rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 30, 2014 15:25:20 GMT -5
maybe 'what they'd like to do' was too strong a statement - but as regular adults I guess we all look at other regular adults and think things like 'nice dress' 'nice hair' 'nice smile' or whatever - I wouldn't want to put my children in a position where I was aware someone could be thinking the same of them in an inappropriate way... The question really is - Do you want to limit your activity/behavior because of what you think someone else might be thinking. Going back to my comment: Why do you think anyone would be any different than you are?although some of these offenders are/were attracted to children it does not mean that their thinking about the people they are attracted to is any different than your thoughts about the individuals you are attracted to. Of course, I really don't know what you think about when you are sitting in meeting - Perhaps I don't want to know! Yes, I would limit my behaviour or activity because of what I worry someone else may be thinking - that's the whole point I've been making, if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present I would choose not to be there with my kids... |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2014 15:37:55 GMT -5
The question really is - Do you want to limit your activity/behavior because of what you think someone else might be thinking. Going back to my comment: Why do you think anyone would be any different than you are?although some of these offenders are/were attracted to children it does not mean that their thinking about the people they are attracted to is any different than your thoughts about the individuals you are attracted to. Of course, I really don't know what you think about when you are sitting in meeting - Perhaps I don't want to know! Yes, I would limit my behaviour or activity because of what I worry someone else may be thinking - that's the whole point I've been making, if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present I would choose not to be there with my kids... And, of course that is your right as a parent. Just a thought when I read the last few posts. You said that you would not want an offender to be thinking about your children. I can understand that. However, if you are out in public there are any number of offenders you may pass and never know they are offenders or what they thought about your children. That may be far more dangerous than sitting in meeting with one that you are aware of, will keep an eye on etc. Also, by avoiding going to the meeting, which I would think would be a place you want to be, you are letting the offender win once again. Thoughts can never hurt your children if you are aware and watchful that they don't turn into action. It seems a pity to me that you feel you must alter your life to avoid that person. They just keep on 'winning' if you do. |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 30, 2014 15:56:25 GMT -5
Yes, I would limit my behaviour or activity because of what I worry someone else may be thinking - that's the whole point I've been making, if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present I would choose not to be there with my kids... And, of course that is your right as a parent. Just a thought when I read the last few posts. You said that you would not want an offender to be thinking about your children. I can understand that. However, if you are out in public there are any number of offenders you may pass and never know they are offenders or what they thought about your children. That may be far more dangerous than sitting in meeting with one that you are aware of, will keep an eye on etc. Also, by avoiding going to the meeting, which I would think would be a place you want to be, you are letting the offender win once again. Thoughts can never hurt your children if you are aware and watchful that they don't turn into action. It seems a pity to me that you feel you must alter your life to avoid that person. They just keep on 'winning' if you do. sorry Snow, I have a lot of respect for your thoughts having read on here for quite some time, but I don't agree with this one - If I am out and about with my children doing whatever, clearly I have no idea who we come in contact with and I would be my usual vigilant self whilst pursuing normal daily living - I have no control in that situation... However if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present, I have some control, and would not take my kids into that situation, whether it be a meeting or social gathering. I don't see it as they are winning, I see it as my being a mother. |
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 30, 2014 16:32:44 GMT -5
And, of course that is your right as a parent. Just a thought when I read the last few posts. You said that you would not want an offender to be thinking about your children. I can understand that. However, if you are out in public there are any number of offenders you may pass and never know they are offenders or what they thought about your children. That may be far more dangerous than sitting in meeting with one that you are aware of, will keep an eye on etc. Also, by avoiding going to the meeting, which I would think would be a place you want to be, you are letting the offender win once again. Thoughts can never hurt your children if you are aware and watchful that they don't turn into action. It seems a pity to me that you feel you must alter your life to avoid that person. They just keep on 'winning' if you do. sorry Snow, I have a lot of respect for your thoughts having read on here for quite some time, but I don't agree with this one - If I am out and about with my children doing whatever, clearly I have no idea who we come in contact with and I would be my usual vigilant self whilst pursuing normal daily living - I have no control in that situation... However if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present, I