Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 15:43:07 GMT -5
2013 QUEENSLAND Workers List
Edwin Allen, Ryan Wolff - Brisbane SW
John McQuillan, Joe Shephard - Rockhampton
Colin Weare, James Gordon - Townsville
Malcolm Clapham, John Bowman - Sunshine Coast
Peter Morrison, Chris Bird - Brisbane SE
Craig Janke, Marshall Eichmann - Emerald
Bevan Phillips, Daniel Collins - Gold Coast
Jean Gordon, Janita Hills - Gladstone - Biloela
Jean Harris, Lynn Sherlock - Maryborough
Helen Windsor , Sheralee Jensen - Millmerran - Pittsworth
Gwen Pampling, Melanie Hansen - Bundaberg
Una Fletcher, Ruth Hills - Warwick - Stanthorpe
Alveen Schulz, Jenita Gordon - Caboolture
Janice Hills, Donna Blanch - Ipswich
Winnie Melville, Belinda Young - Mackay
Linda Callaway, Krystle Hall - Brisbane Nth
Joan Lankowski, Ruth Nielsen - Far North
Heather MacNevin, Rose Melville - Sth Burnett
Robyn Hart, Gwen Hills - Toowoomba
Leanne Bond, Courtney Hoffman - Dalby
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 15, 2016 8:45:42 GMT -5
Malcolm Clapham continues to try and arrange visits with some professing folk and ex-members who have raised concerns about Craig Janke's behaviour over a number of years.
These visits are with Craig Janke present. It appears the purpose of these visits is to listen to the concerns, apologise and then all will be fixed.
While it is laudable for Malcolm to find out more about the matters, many have expressed concern about Craig Janke being present at these meetings. They are quite uncomfortable with this approach.
The general advice being circulated to people who are being visited is that it is your decision whether or not you want Craig Janke present and in all circumstances you should not meet with both men alone but have a trusted friend, a social worker or psychologist present.
For some, given the high-control attributes of the fellowship and the possibility that in Queensland fellowship privileges can be easily taken away from people, the thought of two senior workers visiting is quite daunting. it is important to remember that it is your decision whether to meet or not, who to meet with, you have the ability to set the agenda and whether the meeting is recorded.
Given that a number of senior workers have a habit of exercising control over members of the fellowship any language used by workers such as "we feel sorry for you that you feel this way or that you have these concerns" should be immediately rejected. Under no circumstances should you be made to feel sorry or wrong for raising any concerns.
Given that "Queenslander" has had a spray about people discussing the matter on this Board when members of this Board had nothing to do with the original post on WINGS, it is possible that in worker visits the friends and ex-members will be harangued for making supposed "false allegations" about Mr Janke. Some professing folk believe that "Queenslander" is a very close relative of Malcolm Clapham so it may provide an insight into what may happen if people do not "fall into line" when the workers visit.
It is important to remember that workers have absolutely zero power over people, do not determine their salvation in any way, and are born with the same human nature as all of us. You can be certain that if their implied power is misused in the visits that this is their problem, not yours.
I hope this advice helps anyone who may choose to go ahead with a visit from the workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 15, 2016 11:54:40 GMT -5
The overseers should not investigate these accusations, they are not police nor are they the courts.
Being found not guilty is often due to there not being enough evidence and not because it did not happen. Police often do not take it to court due to not enough evidence. It is sometimes years before something is taken to court due to waiting for others to come forward in order to have a stronger case. They don't want to take the victim through the courts unless there is a high chance they are going to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 15, 2016 14:10:54 GMT -5
Is the sense I am getting correct that matters involving Craig Janke might not fit "illegal" but rather would be considered "immoral" ?
