|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 10, 2016 4:11:53 GMT -5
A good question Ros and one that Queenslander could also ask the Head Worker. The police are doing a poor job of dealing with 'That Information' you are referring to! Again, more speculation! Why hasn't anyone been to the police if there was something to report? Malcolm (head worker) and Craig have both encouraged anyone that has any concerns (regarding these stories) to go to the police. What else do you think Craig should do to clear his name from your forums? If you have moved on why keep looking back at what you once had, or is there something troubling you deep down? If you are genuinely content and have peace there would be no need to continue with these forums and what the people on these sites feed on. As I said before, Craig has been mentioned in private forums for many years - largely those that professing members are involved in. I wouldn't have taken any notice of the emails that were going around unless I recognised his name, which I did, because I have met him. My wife is related to him. Please don't think for a minute that ex-members have been behind these emails. There are many professing folk in your church who actively raise concerns and talk about them - mostly for sound reasons. Pure speculation, particularly from a single source, is easy to pick. Where there is some evidence from reliable sources, people tend to take note. If a person is innocent of either speculation or unfounded allegations it will be resolved if the person wants it to be resolved. But it can only resolved by going through a particular process. Obviously, Malcolm C and Craig J are going through a process - it is not the one I had in mind nor one that I would recommend to any church elder. However, I would recommend that they seek professional, objective advice on the matter - there would be plenty of people, including ex-members, who would be willing to provide sound, objective advice. If there is no major issue (there clearly is an issue) then it can be dealt with in an appropriate way. As for your 2nd point, most ex-members who post on private and public forums (yes, there are many of them) do so for one or more reasons: - they have been badly spiritually abused in many cases and need to heal (Elizabeth Coleman's book "Cult to Christ" published in the last couple of years provides her detailed insight) - they have suffered significant physical abuse at the hands of husbands and need help - they want to point out the considerable errors in teaching by the workers - they want to help people who are in the church who have questions that need answers - they want to provide practical, emotional or financial support for those who are in the process of leaving and need help. I am largely interested in the last two areas but of course sometimes those who are leaving are doing so because of abuse. There is a wide network of current and ex-2x2 members who provide support on all levels for those who have questions or are in the process of leaving the church - a process that is not particularly easy but is getting easier as more information and support is available. We left in around 2000. Not a year would go by that we are contacted by people who are leaving around the world to answer questions etc and recommend churches who have an unwavering commitment to sound Bible teaching and practice. We simply do it because in our experience, leaving was not easy. We questioned the teaching of some workers and were accused of blasphemy. That type of spiritual abuse is alive today as it was 15 or so years ago. There are many, many ex-members around the world who help people in this way in various countries. There are also a significant number of resources available with the principal online resource of course being tellingthetruth.info |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 10, 2016 4:36:32 GMT -5
queenslander, how do you know that no one has been to the police ? Or that nothing has been reported ? you seem to have missed this question ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 4:52:18 GMT -5
I've heard two very similar reports of what was said in that meeting and both are baffled by what he said or was trying to say. It wasn't clear. Maybe if he should write down what he needs to say and read it out so people know what he's saying? Maybe the people you are hearing it from are not clear with what they are passing on? Maybe they have another agenda? Malcolm has and is making it very clear to everyone that understands English, to talk to him if they have any concerns and to go to the police with anything that would/could be a police matter. What more do you think he should do? What more do you think Craig should do? I know this doesn't help feed your forum however these are the only legitimate questions that Maybe you could answer? Maybe a "special gathering" should be arranged to explain these things so that folks can hear for themselves from "the horses' mouths directly so they dont have to rely on second hand and distorted information from those people with an agenda and ill will. This is a very serious matter that imposes negatively on the integrety of folks in the fellowship and should not be taken lightly. Compromise is the name of the game in such matters, give a little and take a little, don't be as stubborn as jack asses, for God's sake. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 9:01:33 GMT -5
Even though we left 2x2 meetings around 2000, Craig Janke has been on the radar of a large number of professing folk for many years. If Malcolm Clapham hadn't of transferred him to South Australia, presumably nothing would have been brought to a head. My understanding (all professing folk who know these things and tell us) is that Malcolm Clapham didn't brief Wayne Dean correctly and openly on the issue. When Wayne found out about some of the issues he took action and sent Craig Janke back to Queensland. I would do exactly the same. Obviously, if I had specific evidence then I would report it to the police. It may not be the first time a referral has been made. Wayne D is obviously aware of a whole host of things but I very much suspect that he doesn't want to say a lot more for fear of being sued for libel. That's presumably why he has not asked for people to pray for those impacted by Janke's behaviour. He doesn't want to refer to it without it having been reported/investigated. The onus is on Queensland to sort it out (as they should have done years ago) and if they don't then the onus is on the Australian Head Workers as a collective to intervene. I think Wayne Dean and the elders have simply given that feedback to Malcolm C who is seemingly trying to protect Craig Janke's position in the work. Malcolm Clapham should simply be telling people that Craig Janke has been stood down from the work.
