Chris Chandler pleads guilty to CSA-March 20, 2014

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 16:42:42 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 1, 2014 16:15:11 GMT -5 matisse said:

I am watching with curiosity as you continue to take Clancy's words out of context and misrepresent her.  It's almost like you are carrying out a personal vendetta against Clancy as well as against Rational.

I am hoping that I have posted enough of Clancy's words, in context, that others reading this thread will recognize what you are doing.

Now you are misrepresenting me. There is certainly nothing personal about any of this and rational is completely irrelevant to me on this subject.....it's the subject matter that I am focusing on, nothing more. Note that I have agreed with Clancy on some points and am prepared to state agreement on other points. That is a sign of objectivity. I have seen none of that from you or rational. I have seen neither of you (that I recall right now) disagree with anything she has stated. Should I understand that to be full agreement? Who is being objective here? All both of you seem to want to do is disagree with me it seems and make false claims of misrepresentation, but I could be wrong there. I prefer to discuss the subject and understand the ideas being presented, not make personal attacks.

You have made some outrageous assertions about Clancy over the course of this thread. I have felt compelled to answer (some of) them out of a basic sense of fairness. As I said before, I believe I have posted enough excerpts of Clancy's work in context that readers can judge your assertions for themselves.

[Deleted]

Jun 1, 2014 17:15:08 GMT -5 matisse said:

Jun 1, 2014 16:42:42 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Now you are misrepresenting me. There is certainly nothing personal about any of this and rational is completely irrelevant to me on this subject.....it's the subject matter that I am focusing on, nothing more. Note that I have agreed with Clancy on some points and am prepared to state agreement on other points. That is a sign of objectivity. I have seen none of that from you or rational. I have seen neither of you (that I recall right now) disagree with anything she has stated. Should I understand that to be full agreement? Who is being objective here? All both of you seem to want to do is disagree with me it seems and make false claims of misrepresentation, but I could be wrong there. I prefer to discuss the subject and understand the ideas being presented, not make personal attacks.

You have made some outrageous assertions about Clancy over the course of this thread. I have felt compelled to answer (some of) them out of a basic sense of fairness. As I said before, I believe I have posted enough excerpts of Clancy's work in context that readers can judge your assertions for themselves.

Do you agree with any of my comments on the book? If so, what would that be?

[matisse]

Jun 1, 2014 17:59:55 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 1, 2014 17:15:08 GMT -5 matisse said:

You have made some outrageous assertions about Clancy over the course of this thread. I have felt compelled to answer (some of) them out of a basic sense of fairness. As I said before, I believe I have posted enough excerpts of Clancy's work in context that readers can judge your assertions for themselves.

Do you agree with any of my comments on the book? If so, what would that be?

I have no problem with this statement of yours:

The book has some interesting, and possibly valid points. She devotes a large part of the book to her thesis that the methodology used in treating more traditional PTSD sufferers does not apply to CSA survivors. That may well be valid but it's difficult to comment on unless a person understands the treatment process for PTSD, which I know nothing of.

[rational]

Jun 1, 2014 14:45:51 GMT -5 SharonArnold said:

So, Rat, did you post the link to the Raelian article for maximum shock effect? de.raelpress.org/news.php?item.177.1

There are plenty of other reviews of Clancy’s book to choose from.

I think (without checking) that I posted a review from Salon, Raelian.org, and the New York Times. As I have said several, including in the link, it was posted as an alternative viewpoint. I tried to cover different areas of the spectrum.

However, looking at the article (Link here so you don't have to look it up or cut/paste from above.) is there some flaw in what was presented in the posted article?

I admit, I am a skimmer here and very rarely click on external links. I always figure that if there is something worth considering, and people cannot clearly and succinctly outline it in their post, then it is not worthwhile to click on the link. You, yourself, if my memory/perception is correct, have expressed a similar viewpoint in terms of youtube videos.

I believe I posted the links after I has expressed my opinion.

You are correct about YouTube but for a different reason. YouTube almost never provides anything that can be looked up or verified. The sources for the information are usually unreadable. Plus, I can read much faster than most people can speak.

