms of abuse within the fellowship and disregard for a need to address them. I even commend "fixit" if he wishes to specialise in CSA, but not if he maintains the blinkers regarding the importance of the other issues.

I don't think that they are false. However, if they are a part of the underlying issue of CSA, then by working to eradicate instances of CSA, the likelihood is that CPA issues leading to CSA will also be partly eradicated as well.

At last, someone talking sense. And the reverse is true of the other abuses. By addressing all forms of abuse, not just child abuse, there will be knock-on effects for each other. CSA can also benefit from addressing the other abuse issues.

How about taking it back to the original intent for focusing on the instances of CSA within the fellowship? They are instances which have lead to investigations and convictions. While there are also instances of CPA (such as the Michigan case) which led to investigations, CSA is an issue which has led to laws which also encompass instances of CPA in regard to mandatory reporting. I don't think that there is any argument there. Most states refer to child abuse as a whole as far as Mandated Reporters. This is addressed by law. Educating workers and friends about CSA leads to educating them about child abuse in general as well.

Regarding your last sentence. What was I saying about knock-on effects. FWIW I have no problem with a group specialising with CSA. My concern lies in the absence of methods and education to deal with the other abuse issues, which are not necessarily confined to the other forms of child abuse.

I do. That same risk is in all areas of the population. Same as CSA.

Keep talking Scott. You're my man!

I do.

I want more of this! This is the best music I've listened to in a while!

I do. And that is why WINGS works to educate people about CSA.

It's a double CD! Great!

For the most part, those in leadership positions within the fellowship have distanced themselves from anything which might be perceived as being 'organized'. With the focus on CSA issues, they have been placed in a position now to understand the need for both training and education concerning child abuse issues. That is all encompassing, as CSA is only one aspect of child abuse. They now know that wherever they are considered Mandated Reporters, they are to report any perceived child abuse they are aware of, NOT just CSA issues. The charges against both Jerome and Bill were for Failure to Report "Did knowingly fail to report suspected child abuse or neglect. This resulted in jail time and fines, NOT for CSA issues in regard to the law, but child abuse in general. The CSA was NOT the issue involved with the charges. I think that this results in a greater understanding within the worker ranks in regard to child abuse issues.

Now you understand my concerns when people are dismissive about the other forms of child abuse? Workers need to be equipped with knowledge of their potential legal responsibilities wherever the see "any" form of child abuse, whether it is in the homes of the frinds, conventions, or indeed in the homes of unbelievers (if they still pursue a Matt.10 principle.

And that focus has brought about changes within the fellowship in regard to all forms of child abuse hasn't it?

In accordance with what you report above. But as we are seeing, even from voluntary members of WINGS, we are having complete rejection of the issues.


I am of the belief that focusing on CSA it also brings attention to other forms of child abuse.

Of course it does and that is commendable. What was I saying again about knock-on effects? However, it does not sufficiently address the other issues. As we are seeing, there is no shortage of ignorance about the issues. CSA would also benefit from higher profile being given to the other issues of abuse.

Scott, I have NEVER criticised WINGS. Yes I would like to see it extending its boundaries, at least on an informative basis, but you have explained your mission statement and I am conscious that WINGS is a voluntary body (which I appear to be one of?) and thus are very much resource influenced. I have no problems with "specialisation." My two main gripes are that I disgree with those who make out CSA as being more horrific than other forms of abuse. It is not as simple as that. The other one is the dismissal of other forms of abuse within the fellowship and disregard for a need to address them. I even commend "fixit" if he wishes to specialise in CSA, but not if he maintains the blinkers regarding the importance of the other issues.


Perhaps it would help to understand that those who are members of WINGS do in fact get involved with other forms of abuse that are brought to their attention. WINGS has become a place where people see that 'someone' cares about what is going on. Not only do we receive information concerning CSA, but we have gotten information about lots of other issues unrelated to CSA. These range from spiritual abuse, spousal abuse, elder abuse, sexual abuse (between adults) etc. HOWEVER..... as WINGS we do not get involved in such matters, but as INDIVIDUALS we have been known to.

So...... while our official stance is to focus on CSA matters, we do as individuals (and sometimes acting in accordance with each other) get involved in helping others when we can. As with CSA issues, we also try to involve all those who we feel can help out in the matter. This includes other members of the TMB, workers, law enforcement etc. Publicly, as a group, we will continue to simply concentrate on our stated purpose. This does not mean we don't do what we can to help others when possible. I would think that very little of what we do is actually 'public' knowledge (as far as us posting about it). Such things as the submission to the Victorian Parliament,www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/fcdc/inquiries/57th/Child_Abuse_Inquiry/Submissions/WINGS.pdf and future publicly available submissions by WINGS will of course be obvious, but most of what we do is not discussed openly unless it is considered to be helpful or beneficial to do so.