If he has evidence of criminal activity he should report it to the police. Ross, you always post well thought out posts. Your last line in this post is not quite correct. If he EVEN SUSPECTS criminal activity, he MUST report it to the police. It is not incumbent on Malcolm to decide what is evidence or not. The police will do the investigation. If someone has stated that a child has been sexually assaulted regardless of evidence, even if it is unknown who the perp is, it must be reported to the police. That is the law. Frankly, it's not just in cases of sexual assault of a child, it is also in cases of any type of abuse of a child (emotional, physical, or sexual). The 2x2s in Australia are already behind the 8 ball on this one. Malcolm is already in a position to be charged with not meeting his Duty to Disclose. Same goes for Wayne Dean and any others who have heard the story about the child. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 10, 2016 13:57:06 GMT -5
Even though we left 2x2 meetings around 2000, Craig Janke has been on the radar of a large number of professing folk for many years. If Malcolm Clapham hadn't of transferred him to South Australia, presumably nothing would have been brought to a head. My understanding (all professing folk who know these things and tell us) is that Malcolm Clapham didn't brief Wayne Dean correctly and openly on the issue. When Wayne found out about some of the issues he took action and sent Craig Janke back to Queensland. I would do exactly the same. Obviously, if I had specific evidence then I would report it to the police. It may not be the first time a referral has been made. Wayne D is obviously aware of a whole host of things but I very much suspect that he doesn't want to say a lot more for fear of being sued for libel. That's presumably why he has not asked for people to pray for those impacted by Janke's behaviour. He doesn't want to refer to it without it having been reported/investigated. The onus is on Queensland to sort it out (as they should have done years ago) and if they don't then the onus is on the Australian Head Workers as a collective to intervene. I think Wayne Dean and the elders have simply given that feedback to Malcolm C who is seemingly trying to protect Craig Janke's position in the work. Malcolm Clapham should simply be telling people that Craig Janke has been stood down from the work. If he has evidence of criminal activity he should report it to the police. How can people continue to respond to such nonsense that has been fabricated with no evidence. Craig has travelled back to Queensland to personally go and see these families that created this speculation. As a father with young children, I would like to know if there is anything to be worried about? These couple of families have admitted that there is absolutely nothing that they can report. Craig has been very open in wanting anyone that has any concerns to please come forward and talk to him or any of the other workers. If anybody is genuinely concerned why are they not providing information and going to the police, or is this just a site where bitter and twisted people go when they do not have anything of substance in their lives anymore? If there is anything other then speculation and rubbish talk, please enlighten people on what it is? Do you know what kind of pressure from senior workers is put on parents of victims to not go to the police and the reason given is for the sake of the kingdom. I have heard this time and time again where I grew up and once first hand. The only kingdom these senior workers are worried about is covering their own ass. Their supporters such as yourself ought to be rounded up and stuck in the same jail as the dirty scumbag criminals that do these crimes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 14:09:25 GMT -5
Even though we left 2x2 meetings around 2000, Craig Janke has been on the radar of a large number of professing folk for many years. If Malcolm Clapham hadn't of transferred him to South Australia, presumably nothing would have been brought to a head. My understanding (all professing folk who know these things and tell us) is that Malcolm Clapham didn't brief Wayne Dean correctly and openly on the issue. When Wayne found out about some of the issues he took action and sent Craig Janke back to Queensland. I would do exactly the same. Obviously, if I had specific evidence then I would report it to the police. It may not be the first time a referral has been made. Wayne D is obviously aware of a whole host of things but I very much suspect that he doesn't want to say a lot more for fear of being sued for libel. That's presumably why he has not asked for people to pray for those impacted by Janke's behaviour. He doesn't want to refer to it without it having been reported/investigated. The onus is on Queensland to sort it out (as they should have done years ago) and if they don't then the onus