have some control, and would not take my kids into that situation, whether it be a meeting or social gathering. I don't see it as they are winning, I see it as my being a mother. rs, I totally get what you are saying. I, too, see it as you being a good parent, following natural parental instincts. So what, if you are in a mall, and there is someone passing who has thoughts about your children. You are on guard, you are vigilant. This person is passing through your lives, probably never to be seen again. Having once been a true believer in the 2X2 system - I understand that meeting is an environment where you tend to let your guard down, where you let yourself beome exposed, vulnerable. (That is, if meeting has any real meaning to you.) This is called fellowship. It is the basis of all really good connection with other human beings, regardless of the context. There is a saying "What you think of me is none of my business". This is a really healthy approach to a lot of situations and pretty much the way I live my life. But not when there is someone young and vulnerable and clearly your responsibility in the situation. |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 30, 2014 16:50:04 GMT -5
sorry Snow, I have a lot of respect for your thoughts having read on here for quite some time, but I don't agree with this one - If I am out and about with my children doing whatever, clearly I have no idea who we come in contact with and I would be my usual vigilant self whilst pursuing normal daily living - I have no control in that situation... However if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present, I have some control, and would not take my kids into that situation, whether it be a meeting or social gathering. I don't see it as they are winning, I see it as my being a mother. rs, I totally get what you are saying. I, too, see it as you being a good parent, following natural parental instincts. So what, if you are in a mall, and there is someone passing who has thoughts about your children. You are on guard, you are vigilant. This person is passing through your lives, probably never to be seen again. Having once been a true believer in the 2X2 system - I understand that meeting is an environment where you tend to let your guard down, where you let yourself beome exposed, vulnerable. (That is, if meeting has any real meaning to you.) This is called fellowship. It is the basis of all really good connection with other human beings, regardless of the context. There is a saying "What you think of me is none of my business". This is a really healthy approach to a lot of situations and pretty much the way I live my life. But not when there is someone young and vulnerable and clearly your responsibility in the situation. Thanks for this SharonArnold, I would agree that anyone can think whatever they like about me and it's not an issue, but when it comes to my children, if I can have any control over the situation, it becomes my business... |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2014 17:53:12 GMT -5
And, of course that is your right as a parent. Just a thought when I read the last few posts. You said that you would not want an offender to be thinking about your children. I can understand that. However, if you are out in public there are any number of offenders you may pass and never know they are offenders or what they thought about your children. That may be far more dangerous than sitting in meeting with one that you are aware of, will keep an eye on etc. Also, by avoiding going to the meeting, which I would think would be a place you want to be, you are letting the offender win once again. Thoughts can never hurt your children if you are aware and watchful that they don't turn into action. It seems a pity to me that you feel you must alter your life to avoid that person. They just keep on 'winning' if you do. sorry Snow, I have a lot of respect for your thoughts having read on here for quite some time, but I don't agree with this one - If I am out and about with my children doing whatever, clearly I have no idea who we come in contact with and I would be my usual vigilant self whilst pursuing normal daily living - I have no control in that situation... However if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present, I have some control, and would not take my kids into that situation, whether it be a meeting or social gathering. I don't see it as they are winning, I see it as my being a mother. And, as mother, that is your right. I respect that. I just hate it (myself) when I let someone have that much control. That of course is a personal thing. I didn't think what I said would change your mind I just wanted to present a different way of looking at it. As I was reading it, it occurred to me that the offender was 'winning' once again, continuing to be a problem in peoples lives, and wanted to share that thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 18:24:32 GMT -5
no i dont have any children...i would only let them if they were under my supervision though...i honestly don't expect much would happen at a gospel meeting or sunday morning meeting with adults present....now if he approached my home that would be another matter... You are naïve - I know of many incidents that happened right under the noses of the parents. [/quote] That is offensive. Do you know any parents that would collaborate with someone who is abusing their child? I suggest you rethink that comment. Abusers are crafty and in the 2x2 religion they often have full trust. I would say the parents are "trusting" the abuser (rather than collaborating with).[/quote] there was a write up on yahoo a few years ago of a parent that collaborated with an abuser... |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 30, 2014 18:41:59 GMT -5
