|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 11, 2014 12:06:22 GMT -5
I guess you don't see my questions to you as pertinent or you just don't know the answer? |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 11, 2014 12:31:01 GMT -5
Making a noise is what got a CSA offender remove from the work in the eastern US several years ago. Only it took more than one person making noise. One person at a time had no effect. I thought it was the report to the authorities. It only takes one person to make the charge. Also, Australia doesn't have statute of limitations, but other places may, and something still has to be done within the church even when the offense is not reportable. With no statute of limitation the victims can report the criminal if they wish. Why do you think they are not reporting?
The reason for not reporting that is relevant within the context of this discussion is that it would be seen as going against the wishes of the ministry and would lead to a loss of reputation in the church. Some have been threatened with having the meeting removed from their home.
As far as the non-criminal activity - that is an issue that the church needs to handle. Legally, nothing. Of course, how is it determined that the accused is guilty? If we want to be on the conservative side, offender's admission of the offense, a witness, or 2 different reports against the alleged offender would be sufficient to determine guilt. For me, it raises many questions about the value of religion. This is not just a F&W issue.[/quote] Actually, there are churches where such things are not the norm. Of course, they are not in the news, nor are they discussed on internet forums. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 11, 2014 13:09:29 GMT -5
EB and CC were dealt with only because somebody acted against the will of the ministry and reported them. The reason why CSA issues are discussed on TMB is not that somebody has committed these offenses, but that the ministry has discouraged reporting and even threatened those who would have reported and have allowed the offenders to remain in the fellowship/ministry. This is what has to change in orders for rumors to end. What needs to change is people thinking for themselves. I agree that the workers are acting badly. In some cases illegally. But that does not absolve anyone else who was aware of the abuse and did not report it, including the parents. You can continue to blame the workers and try to get them to change but the place where change needs to take place is through the members. It seems like people are waiting for the workers to fix things. That does not seem to be going well. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 11, 2014 13:59:11 GMT -5
Are you meaning to say it's the NORM in the fellowship?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 14:27:30 GMT -5
Roselyn, and others, take notice of rationals posts on the topic. He makes much more sense than I do, a lot more articulate.
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 11, 2014 14:45:53 GMT -5
I think something that would be very useful in helping the members of the F&W's would be the message spoken straight from the workers at meetings that tells them that it is absolutely imperative that all members report CSA to the authorities immediately upon finding it happening. Then there would be no hesitation or worry that they were doing something wrong in reporting anyone who does this. It's sad that it needs to be said, but I think it's essential that everyone knows it's not only okay with the workers, but mandatory and that they will have the full support of the ministry when they do report CSA to the correct authorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 11, 2014 18:17:11 GMT -5
So a couple in Victoria have been to court,one avoiding revealing that 12 more victims are known,from costly support given by the States Bishop? But!what of the victims?,what a Godless compassionless lot to leave the damaged lives to to hang out to dry.Many Countries now have had 2x2 workers go to court,these for the same crimes,one for not disclosing evidence. Do really people think that this is not a serious cancerous problem eating away at the very fabric of the 2x2 Christian Conventions overall ministry and their blind Freddy followers? Hey Roselyn T frustrating? Hey Snow,but what of the ones who would make such an announcement? Why did the Bishop allow a dishonest plea from EB? .
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 11, 2014 18:25:26 GMT -5
P.S, Statutes of limitation- Not with the Royal Commission. Look hard at the older men and women giving evidence that goes back for many,many decades. Their voices are heard and recorded for final summeries.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 11, 2014 18:35:07 GMT -5
Dear Maja, Steve Schultz,what a terrible thing to happen,it appears now that those behind his sacking are a bit scared of pointing fingures themselves? Any South Australians got comments on this terrible case,thanks?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 20:16:48 GMT -5
magpie, you have become way too serious. Go back to the fun times 60 years ago.
Remember when you set up the broken chair in the meeting room, and the person who sat on it ended up on the floor. That brought the house down.