is on the Australian Head Workers as a collective to intervene. I think Wayne Dean and the elders have simply given that feedback to Malcolm C who is seemingly trying to protect Craig Janke's position in the work. Malcolm Clapham should simply be telling people that Craig Janke has been stood down from the work. If he has evidence of criminal activity he should report it to the police. How can people continue to respond to such nonsense that has been fabricated with no evidence. Craig has travelled back to Queensland to personally go and see these families that created this speculation. As a father with young children, I would like to know if there is anything to be worried about? These couple of families have admitted that there is absolutely nothing that they can report. Craig has been very open in wanting anyone that has any concerns to please come forward and talk to him or any of the other workers. If anybody is genuinely concerned why are they not providing information and going to the police, or is this just a site where bitter and twisted people go when they do not have anything of substance in their lives anymore? If there is anything other then speculation and rubbish talk, please enlighten people on what it is? You don't have a very good grasp of the LAW. If Malcolm EVEN SUSPECTS criminal activity, he MUST report it to the police. It is not incumbent on Malcolm to decide what is evidence or not. If a claim is made that a child has been sexually assaulted, it is Malcolm's (and everyone else's) LEGAL DUTY to report it to the police IMMEDIATELY. The police will do the investigation. If someone has stated that a child has been sexually assaulted regardless of evidence, even if it is unknown who the perp is, it must be reported to the police. That is the law. Frankly, it's not just in cases of sexual assault of a child, it is also in cases of any type of abuse of a child (emotional, physical, or sexual). The 2x2s in Australia are already behind the 8 ball on this one. Malcolm is already in a position to be charged with not meeting his Duty to Disclose. Same goes for Wayne Dean and any others who have heard the story about the child. Just to make this clear - if you know this child's name and you heard these allegations of sexual assault, it is your LEGAL duty to report this possible crime to the police IMMEDIATELY. The Police will do the investigation. That is the LAW. |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on May 10, 2016 17:59:43 GMT -5
Not sure where you live @simpleton , but how we perceive the LAW and how it actually works, sadly, are 2 very different things. Two years ago a lady noticed a man luring a little girl away from her play area, the little girl was 4 years old, the lady made a complaint to the police, and was told he has no convictions so we can't do anything!! Yet this man has a history of allegations for 50 years, however no convictions.....yes its the law, but don't rely on it (mind you I'm not having a go at the police here, they have their protocols and workloads too)....if you want protection fir your children.....the only sure way is to do it yourself!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on May 10, 2016 18:00:00 GMT -5
With you all the way Simpleton. So many walk or drive their children to school these days because there is possibilities that predators might be in the area. BUT the 2x2 families let brother/sister workers into their homes with children present,KNOWING, that THERE IS PREDATORS AMONGST THEM. DUMB & DUMBER? or straight out stupid?
|
|
|
|
Post by kittens on May 10, 2016 18:36:39 GMT -5
With you all the way Simpleton. So many walk or drive their children to school these days because there is possibilities that predators might be in the area. BUT the 2x2 families let brother/sister workers into their homes with children present,KNOWING, that THERE IS PREDATORS AMONGST THEM. DUMB & DUMBER? or straight out stupid? Genesis chap 19 v4-8 always makes me sick to read it. Lot was trying to protect the two male angels from the men of Sodom and was willing to sacrifice his two virgin daughters on their behalf.
Have often wondered about some parents who KNOW or have been told what some of the workers and friends are like around children but still don't try to protect their children. Do they think they are sacrificing their children for the good of the kingdom? After all it would be far worse if the worker left the work to get married to deal with his urges. There would be less workers to carry God's message over all the land then, wouldn't there? Far better if they get their kicks out of lots of little defenceless children and stay in the work. Hey the parents might even get big blessings from God/workers (the two are interrelated in these peoples minds) for knowingly providing their children for this purpose. The kids will get over it and if they start complaining they will be told to keep their mouths shut.