I think asking a friend or professional to sit in on any visit is good. It's also good that Craig has someone of his choice accompany him. IOW, a witness or two on both sides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 14:32:44 GMT -5
Is the sense I am getting correct that matters involving Craig Janke might not fit "illegal" but rather would be considered "immoral" ? I think asking a friend or professional to sit in on any visit is good. It's also good that Craig has someone of his choice accompany him. IOW, a witness or two on both sides. Yes I agree, an impartial observer with nothing to lose or to gain, just there to see fair play. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 16:58:09 GMT -5
The overseers should not investigate these accusations, they are not police nor are they the courts. Being found not guilty is often due to there not being enough evidence and not because it did not happen. Police often do not take it to court due to not enough evidence. It is sometimes years before something is taken to court due to waiting for others to come forward in order to have a stronger case. They don't want to take the victim through the courts unless there is a high chance they are going to win. The victim and/or victim's family MUST file a civil suit (sue) the perpetrator. This is independent of the criminal charges that police may or may not lay. It's very important to do both civil and criminal litigation. The criminal litigation is the STATE prosecuting the perpetrator for CRIMES (infractions against the STATE). The civil litigation is the victim prosecuting the perpetrator for damages against the victim. Even if the police do not follow through and do a proper investigation, the victim can still proceed with a civil suit. I highly recommend this process. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 19:09:40 GMT -5
Any TMB poster who downplays the CSA threat not only doesn't care about young children but they also con't care about the souls of the perverts in the Kingdom. When you encourage a pervert to hide their sins (by moving them somewhere that nobody knows about the problem), you are only hurting the soul of the pervert.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on May 15, 2016 19:29:59 GMT -5
Any TMB poster who downplays the CSA threat not only doesn't care about young children but they also con't care about the souls of the perverts in the Kingdom. When you encourage a pervert to hide their sins (by moving them somewhere that nobody knows about the problem), you are only hurting the soul of the pervert. A really good point. We are all sinful and the only way to address that sin is to acknowledge it and truly repent. Whilst that may be the intention of Malcolm Clapham and Craig Janke in making the various visits, it needs to be a real repentance. A real repentance simply means that anyone who has a tendency in the areas being discussed should not be in the ministry. It does not mean that the person can never be trusted again - it is simply that a leader needs to place the protection of children in their church as an absolute must and must not expose the person who is under suspicion to potential temptation. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 15, 2016 22:31:29 GMT -5
The overseers should not investigate these accusations, they are not police nor are they the courts. Being found not guilty is often due to there not being enough evidence and not because it did not happen. Police often do not take it to court due to not enough evidence. It is sometimes years before something is taken to court due to waiting for others to come forward in order to have a stronger case. They don't want to take the victim through the courts unless there is a high chance they are going to win. The victim and/or victim's family MUST file a civil suit (sue) the perpetrator. This is independent of the criminal charges that police may or may not lay. It's very important to do both civil and criminal litigation. The criminal litigation is the STATE prosecuting the perpetrator for CRIMES (infractions against the STATE). The civil litigation is the victim prosecuting the perpetrator for damages against the victim. Even if the police do not follow through and do a proper investigation, the victim can still proceed with a civil suit. I highly recommend this process. If the police don't believe it's worth persuading then there's a good chance a civil case wouldn't be worth pursuing. Would you contribute to the costs if the victim's family can't afford a civil suit? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2016 22:42:12 GMT -5
The victim and/or victim's family MUST file a civil suit (sue) the perpetrator. This is independent of the criminal charges that police may or may not lay. It's very important to do both civil and criminal litigation. The criminal litigation is the STATE prosecuting the perpetrator for CRIMES (infractions against the STATE). The civil litigation is the victim prosecuting the perpetrator for damages against the victim. Even if the police do not follow through and do a proper investigation, the victim can still proceed with a civil suit. I highly recommend this process. If the police don't believe it's worth persuading then there's a good chance a civil case wouldn't be worth pursuing. Would you contribute to the costs if the victim's family can't afford a civil suit? here in the USA you need much less proof of guilt in a civil case than in a criminal case... |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 16, 2016 1:05:39 GMT -5
Maybe it's time to hit them in the pocket. The RCC and other churches have been paying damages for ages. In the case of the 2x2 a few civil suits for a million or three would bring a change of attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 16, 2016 3:24:27 GMT -5
You do not file a civil suit in some countries. The government pay compensation to the victim regardless if it has gone through the courts or not. A civil suit is possible against large organisations like the Catholic church but out of range for the average person.
|
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 16, 2016 4:13:53 GMT -5
You do not file a civil suit in some countries. The government pay compensation to the victim regardless if it has gone through the courts or not. A civil suit is possible against large organisations like the Catholic church but out of range for the average person. Where did you get the notion that you can bring a civil suit against a large organization but not an average person? |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on May 16, 2016 5:14:53 GMT -5
The Christian Assemblies of Victoria are registered as a Denominational name and is incorperated as a church body,they are also registered as a Charity,so they and/or their three trustees,as well as the individual who is on their mission list are liable for any legal action against them. As in any incorperated body.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 16, 2016 6:21:52 GMT -5
What i meant Bob was that large institutions pay out to victims (there are usually large numbers of peole going for compensation and the lawyers take the money out of the payout) whereas it's a lot harder to sue an individual rather than a lot of people suing an organisation. It can be costly as an individual is less likely to win against another individual compared to, as i said, lots of people taking an suit against an organisation such as the RCC. There are some lawyers who take a portion of the payout but most want payment up front as the chances of winning are less. Anyway some governments have commissions set up to take complaints about treatment in instutions and state welfare care. As for an individual taking a civil suit against another individual, it's hard and costly.
|
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 16, 2016 14:43:55 GMT -5
I hear what you are saying Enuf, Here In NZ we have a government insurer who will pay out on sexual abuse claims.The RCC have also made large payments in NZ to victims. What I am suggesting is that the 2x2 organisation be hit. The fall out would be interesting. They would be unable to deny the abuse but would probably set about denying they are a group. A court case would define that as well.
Now for one brave victim to step up.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 16, 2016 15:32:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 16, 2016 18:04:20 GMT -5
This was posted recently on the Wings discussion board Breaking The Silence..... Craig Janke was a senior worker in Queensland and more recently in South Australia but has abruptly left the work and returned to Queensland. It is important to note that regarding the worker Craig Janke, the above information appears factual, at least to the extent of having returned to Queensland. All other conjecture and any allegations have not been verified or substantiated and should not be further canvassed on TMB. I remind TMB posters of the rule that unsubstantiated allegations should not be made on TMB about named individuals. Thanks for your understanding, admin |
|