Also in class when Teacher asked for the name of a star constellation. Your answer was "Hairy anus". That cracked the class up, and I think got you detention. Correct answer of course was Eridanus.
Or the time you wore that pink shirt and pointy black shoes at Convention. You got spoken to by a Worker, probably Mr. Pickering. You would remember him. There would have been about 50 or 60 of us in that big tent at Dandenong. They were fun days.
Were you ever on dunny duty at Dandenong. Perhaps not, as you were very suave,and would have been a Waiter looking after the other end.
Where has your lighter side gone!!!. You and I will never fix CSA problems, leave that to the experts.
Just be happy in old age, remember the good times. Would love to have a drink with you sometime.
You and I should start a happy thread called "The good old days."
|
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 12, 2014 11:04:02 GMT -5
Are you meaning to say it's the NORM in the fellowship? After a year of talking about this issue with friends and workers from around the world, I have concluded that it's the norm. Yes, in the US, CSA has to be reported, as they learned in Michigan, so the norm is changing here. I would love to see a change that comes not out of necessity, but out of conviction. Also, there is no change when it comes to dealing with non-reportable abuse, except as forced to by external pressure, as in the case of IH. You know, at the same time IH was removed from the work, AQ was sent back to Peru. He was not reported to the law, even though he could have been. Something to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 12, 2014 11:17:33 GMT -5
EB and CC were dealt with only because somebody acted against the will of the ministry and reported them. The reason why CSA issues are discussed on TMB is not that somebody has committed these offenses, but that the ministry has discouraged reporting and even threatened those who would have reported and have allowed the offenders to remain in the fellowship/ministry. This is what has to change in orders for rumors to end. What needs to change is people thinking for themselves. I agree that the workers are acting badly. In some cases illegally. But that does not absolve anyone else who was aware of the abuse and did not report it, including the parents. You can continue to blame the workers and try to get them to change but the place where change needs to take place is through the members. It seems like people are waiting for the workers to fix things. That does not seem to be going well. I have never said that the regular folks have no responsibility in this. But the responsibility doesn't lie just on those who didn't report abuse, but also, if not more, on those who didn't support them in reporting it. And, I am not trying to change the workers - I am not in their church any more. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2014 13:17:37 GMT -5
I have never said that the regular folks have no responsibility in this. But the responsibility doesn't lie just on those who didn't report abuse, but also, if not more, on those who didn't support them in reporting it. The responsibility of protecting their children falls squarely on the parents. They may ask others for advice but the decision to report abuse is theirs. True, others may also report the abuse and tyhere is an ethical and, more and more often, a legal obligation for anyone with the knowledge or suspicion of abuse to report as well. I see. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 12, 2014 17:37:14 GMT -5
G'day Redback, I often was on dunny duty at State School. Also life is wonderful exciting,fruitful and a real blessing to be amongst like minded christians. Not locked into one interpretation but very ecumenical. As a young bloke my name should have been changed to Richard Head,but my mistakes were that I wanted to desert the farm just to get away from a horrid predater,what else one could do in those days in hindsite I should have just hung in there. My suave was an act,absolute an act.I carted green hides from an abatior once,so was a bit humble underneath. Besides a spiritually fulfilling serving life,I have one campaign, "PROTECTING OUR LITTLE ONES FROM A CANCEROUS ELEMENT THAT HAS BEEN IN THE SECT, FOR IT APPEARS HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER,AS THE COVER UPS",not anti East west tunnel or hugging trees . But I still get a dig for my practical and verbal jokes,"OH DAD" or "OH POPPA".I love all types of food and could share a meal with anyone so they can see the happy fulfilled life that is me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 18:28:55 GMT -5
Thanks magpie for the report. Great that you still have a happy side. I would never have called you Richard Head, just a bit mischievious. You were able to upset Workers and Teachers a bit.