Being sarcastic here but for the life of me I can't think of any other reason why parents who know or have been told would not protect their children. I do know some parents who have been warned but have done nothing to protect their children so this is the only conclusion I can come to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 18:40:05 GMT -5
Not sure where you live @simpleton , but how we perceive the LAW and how it actually works, sadly, are 2 very different things. Two years ago a lady noticed a man luring a little girl away from her play area, the little girl was 4 years old, the lady made a complaint to the police, and was told he has no convictions so we can't do anything!! Yet this man has a history of allegations for 50 years, however no convictions.....yes its the law, but don't rely on it (mind you I'm not having a go at the police here, they have their protocols and workloads too)....if you want protection fir your children.....the only sure way is to do it yourself!!! I hear you that the only true protection for children is pre-emptive protection by the parents. Unfortunately many times it is the parents or a relative which are doing the abusing (emotional, sexual, or physical) of the child. All of these laws to protect children do not have statutes of limitations - meaning that the perpetrator can be charged 10, 20, 30 or even more years from now - the case never closes. Also the child can file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator whenever they wish for large monetary damages. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 18:42:58 GMT -5
With you all the way Simpleton. So many walk or drive their children to school these days because there is possibilities that predators might be in the area. BUT the 2x2 families let brother/sister workers into their homes with children present,KNOWING, that THERE IS PREDATORS AMONGST THEM. DUMB & DUMBER? or straight out stupid? Genesis chap 19 v4-8 always makes me sick to read it. Lot was trying to protect the two male angels from the men of Sodom and was willing to sacrifice his two virgin daughters on their behalf.
Have often wondered about some parents who KNOW or have been told what some of the workers and friends are like around children but still don't try to protect their children. Do they think they are sacrificing their children for the good of the kingdom? After all it would be far worse if the worker left the work to get married to deal with his urges. There would be less workers to carry God's message over all the land then, wouldn't there? Far better if they get their kicks out of lots of little defenceless children and stay in the work. Hey the parents might even get big blessings from God/workers (the two are interrelated in these peoples minds) for knowingly providing their children for this purpose. The kids will get over it and if they start complaining they will be told to keep their mouths shut.
Being sarcastic here but for the life of me I can't think of any other reason why parents who know or have been told would not protect their children. I do know some parents who have been warned but have done nothing to protect their children so this is the only conclusion I can come to.
If you know or suspect of a child which is/has been abused (emotional, physical, or sexual), tell the child to keep a diary of the events - that is more than enough to convict the perpetrator. The child can sue for significant monetary damages as well as a criminal case for imprisonment. |
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 10, 2016 19:32:30 GMT -5
Even though we left 2x2 meetings around 2000, Craig Janke has been on the radar of a large number of professing folk for many years. If Malcolm Clapham hadn't of transferred him to South Australia, presumably nothing would have been brought to a head. My understanding (all professing folk who know these things and tell us) is that Malcolm Clapham didn't brief Wayne Dean correctly and openly on the issue. When Wayne found out about some of the issues he took action and sent Craig Janke back to Queensland. I would do exactly the same. Obviously, if I had specific evidence then I would report it to the police. It may not be the first time a referral has been made. Wayne D is obviously aware of a whole host of things but I very much suspect that he doesn't want to say a lot more for fear of being sued for libel. That's presumably why he has not asked for people to pray for those impacted by Janke's behaviour. He doesn't want to refer to it without it having been reported/investigated. The onus is on Queensland to sort it out (as they should have done years ago) and if they don't then the onus is on the Australian Head Workers as a collective to intervene. I think Wayne Dean and the elders have simply given that feedback to Malcolm C who is seemingly trying to protect Craig Janke's position in the work. Malcolm Clapham should simply be telling people that Craig Janke has been stood down from the work.