sorry Snow, I have a lot of respect for your thoughts having read on here for quite some time, but I don't agree with this one - If I am out and about with my children doing whatever, clearly I have no idea who we come in contact with and I would be my usual vigilant self whilst pursuing normal daily living - I have no control in that situation... However if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present, I have some control, and would not take my kids into that situation, whether it be a meeting or social gathering. I don't see it as they are winning, I see it as my being a mother. And, as mother, that is your right. I respect that. I just hate it (myself) when I let someone have that much control. That of course is a personal thing. I didn't think what I said would change your mind I just wanted to present a different way of looking at it. As I was reading it, it occurred to me that the offender was 'winning' once again, continuing to be a problem in peoples lives, and wanted to share that thought. But Snow, in the case of the 2x2 mtgs., the offender isn't necessarily the one in control either....remember the workers are the ones who sanction the mtgs. of whom, when and where! So the mother and children are NOT under the offender's control but under the workers' control and IF a worker has made a bad choice of where and IF a CSA perp goes to a mtg. where children are routinely there, then it is time for the mother and any other parent there with children to do something...It would likely be more helpful in the long run that if there are more then one set of parents and children, that if those are the ones who don't go to mtg. that mtg. is going to suffer because of lack of numbers of professing people...that will leave perhaps the elder and the offender unless the elder is a parent as well...but the elder may be caught in that he owns the house....but then this is where the home owners need to set their feet down and refuse to host offenders of such kind. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 30, 2014 19:11:48 GMT -5
You are naïve - I know of many incidents that happened right under the noses of the parents. If this is the case, child abuse happening in a social situation with multiple people present, no amount of guidelines in the world will prevent the abuse. If children are being abused right "under the noses of the parents" it is time for a serious talk with the parents regarding their observation of the children and their education of their children regarding personal space issues. Scott mentioned the abuse of children in social settings. The onlt prevention for this is educating the children regarding their personal space and empowering them to say "No" to any adult and communicate with their parents/guardians without fear of negative repercussions. And, of course, the parents need to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the safety of their children. Rational, I think you're not entirely living up to your name. Educating children is not the "only" solution. Banning known abusers is another solution. Educating parents is a third. Reporting to authorities is a fourth. And then there's your last line, in which you seem to contradict yourself in at least two ways. First, it's a contradiction to your "only" statement. Second, it's a contradiction to your position that parents are in error when their form of intestinal fortitude to stand up for the safety of their children is expressed in a demand to move an abuser from a meeting with children to a meeting without children. I think you don't understand.... whoops! Someone else already covered that point  |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 30, 2014 19:16:40 GMT -5
And, of course that is your right as a parent. Just a thought when I read the last few posts. You said that you would not want an offender to be thinking about your children. I can understand that. However, if you are out in public there are any number of offenders you may pass and never know they are offenders or what they thought about your children. That may be far more dangerous than sitting in meeting with one that you are aware of, will keep an eye on etc. Also, by avoiding going to the meeting, which I would think would be a place you want to be, you are letting the offender win once again. Thoughts can never hurt your children if you are aware and watchful that they don't turn into action. It seems a pity to me that you feel you must alter your life to avoid that person. They just keep on 'winning' if you do. sorry Snow, I have a lot of respect for your thoughts having read on here for quite some time, but I don't agree with this one - If I am out and about with my children doing whatever, clearly I have no idea who we come in contact with and I would be my usual vigilant self whilst pursuing normal daily living - I have no control in that situation... However if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present, I have some control, and would not take my kids into that situation, whether it be a meeting or social gathering. I don't see it as they are winning, I see it as my being a mother. I agree, RS -- the fact that you cannot protect against what you do not know does not mean you should not protect against what you do know. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 30, 2014 19:46:58 GMT -5