Sad that you had that bad experience in early life. I had dealings with the same people, never had a problem. Maybe you were better looking, because you were blonde.
Don't be too hard on the 2x2's there are plenty of good people there. I have contact with a number. But for the grace of God, there go you and I.
Best wishes, have a happy Christmas season.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 13, 2014 16:27:14 GMT -5
Redback,there was better looking kids than me,but thanks. Send me a Christmas card,been here since1978.And God Bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 13, 2014 22:50:16 GMT -5
I have never said that the regular folks have no responsibility in this. But the responsibility doesn't lie just on those who didn't report abuse, but also, if not more, on those who didn't support them in reporting it. The responsibility of protecting their children falls squarely on the parents. They may ask others for advice but the decision to report abuse is theirs. True, others may also report the abuse and tyhere is an ethical and, more and more often, a legal obligation for anyone with the knowledge or suspicion of abuse to report as well. It's not always about the parents. Often they didn't even know about it. It's now the choice of victims themselves as adults to report abuse. It's not easy for them to report for various reasons, but how much harder it is without the support of their church and even in opposition to it.I see. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 1:23:00 GMT -5
It's not always about the parents. Often they didn't even know about it. It's now the choice of victims themselves as adults to report abuse. It's not easy for them to report for various reasons, but how much harder it is without the support of their church and even in opposition to it. No, because the majority of the time it is the parents or relatives that are the offenders. In the various reports that I am familiar with it is a rare case when the parents did not know about the abuse. But then, perhaps I simply have not read the ones when the parents were unaware. I don't think anyone has said it is easy for victims to come forward and charge another person with a crime, especially one of sexual abuse. But one of the roadblocks to reporting is frequently put up when the victim does seek the support of the church. The bottom line is this is not a church/spiritual issue - it is a criminal issue. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 15, 2014 15:20:11 GMT -5
It's not always about the parents. Often they didn't even know about it. It's now the choice of victims themselves as adults to report abuse. It's not easy for them to report for various reasons, but how much harder it is without the support of their church and even in opposition to it. No, because the majority of the time it is the parents or relatives that are the offenders. In the various reports that I am familiar with it is a rare case when the parents did not know about the abuse. But then, perhaps I simply have not read the ones when the parents were unaware. I don't think anyone has said it is easy for victims to come forward and charge another person with a crime, especially one of sexual abuse. But one of the roadblocks to reporting is frequently put up when the victim does seek the support of the church.The bottom line is this is not a church/spiritual issue - it is a criminal issue. I don't see it as an either/or question, nor do I see the victim as the only responsible party in the aftermath of abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Dec 15, 2014 16:36:10 GMT -5
Dear Rationale',,Workplace? Sexual harrassment to client or fellow staff/ worker? Sackable offence,and if any victims under age,or its rape criminal offence? Management cannot ignore,must support victim/s,and involve Police allow counselling,medical and other help for victims. And if suing takes place as victim was not protected or placed in a dangerous situation without response if known danger,etc,lets hope Employer has a good Insurance,real good if boss is the predator? Workers of Christian Conventions are in their designated work places as their recorded field district is just that. So victims are to be protected and given every possible assistance by the predators management.What liability Insurance does the sect carry?E.G,every EB victim and maybe families can sue their boots off,take note DL. It is far wider than just Law,enormously wider.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 15, 2014 18:08:32 GMT -5
I don't see it as an either/or question, nor do I see the victim as the only responsible party in the aftermath of abuse. I'm sure you don't. It isn't about whether it is a criminal or spiritual issue unless you want to stop it from happening. Then it matters. You could set up some sort of a blind study where one set of offenders was prayed for and the others were turned into the authorities that handle crime. Let it run a year or so and see which works best. Then use the data to determine which course to follow. Or you could look to history to see how effective praying for the offenders and having them confess and repent. How effective has that been? Then compare that to turning them over to the authorities. Someone should do a study. In the end it is the responsibility of the victim, or in the case of minors, the guardians, to report the crime. Unless, of course, the offender is willing to confess to the authorities. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 15, 2014 18:36:40 GMT -5