If he has evidence of criminal activity he should report it to the police. Ross, you always post well thought out posts. Your last line in this post is not quite correct. If he EVEN SUSPECTS criminal activity, he MUST report it to the police. It is not incumbent on Malcolm to decide what is evidence or not. The police will do the investigation. If someone has stated that a child has been sexually assaulted regardless of evidence, even if it is unknown who the perp is, it must be reported to the police. That is the law. Frankly, it's not just in cases of sexual assault of a child, it is also in cases of any type of abuse of a child (emotional, physical, or sexual). The 2x2s in Australia are already behind the 8 ball on this one. Malcolm is already in a position to be charged with not meeting his Duty to Disclose. Same goes for Wayne Dean and any others who have heard the story about the child. Simpleton, you are absolutely correct with a caveat. If a person suspects criminal activity as a result of abuse (generally sexual or physical) which may result in harm and has reasonable grounds to do so then they should report it to the police. Reasonable grounds in New South Wales would involve providing the name of the suspected abuser to the Police. This is to avoid vexatious complaints. I was being prudent because I didn't want to add to speculation about the case at hand. However, I will add a few more comments which people may find helpful generally and specifically. There is a wide spectrum and gradation of inappropriate behaviour when it comes to children in the general context we are talking about. Some behaviour is clearly illegal and immoral whilst some may not be technically illegal but is clearly immoral and so on and so forth. Behaviour may be: Actual child sexual abuse Suspected child sexual abuse Actively grooming children Accessing, viewing and storing illegal material, such as child pornography Inappropriate touching and affection Loitering around young children etc. There is a body of evidence that reinforces that people who have tendencies in this direction may move up the scale over time. The natural reaction these days (given the tragic cases that have been revealed) is to rush to the top of the scale. There is nothing that I have seen in the email trail that suggests this is the case. The discussion has been more focussed on the second half of the list. I have no doubt that Wayne Deane if he had reasonable grounds to suspect abuse would report it to the authorities. He is under no obligation to reveal that to all and sundry. However, he clearly does not want Craig Janke in South Australia. My mail is that the South Australian leadership is pretty tired in dealing with other state's issues. Wayne would know that he has no jurisdiction in the 2x2 church in Qld so apart from covering off his legal obligations he can only do 2 things: 1. Send the worker back 2. Indicate broadly why without going into specifics. Whether he chose the right words or not is for others to debate but he certainly has achieved an outcome of putting correct focus on the issue. There are two issues at play here: 1. Abiding by secular law 2. Abiding by God's law or church standards - which should line up (and do in most churches) In dealing with the issue Malcolm Clapham has to ensure he meets his obligations under secular law. This is reasonably simple and does not mean that the person he is reporting will be charged with anything. His next responsibility is to God and he needs to ask the question "What does God expect of church leaders?". 1 Timothy 1 and Titus 1:7-8 are good reference points of what God is saying to us on the matter. God knows that every human being that has every been born, except Christ, is sinful. However, he clearly expects church leaders to be above reproach. In dealing with the issue, Malcolm Clapham also needs to exercise consistency which is a desirable feature of secular and church leadership. He could ask himself the question - "if the person in this case was not a worker but simply a member of the church what would I do?". He should also ask the question - "what privileges have I and my staff of workers taken away from people in the past for far less than what is being discussed here". However he answers these questions he should impose a higher standard of behaviour, one that is beyond reproach on workers. It is widely known that in Queensland that workers will remove meeting privileges for people over comparatively minor issues, so that the person(s) can be "publicly shamed". It will be interesting to see how Malcolm deals with is an undoubtedly complex issue. My point is simply that he has a well of precedents from which to draw. Not necessarily dealing with the issue at hand but precedents that relate to comparatively insignificant issues. |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on May 10, 2016 20:55:16 GMT -5
Yes @simpleton As you stated 'the child can file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator whenever they wish for large monetary damages.'
This is usually done through Victims of Crime compensation here in Australia......it doesn't actually hurt the perpetrator!! The flipside is most CSA victims (and I do say most, as I work with them daily), do NOT want monetary compensation, all they want is to live their lives, not having to relive their abuse, by the constant telling of it or by witnessing others being abused in the same way.
In this world we spend many, many dollars annually protecting frogs, bears, elephants,tigers and the like.....what about our own children??
Yes we have the 'save the children fund', to send money to undeveloped or impoverished countries.....how dare we when we cannot 'save our own'!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 21:07:46 GMT -5