[sharingtheriches]

Jul 31, 2013 9:39:24 GMT -5 hberry said:

I was never spanked, my parents didn't believe in it. However, growing up, it was obvious some folks were excessive in their use of physical discipline. Lately, though, I can't say that any of the friends seem inclined to spank their children. I think as society changed, so too did the fellowship folks, and I can remember the last time someone took their child out and spanked them because it startled me. Granted, that's just my small geographic area and only from observations at meeting, but I agree that generally speaking, the idea of 'spare the rod and spoil the child' has become more like 'spare the timeout and spoil the child.' The elder of the meeting I grew in believed in reasoning with their children--no physical discipline at all. That was an oddity back in the late 50's for sure.

Seems a possibility for a reason that CPA being on the downward swing might be that for the past 2-3 generations, both parents are working outside the home and the time spent with their children really doesn't typically warrant punishment of this kind because the parents are into making that time to be "quality" time since "quantity" time is not available for their lifestyle. I think CPA often comes from a parent or parents that are around those children 24/7 and their ability to withstand the constant "growing pains" of said children push them into doing things they themselves don't like......this is wht I'm seeing in this area anyway!

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 11:04:47 GMT -5 sharingtheriches said:

Jul 31, 2013 9:39:24 GMT -5 hberry said:

I was never spanked, my parents didn't believe in it. However, growing up, it was obvious some folks were excessive in their use of physical discipline. Lately, though, I can't say that any of the friends seem inclined to spank their children. I think as society changed, so too did the fellowship folks, and I can remember the last time someone took their child out and spanked them because it startled me. Granted, that's just my small geographic area and only from observations at meeting, but I agree that generally speaking, the idea of 'spare the rod and spoil the child' has become more like 'spare the timeout and spoil the child.' The elder of the meeting I grew in believed in reasoning with their children--no physical discipline at all. That was an oddity back in the late 50's for sure.

Seems a possibility for a reason that CPA being on the downward swing might be that for the past 2-3 generations, both parents are working outside the home and the time spent with their children really doesn't typically warrant punishment of this kind because the parents are into making that time to be "quality" time since "quantity" time is not available for their lifestyle. I think CPA often comes from a parent or parents that are around those children 24/7 and their ability to withstand the constant "growing pains" of said children push them into doing things they themselves don't like......this is wht I'm seeing in this area anyway!

I think physical abuse usually comes from parents with anger management problems. A great deal of violence starts with that.

What we are seeing is a change in culture where we are starting to believe that problems cannot be resolved with violence so people with anger problems are being channeled into dealing with their anger in other ways. Of course, in a lot of cases, the anger problem comes from their own victimization so as we start to see a reduction in child abuse, particularly the physical abuse, we will have an increasing number of new adults who don't have the anger issues at all and when they do, they don't think about violence to solve it. It is a virtuous cycle.

A generation or two ago parents and teachers worked together to punish "bad" children with spankings and other punitive measures. Today, teachers are not allowed to punish like they once did and an increasing number of parents demand a "hands off my child" policy of the teachers. This gets touted by fundamentalists as a big mistake, but it's not.....it's all part of a movement to eliminate violence as a means of resolving and remediating problems. That's a good thing.

[snow]

I am glad to hear that spanking, taking kids out of the meeting etc. is very rare now. Eases my mind because it was a very hard time for me. I guess from what I am reading my discipline was about the norm for the time?

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2013 17:21:29 GMT -5 snow said:

I am glad to hear that spanking, taking kids out of the meeting etc. is very rare now. Eases my mind because it was a very hard time for me. I guess from what I am reading my discipline was about the norm for the time?

I suspect the F&W's are, and likely always have been, a little more ready to physically discipline than the general public. Not by much, but that's my observation. But yes, you can relax, it is was easier being a kid in meeting than it ever was 'back in the day.' I was given coloring books and crayons to play with at convention and little books to read at gospel meeting--that was absolutely cutting edge for the F&Ws back in the late 50's. I had it easy!

[snow]

Jul 31, 2013 18:01:48 GMT -5 hberry said:

Jul 31, 2013 17:21:29 GMT -5 snow said:

I am glad to hear that spanking, taking kids out of the meeting etc. is very rare now. Eases my mind because it was a very hard time for me. I guess from what I am reading my discipline was about the norm for the time?

I suspect the F&W's are, and likely always have been, a little more ready to physically discipline than the general public. Not by much, but that's my observation. But yes, you can relax, it is was easier being a kid in meeting than it ever was 'back in the day.' I was given coloring books and crayons to play with at convention and little books to read at gospel meeting--that was absolutely cutting edge for the F&Ws back in the late 50's. I had it easy!

Oh lucky girl!! I'm glad your parents were so good to you. I think my mother would have been, but she had to do what Dad said so things were the way they were. I had a hard time forgiving my father for the physical stuff and the wearing down of my self esteem. I am not sure I am completely there because I still feel the hurt sometimes when I think about it. But I have certainly come a long way.