Dear Rationale',,Workplace? Sexual harrassment to client or fellow staff/ worker? Sackable offence,and if any victims under age,or its rape criminal offence? Management cannot ignore,must support victim/s,and involve Police allow counselling,medical and other help for victims. And if suing takes place as victim was not protected or placed in a dangerous situation without response if known danger,etc,lets hope Employer has a good Insurance,real good if boss is the predator? Workers of Christian Conventions are in their designated work places as their recorded field district is just that. So victims are to be protected and given every possible assistance by the predators management.What liability Insurance does the sect carry?E.G,every EB victim and maybe families can sue their boots off,take note DL. It is far wider than just Law,enormously wider. I have considerable difficulty following your train of thought. It appears you are saying that in your country if an employee is guilty of sexual harassment that the employer is required to provide counseling and medical help. It also sounds like you are grouping sexual harassment in with sexual assault or there would be no need for the medical care. I doubt that unless the company has been shown to be negligent in providing a safe and comfortable workplace that this is actually the case. Of course, a civil suit can always be brought against anyone. It would be difficult, at least in the US, to demonstrate that the workers were employees of the F&W church. And if the church were to get insurance who would be on the policy? Is there insurance against negligence? Most insurance policies contain intentional act exclusions. Under the intentional act exclusion harm caused by an insured, if the insured acted with a specific intent to injure the victim, is not covered. So, in the case you proposed, insurance would do no good because the insured (worker) acted intentionally to cause the harm. It would be difficult to bring a suit against the workers for damages that were not reported to the authorities. Not impossible, but as time goes by the case becomes a "he said-s/he said" case and, in most cases, the burden of proof lies with the state. In a civil suit not only is there a need to prove that the incident happened as claimed but providing enough proof to convince a jury is not always easy. And then there is the need to demonstrate the financial loss and damages that are being sought. It is an uphill battle. Best case to prevent abuse - get the victims/guardians to report immediately. Hopefully I did not misinterpret your post. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 15, 2014 21:15:53 GMT -5
I don't see it as an either/or question, nor do I see the victim as the only responsible party in the aftermath of abuse. I'm sure you don't. It isn't about whether it is a criminal or spiritual issue unless you want to stop it from happening. Then it matters. You could set up some sort of a blind study where one set of offenders was prayed for and the others were turned into the authorities that handle crime. Let it run a year or so and see which works best. Then use the data to determine which course to follow. Or you could look to history to see how effective praying for the offenders and having them confess and repent. How effective has that been? Then compare that to turning them over to the authorities. Someone should do a study. In the end it is the responsibility of the victim, or in the case of minors, the guardians, to report the crime. Unless, of course, the offender is willing to confess to the authorities. I am not sure, but it seems you are implying that I don't think it's a criminal issue and that offenders should only be prayed for? I have never said that, quite the opposite. That would be quite a twisting of my words. But of course, you wouldn't be doing that, so it must be a misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 15, 2014 21:24:10 GMT -5
I'm sure you don't. It isn't about whether it is a criminal or spiritual issue unless you want to stop it from happening. Then it matters. You could set up some sort of a blind study where one set of offenders was prayed for and the others were turned into the authorities that handle crime. Let it run a year or so and see which works best. Then use the data to determine which course to follow. Or you could look to history to see how effective praying for the offenders and having them confess and repent. How effective has that been? Then compare that to turning them over to the authorities. Someone should do a study. In the end it is the responsibility of the victim, or in the case of minors, the guardians, to report the crime. Unless, of course, the offender is willing to confess to the authorities. I am not sure, but it seems you are implying that I don't think it's a criminal issue and that offenders should only be prayed for? I have never said that, quite the opposite. That would be quite a twisting of my words. But of course, you wouldn't be doing that, so it must be a misunderstanding. You said you don't see it as an either/or issue. It certainly can be considered to be both unless you are interested in stopping the abuse. If that is the case history shows that it is a criminal issue and to be stopped it needs to be treated first and foremost as a criminal issue. Once that is in place all and any spiritual issues can be addressed and the appropriate measures exercised. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Dec 16, 2014 13:09:14 GMT -5