Now, I am not a psychologist – not even close. (However, I might say that the single psychology course I took in university, that it was the first text book that I ever read simply for my own enjoyment/edification. I also got a reasonably impressive 98% as a final mark in the course. I have always said that if I would ever go back to school for –yet, another- degree that I would choose psychology.)

Good to know - thanks.

I think most people are familiar with Stockholm syndrome. If they are not, here is the basics from Wiki:

“Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 8% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be a threat.”

(I tell my husband that the extreme slavishness that our dog (border collie) exhibits in trying to please is simply a form of Stockholm syndrome.)

Are you traumatizing your dog?!?

It strikes me that there has to be a similar sort of syndrome in terms of CSA. Whether this is recognized or named as yet – I wouldn’t know – but it strikes me that you (i.e., Rat) might be in a position to further enlighten us.

I have no name for a syndrome but as has been pointed out in some of the references I posted, some children are craving attention and child abuse is attention. CSA, more than other forms of abuse, provide a caring relationship that frequently the child craves. The story that Jean posted points this out. She wrote of how the attention from IH filled a vacant place in her life. Again, this does not justify IH's behavior but explains what makes things easier for criminals to gain the confidence and trust of a child.

For other skimmers, non-link clickers here, this is Clancy’s definition of trauma: “It is either objectively life threatening when it occurs (like getting shot at) or subjectively results in the same kind of intense fear, horror, or helplessness that objectively life-threatening events arouse.”

She goes on to say “According to the dominant theoretical framework, sexual abuse, like other traumatic experiences, damages victims because it is a frightening, horrifying, overwhelming, or painful event when it happens."

I have to trust her that this is how professionals in the field view it. But to me, coming at it from a more common sense sort of position – I know (and have always known) that it is not always traumatizing to an individual when it happens. THAT is a no brainer to anyone with a modicum of common sense.

Yet almost without exception victims are said to have been traumatized. They are treated for PTSD. One of the questions being asked is why.

For an ordinary person whose tribe (aka the 2X2’s) has a strong cultural undercurrent endorsing ” This had happened many times in Canada (workers molesting children), and that the girls get over it and ‘we’ can’t put the workers out, because we have so few workers, and need them so bad.” - it doesn’t matter much at what point the trauma happens or the reason why. (We don’t care.) It only matters that it does happen and that IT MUST BE STOPPED. (Caps are for emphasis, and Yes, I am shouting.) (Though there are visions of Miss America and world peace here, according to Rat.)

Before world peace can be addressed, child abuse needs to be addressed. Perhaps today's methodologies need to be reexamined in light of new data, even if that data goes against current beliefs.

[rational]

Jun 1, 2014 15:39:52 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 1, 2014 15:18:26 GMT -5 rational said:

Is this from her book or are you referring to some other source?

The book states that Laura and Limbaugh "attacked" Professor Rind for the same idea she espouses that CSA does not directly or immediately lead to harm, calling it "garbage science" and wanting to "sexualize our children and normalize pedophilia". (Of course they didn't attack Rind, they attacked the idea.) You can be sure that their ire is no less intense for Clancy's agreement with the idea. She should really ask for a detailed explanation of her "garbage science" rather than shoot back with the allegation that her critics have an "allergy to the truth".

The point is that isn't what she claimed.It is what you have speculated to be the case.

It was the earlier work that Schlessinger and Limbaugh called "garbage science". Why would she ask them for any explanation when they called some other work 'garbage science'?

She did not shoot back at her critics (whomever they might have been). The text is:

Our allergy to the truth is a function of three widespread, persistent, and powerful misconceptions that have historically hindered sustained societal attention the topic of sexual abuse.

She didn't claim Schlessinger and Limbaugh were her critics. The allergy of truth comment was not directed at them.

Once again you posted something in error. Whether it was an oversight or a typo isn't the issue. Everyone makes errors.

But when the reference was questioned and the error was apparent, instead of just saying you had made an error, you make up facts to try and hide your error.