And, as mother, that is your right. I respect that. I just hate it (myself) when I let someone have that much control. That of course is a personal thing. I didn't think what I said would change your mind I just wanted to present a different way of looking at it. As I was reading it, it occurred to me that the offender was 'winning' once again, continuing to be a problem in peoples lives, and wanted to share that thought. But Snow, in the case of the 2x2 mtgs., the offender isn't necessarily the one in control either....remember the workers are the ones who sanction the mtgs. of whom, when and where! So the mother and children are NOT under the offender's control but under the workers' control and IF a worker has made a bad choice of where and IF a CSA perp goes to a mtg. where children are routinely there, then it is time for the mother and any other parent there with children to do something...It would likely be more helpful in the long run that if there are more then one set of parents and children, that if those are the ones who don't go to mtg. that mtg. is going to suffer because of lack of numbers of professing people...that will leave perhaps the elder and the offender unless the elder is a parent as well...but the elder may be caught in that he owns the house....but then this is where the home owners need to set their feet down and refuse to host offenders of such kind. STR, I'm not explaining my thought well obviously. I don't mean that kind of control. I meant that when we allow others to prevent us from doing something they are in a sense still having control, still causing problems. I do recognize that the overseers probably allowed it or sanctioned it but that wasn't the kind of control I was meaning. Hope that made more sense? |
|
colac
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by colac on Jul 30, 2014 21:20:30 GMT -5
They cant help it can they? Wasting time on the brainless trivia,do you or they survey you or them in the meetings with lust? What stupid sujestions? YES HE DID HE SURE DID US BOYS WERE SCARED #$%&^& ..Sacked from work as a brutal paedophile (in 1940's/50's grown men were jailed for homosexual acts) He watched us boys,we knew he controlled,crowded room as soon as boring hour finished,cuppa and cake time. Like a seagull,drop a coin in our pockets,played the game of slipping the hand in your pocket,fiddled,in front of the dumb parents and all,hunting for the coin.No wonder the kids around the district called him Fiddler Jack,and me at school Fiddlers little boy,wonderful for my testamony.Only twice did he get repramanded,in my 10 years of horror, that by his brother,once during a day of sheep shearing I was working at. Once at a working bee at Lorne.His brother said "Jack dont".that is all ever.It was there 24/7 every oppertunity possible,financially lucrative for us and local kids ,but an unclean fear and guilt was the real sickening hurt. So much so one of "his and 2x other workers" victims, took his life,beautiful man mentally destroyed,and one is still preaching as Elder in South America.Look up Ian Parker BIPOLAR research fund and read Carol's letter on Ian's struggle.
Now the Chris Johnston National Print Media article is out re Chris Chandler,you still want to lessen the real crime (crime many pretend it is behind them,yet the filthy worker horrors are ingrained deeply)by trivia and splitting straws,it appears? Get out to any local christian group attending to those victims of abused deserted mums,criminally/ raped/molesed/abused children,chances are now and then one pops up for help from families who sit at conventions with you. So the person staring at you in meetings may just be in love with you,and that can be healthy you know. Now the subject that started these pages WAS "about, another, 2x2 secret sect preacher jailed ,as also have been in other countries,either stay on that subject for the sake of the suffering victims, or look up trivial pursuit boards to play on,or better still get out and help victims of 2x2 men/women preacher CSA and other( EG,cast out,judged unworthy,gossip )crimes and sins.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2014 22:09:02 GMT -5
That is offensive. Do you know any parents that would collaborate with someone who is abusing their child? I suggest you rethink that comment. Abusers are crafty and in the 2x2 religion they often have full trust. I would say the parents are "trusting" the abuser (rather than collaborating with). There needs to be work to educate the parents so they are not handing their children over to potential abusers simply because they are workers. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2014 22:12:19 GMT -5
Yes, I would limit my behaviour or activity because of what I worry someone else may be thinking - that's the whole point I've been making, if I KNOW there is a CSA offender present I would choose not to be there with my kids... Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 30, 2014 22:25:05 GMT -5
Rational, I think you're not entirely living up to your name. Educating children is not the "only" solution. Banning known abusers is another solution. Educating parents is a third. Reporting to authorities is a fourth. It is the only situation if the offender is abusing the children right under the noses of the parents. They obviously will not be willing to report something they were that close to and they certainly will not ban the abuser. When the abuse is happening to the children under the noses of the parents working with the children is is all there is. I took the expression "happening under their nose" to mean they were aware of the interaction and condoned it. I hope that is not the case and therefor there are other options available. Standing up for the safety of the children by moving the offender to another meeting location takes all the intestinal fortitude that the RCC showed by moving its priests around to "protect" the children the priest was abusing. Either you suspect the abuser and confront them and/or report them to the authorities or you do not suspect them. It is the stand of suspecting but not being willing to address the problem directly that I was pointing out. There are so many things I do not understand... |
|
colac
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by colac on Jul 30, 2014 23:43:33 GMT -5
Hunting animals are cunning and sense danger,they wait for the opportune moment to hide,strike or chase-as Paedophiles od,it is inbuilt. Does a burglar open his box of tools in front of his law abiding friends,no,neither does a paedophile show his intentional hand. It is a mental uncurable disorder,can be controlled by medical and,or strong psych'counselling, sometimes not.So we are not in their devious oppertunistic brain. Do you know what they are thinking or can you recognise one amongst a convention or shopping crowd? No I cant yet one had me trapped me for 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 31, 2014 0:25:26 GMT -5