Yes @simpleton As you stated 'the child can file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator whenever they wish for large monetary damages.' This is usually done through Victims of Crime compensation here in Australia......it doesn't actually hurt the perpetrator!! The flipside is most CSA victims (and I do say most, as I work with them daily), do NOT want monetary compensation, all they want is to live their lives, not having to relive their abuse, by the constant telling of it or by witnessing others being abused in the same way. In this world we spend many, many dollars annually protecting frogs, bears, elephants,tigers and the like.....what about our own children?? Yes we have the 'save the children fund', to send money to undeveloped or impoverished countries.....how dare we when we cannot 'save our own'!!!!! You are very correct howitis regarding victims of abuse not wanting to have to relive it by constant retelling it. I myself am an adult survivor of child abuse. I attend a group therapy meeting for adult survivors of child abuse. I dare say that the folks I see in those meetings are so messed up from the abuse which happened 10, 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago, that they can't even grapple with the concept of launching a civil lawsuit. They are struggling as hard as they possibly can to just make it through the day and retain a job, let alone even a relationship with someone else, nevermind trying to get justice. The legal system is rather difficult to navigate for people who are not familiar with it, and so for abuse victims the legal system is beyond daunting. |
|
|
|
Post by queenslander on May 10, 2016 21:42:08 GMT -5
You don't have a very good grasp of the LAW. If Malcolm EVEN SUSPECTS criminal activity, he MUST report it to the police. It is not incumbent on Malcolm to decide what is evidence or not. If a claim is made that a child has been sexually assaulted, it is Malcolm's (and everyone else's) LEGAL DUTY to report it to the police IMMEDIATELY. The police will do the investigation. If someone has stated that a child has been sexually assaulted regardless of evidence, even if it is unknown who the perp is, it must be reported to the police. That is the law. Frankly, it's not just in cases of sexual assault of a child, it is also in cases of any type of abuse of a child (emotional, physical, or sexual). The 2x2s in Australia are already behind the 8 ball on this one. Malcolm is already in a position to be charged with not meeting his Duty to Disclose. Same goes for Wayne Dean and any others who have heard the story about the child. Just to make this clear - if you know this child's name and you heard these allegations of sexual assault, it is your LEGAL duty to report this possible crime to the police IMMEDIATELY. The Police will do the investigation. That is the LAW. This forum sure is a magnet for the intellects!! This is my last comment because there is no point looking or commenting on these sites. To say that you have left something and still consumed with it with all the time people have wasted, shows they are struggling to move on. study the bible and the law, instead of these 'forums' and what 'someone may have told someone that you may know'!!The only people at this stage doing the wrong thing are the people on this site that think they are aware of something and haven't done anything about it. The only conclusion is:1. You are aware of something and you haven't reported it???2. You are falsely accusing somebody of a crime or something that they haven't done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2016 21:54:49 GMT -5
You don't have a very good grasp of the LAW. If Malcolm EVEN SUSPECTS criminal activity, he MUST report it to the police. It is not incumbent on Malcolm to decide what is evidence or not. If a claim is made that a child has been sexually assaulted, it is Malcolm's (and everyone else's) LEGAL DUTY to report it to the police IMMEDIATELY. The police will do the investigation. If someone has stated that a child has been sexually assaulted regardless of evidence, even if it is unknown who the perp is, it must be reported to the police. That is the law. Frankly, it's not just in cases of sexual assault of a child, it is also in cases of any type of abuse of a child (emotional, physical, or sexual). The 2x2s in Australia are already behind the 8 ball on this one. Malcolm is already in a position to be charged with not meeting his Duty to Disclose. Same goes for Wayne Dean and any others who have heard the story about the child. Just to make this clear - if you know this child's name and you heard these allegations of sexual assault, it is your LEGAL duty to report this possible crime to the police IMMEDIATELY. The Police will do the investigation. That is the LAW. This forum sure is a magnet for the intellects!! This is my last comment because there is no point looking or commenting on these sites. To say that you have left something and still consumed with it with all the time people have wasted, shows they are struggling to move on. study the bible and the law, instead of these 'forums' and what 'someone may have told someone that you may know'!!The only people at this stage doing the wrong thing are the people on this site that think they are aware of something and haven't done anything about it. The only conclusion is:1. You are aware of something and you haven't reported it???2. You are falsely accusing somebody of a crime or something that they haven't done.Thanks for joining us Craig. Me thinks you doth protest too much! |
|
|
|
Post by queenslander on May 10, 2016 22:11:21 GMT -5