[magpie]

 Chris Chandler pleads guilty to CSA. This is what this board is about. He did it,and he at last admits it .2x2s will try reduce a just judgement impact to try and save their butts and tattered reputation ,most likely by hiring for $1000s per day Wendy Southy the psychologist to our top crime figures & underworld & used for reducing Ernie Barrys sentence. Using of course monies given in good faith thinking it would be used to further the Irvine doctorine  that the loyally follow. Now with all your side tracking,ask why victims finish in streets,homeless,mentally  ill,suicide,destroy family lives,become cold,intraverted,drug dependant,led to crime,many never ever settle down.?  Worse for exclusive sect victims,because they fear the church institutions who can help them,because of the mind control preaching they absorbed and poisened by. Yes but 2x2s will say by fingure pointing "but they or this one has the same problems", note the worst also is an unbiblical unatural celibate ministry also. I have seen the posters some are hoping to place in towns near each convention. Powerful compassioned pleas to save the children,not come and hear a 2x2s interpretation of an illusive church.   

[magpie]

Hello Ross,Interesting question,my sniffing out abilities has not answered either of your questions. Chris Johnston of Age Newspaper (Fairfax Media)has his fingure on this one. You possibility have read other boards and postings,including the one with Portugese written headings and comments introducing one of Chris's articles (in Brazil). The feeling is if sentence is seen to be to light the noise will become deafening.

[magpie]

Ross, WE urge folks to look up a most expensive lie.
wendy Southy psychologist|breaking silence.

[whyisitso]

Jun 10, 2014 16:56:18 GMT -5 magpie said:

Ross, WE urge folks to look up a most expensive lie.
wendy Southy psychologist|breaking silence.

There's no search results for Wendy Southy? Is that right Magpie? Weird!

[magpie]

SORRY,WHYITITSO.. I STOPPED WRITTING IN CAPITALS TO APPEASE THE SARCASTICS,BECAUSE OF THAT I SPELT "WN" WRONG...AS ROSS SAID,"WENDY WN"(WEB) ON PAGE 2 OR 3 YOU WILL SEE ,WENDY WN|BREAKING SILENCE.

[rational]

Jun 17, 2014 23:49:27 GMT -5 magpie said:

SORRY,WHYITITSO.. I STOPPED WRITTING IN CAPITALS TO APPEASE THE SARCASTICS,BECAUSE OF THAT I SPELT "WN" WRONG...AS ROSS SAID,"WENDY WN"(WEB) ON PAGE 2 OR 3 YOU WILL SEE ,WENDY WN|BREAKING SILENCE.

From the referenced site:
WN Wendy

Psychologists - Melbourne, VIC
Level 5 488 Bourke St, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia

From TMB, this is the firm of psychologists who assessed the recently convicted serial pedophile from the Truth Fellowship as 'not a pedophile' because he was in their professional opinion a victim of the church naievity who offended with only one victim and unlikely to offend again.

Oh yeah!!! He pulled the wool over their eyes good and proper.

Police know of a dozen or more of his victims who he sexually abused as innocent young girls. Workers know of them but covered up from the judge.

What is your opinion of the value of this psychological assessment?

What is your opinion of the honesty of the church leaders? Should workers have told the judge the truth, or were they correct to cover the truth about their colleague from the judge so he escaped jail?

Sounds like the judge asked the question and the psychologists answered it from the data they had. They probably know the definition of pedophile as well as the statistics based on, again, the data that was presented.

Railing against the psychologists is not the solution. It is the people who knew about these crimes and hid them or simply failed to report them to the authorities.

It is stated that the police and workers know about a dozen more victims but the court only seems to list a single victim. It doesn't add up. Were both the police and workers covering? Did the victims not wish to come forward? Or is there a statute of limitation?

It is a criminal issue and it is not just the honesty of the church leaders that should be questioned but the honesty of all involved as all who were aware of the crime.