I am not sure, but it seems you are implying that I don't think it's a criminal issue and that offenders should only be prayed for? I have never said that, quite the opposite. That would be quite a twisting of my words. But of course, you wouldn't be doing that, so it must be a misunderstanding. You said you don't see it as an either/or issue. It certainly can be considered to be both unless you are interested in stopping the abuse. If that is the case history shows that it is a criminal issue and to be stopped it needs to be treated first and foremost as a criminal issue. Once that is in place all and any spiritual issues can be addressed and the appropriate measures exercised. Where did I say that it shouldn't be dealt with as a criminal issue? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 16, 2014 19:55:42 GMT -5
You said you don't see it as an either/or issue. It certainly can be considered to be both unless you are interested in stopping the abuse. If that is the case history shows that it is a criminal issue and to be stopped it needs to be treated first and foremost as a criminal issue. Once that is in place all and any spiritual issues can be addressed and the appropriate measures exercised. Where did I say that it shouldn't be dealt with as a criminal issue? And where did I say that you said it shouldn't be dealt with as a criminal issue? My point was that if child abuse is considered a both a criminal and a spiritual issue there is a fair chance, as history has shown both in the F&W and other religious organizations, that the events will not be reported to the authorities. As soon as it is considered a spiritual issue, as it usually is not, the victim/family/others involved bring it to the church and pressure there prevents justice. The fact that the bible says nothing regarding the abuse of children makes it difficult to make it a spiritual issue. You said it was not an either/or issue. My contention is that it is an either/or issue if the goal is to limit child abuse as effectively as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 6, 2015 7:28:45 GMT -5
Dear Ol' Rational, Why do you love splitting at straws? The Bible says obey the laws of the land? So The criminal status of a devaint mentally sick paedophile is to protect the little ones,the ones Jesus gathered and told us to be like.Innocent.If the church ignores that to protect their own butts as Leitch did in getting Barry away from facing the truth of 12 more known victims of Barrys sick perverted actions,then it sure aint spiritual? It is a crime, and the law has full command to deal with this,not the secret sects(christian conventions)unbiblical Bishops. P.S. Do you agree with that Redback? Allow God to remain in control , in 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 6, 2015 12:33:16 GMT -5
Dear Ol' Rational, Why do you love splitting at straws? Perhaps to attempt to get people to look at situations from a different point of view.Is this a question or a statement?I am sorry but no matter how I parse this sentence I cannot understand what you mean.Spiritual, as I believe you are using it, is generally a function of one's religious beliefs. I have no religious beliefs so the idea of something being spiritual or not is lost on me. However, I do believe that shielding people from legal scrutiny because you are worried how it will reflect on the group is immoral. I also believe that not reporting criminal activity is wrong. There are said to be 12 more victims but I have yet to see the victims coming forward to accuse the offender. Responsibility rests on both sides of the situation.I think I have been supporting this point of view from day one. Report crimes to the authorities that deal with them.Redback will have to speak for him/herself.To date, god has not shown any interest in solving the child abuse problem. You can decide to let god remain in control but then to whom will you complain when nothing is done? God? If you want to stop criminals you have to bring them before the law. And, in most cases it is the responsibility of the victim. ou mentioned that there were 12 victims that were known. I am guessing they elected, for whatever reason, not to come forward. That is their right but then they also have to accept the consequences. Had the victims of the past reported the crimes things might be somewhat different now. Of course, in the past there was not the focus and the understanding that exists today. What do you think would have been the outcome had you reported you abuse directly to the authorities? |
|