Yes @simpleton As you stated 'the child can file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator whenever they wish for large monetary damages.' This is usually done through Victims of Crime compensation here in Australia......it doesn't actually hurt the perpetrator!! The flipside is most CSA victims (and I do say most, as I work with them daily), do NOT want monetary compensation, all they want is to live their lives, not having to relive their abuse, by the constant telling of it or by witnessing others being abused in the same way. In this world we spend many, many dollars annually protecting frogs, bears, elephants,tigers and the like.....what about our own children?? Yes we have the 'save the children fund', to send money to undeveloped or impoverished countries.....how dare we when we cannot 'save our own'!!!!! You are very correct howitis regarding victims of abuse not wanting to have to relive it by constant retelling it. I myself am an adult survivor of child abuse. I attend a group therapy meeting for adult survivors of child abuse. I dare say that the folks I see in those meetings are so messed up from the abuse which happened 10, 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago, that they can't even grapple with the concept of launching a civil lawsuit. They are struggling as hard as they possibly can to just make it through the day and retain a job, let alone even a relationship with someone else, nevermind trying to get justice. The legal system is rather difficult to navigate for people who are not familiar with it, and so for abuse victims the legal system is beyond daunting. |
|
|
|
Post by queenslander on May 10, 2016 22:28:46 GMT -5
Thanks for joining us Craig. Me thinks you doth protest too much!  ? I don't think C would lower his standards to comment!! Keep up the good work!! ? |
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 10, 2016 23:45:04 GMT -5
You don't have a very good grasp of the LAW. If Malcolm EVEN SUSPECTS criminal activity, he MUST report it to the police. It is not incumbent on Malcolm to decide what is evidence or not. If a claim is made that a child has been sexually assaulted, it is Malcolm's (and everyone else's) LEGAL DUTY to report it to the police IMMEDIATELY. The police will do the investigation. If someone has stated that a child has been sexually assaulted regardless of evidence, even if it is unknown who the perp is, it must be reported to the police. That is the law. Frankly, it's not just in cases of sexual assault of a child, it is also in cases of any type of abuse of a child (emotional, physical, or sexual). The 2x2s in Australia are already behind the 8 ball on this one. Malcolm is already in a position to be charged with not meeting his Duty to Disclose. Same goes for Wayne Dean and any others who have heard the story about the child. Just to make this clear - if you know this child's name and you heard these allegations of sexual assault, it is your LEGAL duty to report this possible crime to the police IMMEDIATELY. The Police will do the investigation. That is the LAW. This forum sure is a magnet for the intellects!! This is my last comment because there is no point looking or commenting on these sites. To say that you have left something and still consumed with it with all the time people have wasted, shows they are struggling to move on. study the bible and the law, instead of these 'forums' and what 'someone may have told someone that you may know'!!The only people at this stage doing the wrong thing are the people on this site that think they are aware of something and haven't done anything about it. The only conclusion is:1. You are aware of something and you haven't reported it???2. You are falsely accusing somebody of a crime or something that they haven't done.Thanks for your contribution. I, or anyone on this Forum, is under no obligation to report anything relating to this matter, but I think you know that. People come on here for many reasons. Many people who have left your church have suffered from spiritual abuse and are still suffering. Others, such as myself, want to expose spiritual abuse and help those who might be suffering from it. Telling all those people simply to move on is one piece of advice that is often given by those in a system that controls people and engages in spiritual abuse. It never works. My advice to you in this matter is for you to put your energy into solving the matter and stopping further instances of abuse, whatever type, in your church. You can rail against talk, whether that talk is good or bad, but you will never stop it. But you can take a stand on issues that matter. There is nothing intellectual about all of that - it is just plain, good common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 11, 2016 0:11:08 GMT -5
Again queenslander, how do you know that no one has reported anything ? Is the question too hard to answer ? |
|
|
|
Post by queenslander on May 11, 2016 1:31:19 GMT -5
Have you ever heard of "Innocent until proven Guilty"?...I don't mean on this site!
Are you aware of something that you are not exposing? This is a question that you cannot seem to answer. For the safety of all of our children and chid abuse victims, you should expose what you and associates on this site seem to be hiding. If you are not aware of anything, it is pathetic to be running forums on made up propaganda. I don't know of any person today that would tell a victim to just move on.
Is 'Spiritual abuse' where you give plenty of advice, but cannot take advice?
|
|
|
|
Post by kittens on May 11, 2016 1:58:14 GMT -5
Queenslander - you obviously don't mix with very many friends or workers if you can say "I don't know of any person today that would tell a victim to just move on."