[spiders]

Unfortunately there was only one brave victim who was prepared to come forward in this case, despite there being many more known victims. The church leaders are aware of many other victims but they did not encourage them to report their abuse. On the contrary victims were discouraged from coming forward and discussing their abuse with the authorities.

The power to take action against pedophiles lies with the victims, but for whatever reason many choose not to report their abuse. The way in which the f&w fellowship operates makes it difficult for victims to come forward as they will most likely either not be believed or face persecution from the workers.

[rational]

Jun 18, 2014 7:12:47 GMT -5 spiders said:

Unfortunately there was only one brave victim who was prepared to come forward in this case, despite there being many more known victims. The church leaders are aware of many other victims but they did not encourage them to report their abuse. On the contrary victims were discouraged from coming forward and discussing their abuse with the authorities.

This, sadly, seems to be the case when child abuse within an organization is brought to the leadership for resolution. With increased awareness and education this will hopefully quickly change.

The power to take action against pedophiles lies with the victims, but for whatever reason many choose not to report their abuse.

There are a number of reasons for this. There is some data that supports the idea that young victims do not always view sexual molestation as traumatic and it is not until years later that they realize perhaps it should have been reported. And then, there is the social stigma that surrounds a court trial and the victim may not want to testify about something that happened years ago. Unfortunatly, this often leaves the criminal to continue abusing others.
In the case of minors, it is the parents, and perhaps mandated reporters with knowledge of the crime, that have to decide to bring legal action against the criminals. For mandated reporters there usually is not a choice but for parents there usually is. [/quote]The way in which the f&w fellowship operates makes it difficult for victims to come forward as they will most likely either not be believed or face persecution from the workers.[/quote]It seems not only that they will face condemnation but that it could spread to their families as well. Not just in the F&W but in many organizations. Imagine being the the school child that accused a member of the school staff and the staff member was found to be not guilty. Remember, these criminals are very often well liked members

As a parent whose child suffered non-traumatic molestation, the decision to go to the authorities and subject the child to the stress for something they probably do not even understand could be a difficult decision.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2014 0:26:54 GMT -5 rational said:

Sounds like the judge asked the question and the psychologists answered it from the data they had. They probably know the definition of pedophile as well as the statistics based on, again, the data that was presented.

Railing against the psychologists is not the solution. It is the people who knew about these crimes and hid them or simply failed to report them to the authorities.

It is stated that the police and workers know about a dozen more victims but the court only seems to list a single victim. It doesn't add up. Were both the police and workers covering? Did the victims not wish to come forward? Or is there a statute of limitation?

It is a criminal issue and it is not just the honesty of the church leaders that should be questioned but the honesty of all involved as all who were aware of the crime.

Afaik not on criminal action. There is on civil but that is set to change. Some chance the court system will become easier for victims in the future so it isn't necessarily over for this abuser.

I assumed other victims didn't wish to come forward.

[jscc1]

Place in your diary,June 26th 2014. We will see if justice is allowed or an injustice paid for again by the friends this again by hiring a celebrity ...?

[whyisitso]

Jun 24, 2014 17:57:19 GMT -5 jscc1 said:

Place in your diary,June 26th 2014. We will see if justice is allowed or an injustice paid for again by the friends this again by hiring a celebrity ...?

Any info on today's proceedings?

[Deleted]

Jun 26, 2014 4:22:43 GMT -5 whyisitso said:

Jun 24, 2014 17:57:19 GMT -5 jscc1 said:

Place in your diary,June 26th 2014. We will see if justice is allowed or an injustice paid for again by the friends this again by hiring a celebrity ...?

Any info on today's proceedings?

From informal information coming out of the sentencing part of the trial, Mr. Chandler was sentenced to 12 months in prison of which 7 months is suspended. That will apparently result in at least 3 months in prison from today.

He will be registered on the sex offenders' list for a lifetime and will have to submit a DNA sample to police.

Was justice done? Underdone? Overdone?

[rational]

Jun 26, 2014 6:54:32 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 26, 2014 4:22:43 GMT -5 whyisitso said:

Any info on today's proceedings?

