bgm
Junior Member
Posts: 99 
|
Post by bgm on Oct 17, 2016 6:21:56 GMT -5
Friends in Queensland should be informed that Mr. [name removed] has been reinstated to the Work and will be assigned a field in the new year. It is understood that he has had counseling and is considered fit for the Work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Oct 18, 2016 2:21:10 GMT -5
Friends in Queensland should be informed that Mr. [name removed] has been reinstated to the Work and will be assigned a field in the new year. It is understood that he has had counseling and is considered fit for the Work. Wrong on so many levels !! Thank you bgm |
|
|
|
Post by vanillagorilla on Oct 18, 2016 10:21:56 GMT -5
shaking my head in utter disbelief
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2016 23:31:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by friendly67 on Oct 19, 2016 18:03:23 GMT -5
Assuming he has learned the error of his ways, which did not include sexual acts, but an unnatural interest in teenage boys,
including huge numbers of photographs.
The problem would be that many of the friends would not feel comfortable with him in their homes, and that is understandable.
One would hope that conditions would be that he give up photography and not stay in homes where there are young boys.
No doubt his companion would be very carefully chosen and he would be 'on probation' so to speak.
|
|
col
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by col on Oct 20, 2016 7:23:28 GMT -5
One can only hope, I wouldn't hold my breath. Parents must be advised if he is in their area, but that won't happen if history is anything to go by. It will be just a coverup like so many others, protecting their mates. Sad that the truth is not important.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 20, 2016 7:52:12 GMT -5
One can only hope, I wouldn't hold my breath. Parents must be advised if he is in their area, but that won't happen if history is anything to go by. By law or ethical consideration? Isn't not reporting a crime in Australia? Knowing this and the fact that anyone with any knowledge of the situation might make for a better climate in dealing with these issues in the light of day. The truth can be elusive and mean different things to different observers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 8:07:58 GMT -5
One can only hope, I wouldn't hold my breath. Parents must be advised if he is in their area, but that won't happen if history is anything to go by. By law or ethical consideration? Isn't not reporting a crime? Knowing this and the fact that anyone with any knowledge of the situation might make for a better climate in dealing with these issues in the light of day. The truth can be elusive and mean different things to different observers. Yes, that kind of answers the old question: what is truth? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 21, 2016 9:16:39 GMT -5
While I think it is disgraceful that child protection measures and guidelines, safe ministry training and accreditation plus a public apology have not been forthcoming in the 2x2 church, I am an ex-member and have no influence over their practices. While these are steps in the right direction putting in place a set of rules and guidelines may lead people to believe that the environment is safe. Having worked with both the criminals who abuse and the victims of the abuse I believe there is a need for a much simpler message - educate your children (really educate them) and give both the children and all members the power to report any abuse or suspicion of abuse to the authorities who have been put in place and trained to deal with such issues. While the internal watch groups are set up with the best of intentions if there are criminals who abuse they can, and often will, find a way to continue to abuse. It is not unlike stores/merchants who put controls in place to prevent theft, by both employees and customers, and learn just how creative a thief can be. I also question the value of an apology or a statement of repentance. It is like forcing a toddler to say they are sorry when they throw sand in their friend's face. Explain the consequences of their act will give them the information they need to either apologize on their own or decide that their action had the exact result they expected. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 22, 2016 1:45:44 GMT -5