They cant help it can they? Wasting time on the brainless trivia,do you or they survey you or them in the meetings with lust? What stupid sujestions? YES HE DID HE SURE DID US BOYS WERE SCARED #$%&^& ..Sacked from work as a brutal paedophile (in 1940's/50's grown men were jailed for homosexual acts) He watched us boys,we knew he controlled,crowded room as soon as boring hour finished,cuppa and cake time. Like a seagull,drop a coin in our pockets,played the game of slipping the hand in your pocket,fiddled,in front of the dumb parents and all,hunting for the coin.No wonder the kids around the district called him Fiddler Jack,and me at school Fiddlers little boy,wonderful for my testamony.Only twice did he get repramanded,in my 10 years of horror, that by his brother,once during a day of sheep shearing I was working at. Once at a working bee at Lorne.His brother said "Jack dont".that is all ever.It was there 24/7 every oppertunity possible,financially lucrative for us and local kids ,but an unclean fear and guilt was the real sickening hurt. So much so one of "his and 2x other workers" victims, took his life,beautiful man mentally destroyed,and one is still preaching as Elder in South America.Look up Ian Parker BIPOLAR research fund and read Carol's letter on Ian's struggle. Now the Chris Johnston National Print Media article is out re Chris Chandler,you still want to lessen the real crime (crime many pretend it is behind them,yet the filthy worker horrors are ingrained deeply)by trivia and splitting straws,it appears? Get out to any local christian group attending to those victims of abused deserted mums,criminally/ raped/molesed/abused children,chances are now and then one pops up for help from families who sit at conventions with you. So the person staring at you in meetings may just be in love with you,and that can be healthy you know. Now the subject that started these pages WAS "about, another, 2x2 secret sect preacher jailed ,as also have been in other countries,either stay on that subject for the sake of the suffering victims, or look up trivial pursuit boards to play on,or better still get out and help victims of 2x2 men/women preacher CSA and other( EG,cast out,judged unworthy,gossip )crimes and sins. I can see you are angry, and that you have good reason to be. There are a lot of good people in this fellowship who are also disgusted with the child sexual abuse and the covering up, and will work to eradicate this evil from the fellowship. Please try to address the crime without condemning the whole fellowship, otherwise you'll alienate the people who can protect the children of the fellowship from this evil in the future. How Ian Parker was treated is heart-breaking, and seeking justice for Ian is a worthy endeavor. Thanks for telling us of your experience. I hope you'll write down as much as you can. Some on TMB still don't seem to be taking CSA seriously, but testimony like yours will help them to understand the damage it can do. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 31, 2014 5:02:09 GMT -5
Rational, I think you're not entirely living up to your name. Educating children is not the "only" solution. Banning known abusers is another solution. Educating parents is a third. Reporting to authorities is a fourth. It is the only situation if the offender is abusing the children right under the noses of the parents. They obviously will not be willing to report something they were that close to and they certainly will not ban the abuser. When the abuse is happening to the children under the noses of the parents working with the children is is all there is. I took the expression "happening under their nose" to mean they were aware of the interaction and condoned it. I hope that is not the case and therefor there are other options available. Standing up for the safety of the children by moving the offender to another meeting location takes all the intestinal fortitude that the RCC showed by moving its priests around to "protect" the children the priest was abusing. Either you suspect the abuser and confront them and/or report them to the authorities or you do not suspect them. It is the stand of suspecting but not being willing to address the problem directly that I was pointing out. There are so many things I do not understand... Horsefeathers. If parents are aware of the abuse and condone it, as you say your understanding of "under their noses" means, then your advice of working with the children as the "only" solution is a piece of bad advice, and a particularly dangerous one, at that. And it's certainly not the best solution. I think you're not thinking clearly, because this latest advice of yours is so much in contradiction to other, proper advice you have given. Obviously, if children are being abused and parents are aware of it and condoning it, the best solution is to do several things, probably in this order: 1) Report both the parents and the abuser to authorities, 2) educate the children, 3) educate other parents, 4) educate the larger community. Did you see what I did there? I provided a combination solution, recognizing that no one solution on its own is the answer. But the first thing I did was triage to stop the bleeding -- separate those causing or facilitating the harm (abuser and parents) from the victim. PS: Notice that "moving the abuser to a different meeting" is not part of the solution, in this new, moving-the-goal-posts scenario you have provided. The scenario where PART of the solution could be moving a person like IH from a meeting with children to a meeting without children is this: 1. Known, confessed past abuse 2. Known practices of abuse such as those Scott described (back seat of the car, at the dining room table, etc -- which, by the way, is the context and definition of "under the noses of the parents" -- meaning in close proximity to the parents, but without their knowledge) 3. Belief that recidivism is a strong possibility, based on the frequency and decades-long history of abuse 4. Desire not to "demonize" the person to the extent of banning him from meetings entirely 5. No grounds to report any current activity because the SOL is past for all previous offenses; no knowledge of any current offenses; no court order prohibiting contact with children |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 7:20:20 GMT -5