From informal information coming out of the sentencing part of the trial, Mr. Chandler was sentenced to 12 months in prison of which 7 months is suspended. That will apparently result in at least 3 months in prison from today.

He will be registered on the sex offenders' list for a lifetime and will have to submit a DNA sample to police.

Was justice done? Underdone? Overdone?

What was the specific crime on which the sentence was based?

[Deleted]

Jun 26, 2014 8:12:01 GMT -5 rational said:

Jun 26, 2014 6:54:32 GMT -5 @clearday said:

From informal information coming out of the sentencing part of the trial, Mr. Chandler was sentenced to 12 months in prison of which 7 months is suspended. That will apparently result in at least 3 months in prison from today.

He will be registered on the sex offenders' list for a lifetime and will have to submit a DNA sample to police.

Was justice done? Underdone? Overdone?

What was the specific crime on which the sentence was based?

The charges weren't specifically read out at the sentencing hearing apparently.

According to the newspaper article of the OP, He pleaded guilty to 9 charges while some had been dropped at the time of the guilty plea:

"Chris Chandler, 56, of French Island, a former senior member of the shadowy Bible sect known as Friends and Workers or the Two by Twos, pleaded guilty in the LaTrobe Valley Magistrate's Court on Thursday to nine charges including unlawful indecent assaults, indecent assaults and gross indecency on three young female victims.
Several charges were dropped during the committal mention hearing on Thursday but Chandler faces court again in May after entering his guilty plea."


Read more: www.theage.com.au/victoria/former-sect-leader-pleads-guilty-to-child-sex-charges-20140320-3562h.html#ixzz35klS1yAV

[magpie]

Justice "underdone",by a long shot. The csa damage is a life sentence ,destroyerto mant, often a life taker.

[fixit]

Jun 26, 2014 17:27:26 GMT -5 magpie said:

Justice "underdone",by a long shot. The csa damage is a life sentence ,destroyerto mant, often a life taker.

True, but at least there was a prison term.

Hopefully it will be a wake up call to the ministry. And perhaps even our Bert.

With respect to child sexual abuse, society has a higher standard than the ministry.

[magpie]

Fixit sorry,Deeper then that. Celibate ministry demand unbiblical,preacher only ministry unbiblical,to be exclusive a heresy,to rectify DELETE it all, start again embracing a healing gospel not a selfrightous,judgemental,only saved, divisive doctorine,time they got to gather with local christian communities in prayer,counsilling,teachings,pastoring,worship,communion that liberates and will engulf them in Grace and an active constructive service for God and His people who are hurting,crying out for hope and answers in th world His Son came and died for.

[mdm]

Jun 26, 2014 20:00:44 GMT -5 Ross.Bowden said:

Jun 26, 2014 17:46:54 GMT -5 fixit said:

True, but at least there was a prison term.

Hopefully it will be a wake up call to the ministry. And perhaps even our Bert.

With respect to child sexual abuse, society has a higher standard than the ministry.

Yes, sadly when it comes to child sexual abuse (a heinous crime), the world has a higher standard than the ministry.
Not only has it failed to protect innocent children in the past, it continues to fail innocent children today.
The most basic thing any church can do is to have policies and procedures when it comes to protecting children.

Apart from 2 or 3 states/regions throughout the world, the ministry does not consider it important enough to:

- issue guidelines for its staff
- require its ministers who have access to children to undergo safe ministry training

The only logical conclusion that any normal human being can derive from this is that 99% of the Head Workers throughout the world do not regard the protection of children as important.

Why do people in the church tolerate this situation?

Why do workers in the church tolerate this situation?

Is it because to speak against overseers' decisions is to show disrespect for "the anointed ones" and to "get out of your place"? Which would lead to losing reputation one has in the eyes of those same overseers and others in the fellowship.

[fixit]

Jun 27, 2014 3:21:37 GMT -5 mdm said:

Jun 26, 2014 20:00:44 GMT -5 Ross.Bowden said:

Yes, sadly when it comes to child sexual abuse (a heinous crime), the world has a higher standard than the ministry.
Not only has it failed to protect innocent children in the past, it continues to fail innocent children today.
The most basic thing any church can do is to have policies and procedures when it comes to protecting children.