Yes, children need to be totally educated about it but parents want to see that significant steps have been taken to help ensure a safe environment. I understand the desire to have an absolutely safe environment but while these actions may make people feel safe they are about as effective as having passengers remove their shoes before board a plane to prevent someone boarding with a bomb. Criminals create and exploit opportunities to abuse children and they are extraordinarily good at doing what they do. Organizations do not apologize - individuals do. This sounds reasonable but somewhere I came across a publication that raised a number of questions based on collected data. Or course, if I remember correctly it was based in China. I believe the reasons for the past problems are two fold: 1) The members believed that the workers were called by god and were above question. This belief was fostered by the workers. 2) The victims were encouraged to report the crimes to members within the organization and not to the authorities. 3) The members believed that if they were 'put out' by criminals or people who supported criminals they would lose their salvation so they tend to keep it quiet. I think #1 has been addressed. #2 has also been addressed. It would seem that #3 would have been addressed by #1 and #2 but beliefs are a difficult thing to overcome. What operating procedure do you follow is someone reports to you that they suspect child abuse? |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Oct 22, 2016 4:04:00 GMT -5
The above post Rational, wrote 'at our church'. Doesn't this belong to the post Ross wrote.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 22, 2016 12:58:32 GMT -5
The above post Rational, wrote 'at our church'. Doesn't this belong to the post Ross wrote. Looks like you need to get better glasses! (thanks for pointing that out.) |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 22, 2016 13:13:50 GMT -5
I understand the desire to have an absolutely safe environment but while these actions may make people feel safe they are about as effective as having passengers remove their shoes before board a plane to prevent someone boarding with a bomb. So organisations should do nothing?That is a tough question. Should the TSA do nothing even though having people take off their shoes does nothing to reduce the possibility of someone getting on plane with a bomb. But the fact that it makes people feel better does have some value. In some cases the fact that people think their children are free from any danger may lead to reduced vigilance and actually provide opportunities for criminals. The people in charge need to apologize for their actions/inaction. It is the people who are responsible. Making it look like it is the organization that is responsible removes the responsibility from those responsible. (Gee, how many times can you use responsibility in a paragraph?) It seems like the leaders have addressed this. The true believers most likely will never change. One case does not necessarily represent the majority. And I believe that is the single message that should be the lesson taught. |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Oct 22, 2016 14:02:32 GMT -5
The above post Rational, wrote 'at our church'. Doesn't this belong to the post Ross wrote. Looks like you need to get better glasses! (thanks for pointing that out.) I see you've changed it to be included in Ross' quote now. My glasses are fine thanks. Didn't think you attended a church but miracles happen. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 23, 2016 0:26:13 GMT -5
Looks like you need to get better glasses! (thanks for pointing that out.) I see you've changed it to be included in Ross' quote now. My glasses are fine thanks. Didn't think you attended a church but miracles happen. If only there were proof of even a single miracle... |
|
bgm
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by bgm on Nov 3, 2016 22:38:30 GMT -5
Names withheld, posts deleted....this is a forum of censorship with little understanding of libel or empathy about abuse. Go for it guys, you have rendered yourselves irrelevant.
I hope you realize that when I posted my real name (which you deleted) that legal responsibility for libel shifted from you to me. Yes me. Not you. I take full personal responsibility for my statements and I took great care in my original postings as I do with this one.
If anyone wants to know the background of the Queensland worker (name strangely withheld) who has been reinstated after therapy, please PM me as this forum is quite useless, email me at mmurdochbg@aol.com or call me at 1-250-417-6681 in Canada. I am happy to relay the known facts, good and bad. The (strangely withheld name) of the worker has never been accused of any child abuse whatsoever and I am unaware of any such accusations.
If you care, contact me.
Let's get real and personal folks. Let's get honest. Contact me.
Let's show that we care about our children and grandchildren.