Horsefeathers. If parents are aware of the abuse and condone it, as you say (now) your understanding of "under their noses" means, then your advice of working with the children as the "only" solution is not only misguided; it is particularly dangerous. And it's certainly not the best solution. I think you're not thinking clearly, because this latest advice of yours is so much in contradiction to other, proper advice you have given. I re-reading I see that I took @wally's comment ( i find that hard to believe unless the parents are collaborating with the abuser....) regarding collaborating as additional information when it was only a comment expressing his thoughts about the abuse happening in front of the parents. Sorry to have jumped the gun. Yes, this would be the goal. But if you think back to JEAN's story, her father walked into the room while IH was in a comprised situation and blamed his daughter. For whatever reason, IH was not reported, the parents were not reported, the child was not educated, and the larger community did nothing but gossip about it. I see what you did and I see how these suggestions were put forth in the past. In all that has been posted I can remember only a single poster who reported parents for child abuse. I don't think the goal posts have moved on this point - I have been against it from the start and believe it to be wrong. If you are a parent and you think that an adult is paying too much attention to your child before, during, or after a meeting, tell your children your concerns and set some limits. Educate them regarding the potential danger. Address the adult as an adult directly and tell them to stop. Watch your children while in the situation. Did you see what I did there? Educated the children so they would be aware of the danger. Addressed the problem directly as an adult. Watch the children with the vigilance required by the situation. It has been mentioned that there is nothing to report so that appears not to be an option. Although people are ready to move this person to another meeting location no one has stated that they suspect this person is an actual danger to the children in the meeting. With all of those options removed the parent is more or less on their own and has to act in the interests of their children. Exactly. So with many options removed why not take the direct approach and address the problem with the offender? When/if children attend the other meeting the problem is still there. Scott presented information that I had not seen publicly available. Information like this could be beneficial if the members believed it was true. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 31, 2014 10:06:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 31, 2014 14:18:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 31, 2014 18:33:32 GMT -5
Horsefeathers. If parents are aware of the abuse and condone it, as you say (now) your understanding of "under their noses" means, then your advice of working with the children as the "only" solution is not only misguided; it is particularly dangerous. And it's certainly not the best solution. I think you're not thinking clearly, because this latest advice of yours is so much in contradiction to other, proper advice you have given. I re-reading I see that I took @wally's comment ( i find that hard to believe unless the parents are collaborating with the abuser....) regarding collaborating as additional information when it was only a comment expressing his thoughts about the abuse happening in front of the parents. Sorry to have jumped the gun. Yes, this would be the goal. But if you think back to JEAN's story, her father walked into the room while IH was in a comprised situation and blamed his daughter. For whatever reason, IH was not reported, the parents were not reported, the child was not educated, and the larger community did nothing but gossip about it. I see what you did and I see how these suggestions were put forth in the past. In all that has been posted I can remember only a single poster who reported parents for child abuse. I don't think the goal posts have moved on this point - I have been against it from the start and believe it to be wrong. If you are a parent and you think that an adult is paying too much attention to your child before, during, or after a meeting, tell your children your concerns and set some limits. Educate them regarding the potential danger. Address the adult as an adult directly and tell them to stop. Watch your children while in the situation. Did you see what I did there? Educated the children so they would be aware of the danger. Addressed the problem directly as an adult. Watch the children with the vigilance required by the situation. It has been mentioned that there is nothing to report so that appears not to be an option. Although people are ready to move this person to another meeting location no one has stated that they suspect this person is an actual danger to the children in the meeting. With all of those options removed the parent is more or less on their own and has to act in the interests of their children. Exactly. So with many options removed why not take the direct approach and address the problem with the offender? When/if children attend the other meeting the problem is still there. Scott presented information that I had not seen publicly available. Information like this could be beneficial if the members believed it was true. I do see what you did! And it's an improvement over my suggestion. So here's my revised suggestion: 1) Confront the offender directly and explain why parents don't want their children around him. 2) Move him to a meeting with no children, and tell him why 3) Explain to the new meeting why he's being moved there, and that in the event that visitors with children move to that meeting, he will be moved to another meeting with no children 4) Ask them, in the event that families with children show up as visitors, to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. 5) Have all of these discussions with the offender present 6) Give the new meeting an "opt-out" option 7) If the offender is not willing for these conditions, bid him adieu |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 20:45:25 GMT -5