|
|
|
|
Post by queenslander on May 11, 2016 2:21:25 GMT -5
Been to many Conventions all over Australia and oversea's. Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 11, 2016 3:09:16 GMT -5
Have you ever heard of "Innocent until proven Guilty"?...I don't mean on this site! Are you aware of something that you are not exposing? This is a question that you cannot seem to answer. For the safety of all of our children and chid abuse victims, you should expose what you and associates on this site seem to be hiding. If you are not aware of anything, it is pathetic to be running forums on made up propaganda. I don't know of any person today that would tell a victim to just move on. Is 'Spiritual abuse' where you give plenty of advice, but cannot take advice? , who are you commenting to ? You don't seem to be able to answer the simple question, how do you know that no one has reported anything ? Has Malcolm told you personally that no one has reported anything ? If he has, surely he should be telling all the member this ? |
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 11, 2016 3:23:45 GMT -5
Have you ever heard of "Innocent until proven Guilty"?...I don't mean on this site! Are you aware of something that you are not exposing? This is a question that you cannot seem to answer. For the safety of all of our children and chid abuse victims, you should expose what you and associates on this site seem to be hiding. If you are not aware of anything, it is pathetic to be running forums on made up propaganda. I don't know of any person today that would tell a victim to just move on. Is 'Spiritual abuse' where you give plenty of advice, but cannot take advice? The original account was posted on WINGS and was reposted by a moderator of this site. Many people had heard stories for years but did not post anything on the issue. Instead they advised senior workers and took other private action. You should ask Malcolm Clapham and other senior workers if they knew anything. If they say no, they are lying to you. Before any responses were made on TMB in relation to this matter the information was in the public domain. WINGS would not post anything that had no credibility. There is obviously an issue otherwise Craig Janke would not be back in Queensland. No-one tends to dream up comments made by Head Workers without any basis and Malcolm Clapham would not be saying anything if there was no issue. I have tried to tone down any talk about actual or suspected cases of child sexual abuse rather than let the matter hang. I do not intend to provide any more details on a public board. You should direct your questions to the workers. If they won't answer them directly ask a range of questions as I outlined. Craig is a member of their ministry and they should be able to give an unambiguous answer. i can appreciate that it often difficult to ask Head Workers about these matters. I used to feel that way as well. But they are only people like you and me and they clearly owe people in their church a more fulsome explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by queenslander on May 11, 2016 3:50:45 GMT -5
They have acted appropriately and trying to get to the bottom of these allegations. Have requested anyone to contact him or any workers about anything. Anything of a criminal nature should be dealt with by the police. What more can they do then what they are currently doing. They are doing much more then you would know to prevent possible problems. How do they act on this, when there isn't anything at this stage to act on. Craig was sent back to Queensland in case there was any truth to these allegations. The people that made the calls do not have anything,other then 'concerns'!!
Terrible to become a victim of abuse as well as false allegations
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 11, 2016 8:28:32 GMT -5
They have acted appropriately and trying to get to the bottom of these allegations. Have requested anyone to contact him or any workers about anything. Anything of a criminal nature should be dealt with by the police. What more can they do then what they are currently doing. They are doing much more then you would know to prevent possible problems. How do they act on this, when there isn't anything at this stage to act on. Craig was sent back to Queensland in case there was any truth to these allegations. The people that made the calls do not have anything,other then 'concerns'!! Terrible to become a victim of abuse as well as false allegations I share your concern. No-one wants a person falsely accused. However, it is unusual in these situations for vexatious or scurrilous comments to be made or circulated. Sure, someone may have a beef but professing folk in my experience don't tend to make stories up out of no-where. Assuming there are some concerns - which is reasonable to assume - the question needs to be asked why people won't provide specifics. There will be a range of reasons - they don't know what the specifics are, they don't want to reveal their sources, information they reveal may implicate others, they don't want to get involved in the process, they don't want workers to subsequently target them if the allegations are proven false or they don't trust the workers to treat any information they provide with confidentiality. I'm sure there are other reasons which don't immediately come to mind and it is likely a combination of these reasons. In a tight-knit church where there are many close family relationships it does not surprise me that people aren't necessarily forthcoming. Trusted ex-members under a joint confidentiality arrangement may be the best way to unpack the concerns. It is not the first time this has been done. I am happy to elaborate more if you PM me. It may well be that the concerns turn out to be that of a moral nature and that people worry how the future will unfold. That's normal. If that is the case then it can be dealt with appropriately with clear communication to church members. I agree that it is hard to communicate anything if the matter is not resolved - it simply raises more questions than answers. Mal may genuinely think he is doing his best by communicating as he has done. No doubt there will be a number who accept him at his word. But there will be many who don't and unsatisfactory communication will just raise further concerns that he is covering something. This will not be his intention but it will be the outcome. It is important that the right outcome is reached for the various people involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 12, 2016 0:47:31 GMT -5
I understand Malcolm Clapham's communication program is continuing. At a Gold Coast gospel meeting last night and presumably more to come. Some have wondered why communication of this nature would occur at a gospel meeting and in front of children. It is an incredibly bad public process and will do irreparable damage - not the least to the accused. Has Mal received legal advice? I imagine that Mal will complete the communication program, no-one will come forward to him and nothing will change. The unusual part about it is that some details are on WINGS (a site which I am not involved with although I completely support its work). wingsbts.proboards.com/thread/296/craig-jankeFinally, Mal could readily find out more details by a couple of phone calls or meetings. My theory is that he does not want to hear the details, however, I am very happy to be proved wrong. |
|
? I don't think C would lower his standards to comment!! Keep up the good work!!