Apart from 2 or 3 states/regions throughout the world, the ministry does not consider it important enough to:

- issue guidelines for its staff
- require its ministers who have access to children to undergo safe ministry training

The only logical conclusion that any normal human being can derive from this is that 99% of the Head Workers throughout the world do not regard the protection of children as important.

Why do people in the church tolerate this situation?

Why do workers in the church tolerate this situation?

Is it because to speak against overseers' decisions is to show disrespect for "the anointed ones" and to "get out of your place"? Which would lead to losing reputation one has in the eyes of those same overseers and others in the fellowship.

Dale Shultz explained how the system works:

Whether the decision is right or wrong, the right thing for all of us is to respect it because of those who have made the judgement. If the decision is wrong, I am sure that the Lord will have ways of correcting that over time. He still is very much on the throne. In the final analysis, there are some things that we just have to leave in his hands. I believe that for anyone to try to force changes now, after all that has been done to bring issues into focus, that it could mean just being very much out of our place.

[sharingtheriches]

Jun 1, 2014 15:52:41 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Clancy leaves no stone unturned as she lashes out to the world. Not only are the treatments for survivors harming them more than helping them:

".......most existing programs for sexual abuse prevention do not work."

Strange that! The local police's psychologist stated the very same thing when they were talking to the local paper about a registered sex offender's absconding his release agreement and registered abode! The man had been in for 20 years and had had long and years worth of psychological classes while in prison and it did nothing for him apparently. They had found him 2 states away with an underaged female he'd picked up off of the Facebook accounts. Luckily no actual sex acts had occurred yet, but he was doing his best to get far enough away, so they'd have time before he was caught, etc. And the psychologist said all those long days and years while in prison did nothing for this guy! He's on his way back to finish his 40 year sentence, plus he will face jury trial for his abducting an underaged female for the purpose of sex and crossing state lines with her! The man is looking at 20 years plus another 40 likely plus whatever the longest is for absconding parole! The man is close to 50 so he is like not to come out of prison alive whether by age or by someone in prison taking him down for his CSA activities.

[sharingtheriches]

Jun 26, 2014 6:54:32 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jun 26, 2014 4:22:43 GMT -5 whyisitso said:

Any info on today's proceedings?

From informal information coming out of the sentencing part of the trial, Mr. Chandler was sentenced to 12 months in prison of which 7 months is suspended. That will apparently result in at least 3 months in prison from today.

He will be registered on the sex offenders' list for a lifetime and will have to submit a DNA sample to police.

Was justice done? Underdone? Overdone?

If they have to register as sex offender they have to keep their parole officer up to date on their living address, don't they? So IF the workers let any of them return to workership, how in the world would they be able to do that? I would hope they wouldn't be allowed back in, but stranger things have happened!

[colac]

You are monitered closely.Yes many slip through the net. E.G, Ernie Barry avoided the register by hiring a professional high paid liar,who often pleads for underworld crims. But history knows that he,Barry, avoided charges that would have revealed up to twelve more child victims. So the Warrnambool schools and media are aware he is living local.
Does he still attend the sect services? With that huge lie in his life?
It is Chandlers family as well as victims and their families where so much pain must be at the moment.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2014 17:23:45 GMT -5 colac said:

You are monitered closely.Yes many slip through the net. E.G, Ernie Barry avoided the register by hiring a professional high paid liar,who often pleads for underworld crims. But history knows that he,Barry, avoided charges that would have revealed up to twelve more child victims. So the Warrnambool schools and media are aware he is living local.
Does he still attend the sect services? With that huge lie in his life?
It is Chandlers family as well as victims and their families where so much pain must be at the moment.

The Ernie Barry/Warrnambool connection worries me. I have professing family in Warrnambool who look after the meeting there and if there is information that they need to know about Mr.Barry's risk profile, please let me know. I will connect with them.