I read what Scott wrote. I read the letters. Are they about the same events? Dale Gardner's letters read like something edited by Thomas Bowdler. It is a legal issue with the events clouded by a heavy spiritual overlay. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 20:53:25 GMT -5
I do see what you did! And it's an improvement over my suggestion. So here's my revised suggestion: 1) Confront the offender directly and explain why parents don't want their children around him. 2) Move him to a meeting with no children, and tell him why 3) Explain to the new meeting why he's being moved there, and that in the event that visitors with children move to that meeting, he will be moved to another meeting with no children 4) Ask them, in the event that families with children show up as visitors, to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. 5) Have all of these discussions with the offender present 6) Give the new meeting an "opt-out" option 7) If the offender is not willing for these conditions, bid him adieu I can see the logic in this but I still think the move is wrong. leave him where he is and ask the meeting members to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. You seem to be more for a group reaction that allowing the parents to take responsibility for the protection of their children. There is no education of the children. At least it is not avoiding direct confrontation. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 31, 2014 21:25:33 GMT -5
I do see what you did! And it's an improvement over my suggestion. So here's my revised suggestion: 1) Confront the offender directly and explain why parents don't want their children around him. 2) Move him to a meeting with no children, and tell him why 3) Explain to the new meeting why he's being moved there, and that in the event that visitors with children move to that meeting, he will be moved to another meeting with no children 4) Ask them, in the event that families with children show up as visitors, to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. 5) Have all of these discussions with the offender present 6) Give the new meeting an "opt-out" option 7) If the offender is not willing for these conditions, bid him adieu I can see the logic in this but I still think the move is wrong. leave him where he is and ask the meeting members to be extra-vigilant regarding the offender's interactions with the children. You seem to be more for a group reaction that allowing the parents to take responsibility for the protection of their children. There is no education of the children. At least it is not avoiding direct confrontation. You still don't accept the fact that parents ARE taking responsibility for the protection of their children by asking for an individual to be moved from their meeting. Would you still call it a "group reaction" if their was only one set of parents involved? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 31, 2014 22:27:06 GMT -5
You still don't accept the fact that parents ARE taking responsibility for the protection of their children by asking for an individual to be moved from their meeting. Would you still call it a "group reaction" if their was only one set of parents involved? I accept the fact that the parents are asking that the person be moved away from their children just as the parents demanded that priests who abused children be moved to a different location to protect their children. It is not, in my opinion, the proper way to deal with a sexual offender. No one has come forward with a sound reason for moving the individual. As it has been stated - there is nothing to report. The group reaction comment was in regard to Gene saying that the group should address the individual rather than the concerned parents. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 31, 2014 23:09:26 GMT -5
So much for the abuser & the fellowship, church moved from & to, parental responsibility for their children, everyone, -except as I was originally concerned with, -children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
Where is the concept that we love others as ourselves? (including others children?)
I still think that if there is enough concern for the parents to consider moving him, surely they have enough to present to authorities to investigate without taking it upon themselves to "just move him on."
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 31, 2014 23:27:33 GMT -5
So much for the abuser & the fellowship, church moved from & to, parental responsibility for their children, everyone, -except as I was originally concerned with, -children outside of the church within the community where the abuser is moved.
Where is the concept that we love others as ourselves? (including others children?)
I still think that if there is enough concern for the parents to consider moving him, surely they have enough to present to authorities to investigate without taking it upon themselves to "just move him on."
The offender is not "just moved on". He is simply assigned to a different meeting. How could that possibly affect children outside of the church? |
|