Bruce Murdoch
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 4, 2016 9:54:43 GMT -5
I hope you realize that when I posted my real name (which you deleted) that legal responsibility for libel shifted from you to me. Yes me. Not you. I take full personal responsibility for my statements and I took great care in my original postings as I do with this one. The legal responsibility of a post remains with the poster whether they have attached their correct name or not. Posting without a 'realname' does not change the legal aspect. Just may make it more difficult for anyone interested to track down the original poster. According to the material posted on the home page: No libelous posts will be allowed. This includes posts that contain names or initials of living people about whom unsubstantiated criminal allegations are made. Posting names, events, and substantiating your claims is up to you. I believe the administrator would allow a post to stand unchanged if the claim was supported by some external verification, perhaps an article in a newspaper of court documents. Looking at your original post you failed to substantiate your claim. A copy of the court order instead of presenting hearsay information would have prevented the censorship. Perhaps setting an example for our children and grandchildren that there are rules that people living in a society have to follow would be a good start. Setting an example that the rules don't apply to some goes a long way in explaining some of the problems seen in many organizations today. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 8, 2016 15:34:33 GMT -5
The user bgm who has identified himself as Bruce Murdoch deserves a response to his concerns over this thread. Bruce is a respected member of TMB who is indefatigable in his efforts to expose CSA within the F&W church, and to protect children from this wicked and criminal behavior of a few amongst us.
Bruce is correct that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the provider (ProBoards) and the owners (Admin team) of this board who are covered by U.S. law from legal libel.
But some history. Before the current administration, when ProBoards briefly closed this board, we made a commitment to ProBoards that TMB would be run in a way that nothing libelous would be allowed. There is much more to our commitment to ProBoards to meet the standard they were asking, that enabled this board to be re-started and to continue to this day. Obviously if allegations of a criminal nature are made, they need to be substantiated as commented by rational (thanks, rational). Beyond that, we have not codified the details of our commitment, to do so would simply invite amateur lawyers to try and find loopholes. Our commitment can perhaps best be summarized as 'common decency'.
The particular issue here is that a name of a worker was posted, in a thread "Queensland Australia alert", on a sub-board "WINGS Child Abuse Website". Any casual reader would likely assume some connection between the named worker and the subject of the board, child abuse. In the absence of any substantiating evidence, the administration removed the name in accord with our commitment to ProBoards.
Bruce has since stated "the worker has never been accused of any child abuse whatsoever and I am unaware of any such accusations" which highlights that this action was most appropriate. If the named worker were ever to seek employment, a google search by any prospective employer would likely discover his name connected with a board dealing with child abuse.
Less seriously, associating a name here with 'counseling' or 'therapy' is also something we would usually like to avoid (medical state of individuals should be respected as private).
We accept the unquestionable good intentions of bgm in his posts. We are not opening this matter to debate, simply responding out of respect for Bruce.
If some feel our actions in administering this board are overly cautious, we simply state that we have a commitment with ProBoards that was very clear and has kept us on the right side of those who control this message board. Thanks to all of you who have understood and helped in this task, and to Bruce for his efforts in raising awareness of child abuse.
admin
|
|
|
|
Post by kittens on Nov 10, 2016 16:15:29 GMT -5
While I think it is disgraceful that child protection measures and guidelines, safe ministry training and accreditation plus a public apology have not been forthcoming in the 2x2 church, I am an ex-member and have no influence over their practices. While these are steps in the right direction putting in place a set of rules and guidelines may lead people to believe that the environment is safe. Having worked with both the criminals who abuse and the victims of the abuse I believe there is a need for a much simpler message - educate your children (really educate them) and give both the children and all members the power to report any abuse or suspicion of abuse to the authorities who have been put in place and trained to deal with such issues. While the internal watch groups are set up with the best of intentions if there are criminals who abuse they can, and often will, find a way to continue to abuse. It is not unlike stores/merchants who put controls in place to prevent theft, by both employees and customers, and learn just how creative a thief can be. I also question the value of an apology or a statement of repentance. It is like forcing a toddler to say they are sorry when they throw sand in their friend's face. Explain the consequences of their act will give them the information they need to either apologize on their own or decide that their action had the exact result they expected. You say "Give both the children and all members the power to report any abuse or suspicion of abuse to the authorities" I totally disagree. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS. The problem is that everyone has been brainwashed to run to the workers with every little problem from a broken toenail to every aspect of their personal life. Regarding Child Sexual Abuse the workers have ALWAYS advised them NOT to go to the police, NOT to do anything about it and to just forget it ever happened or there would be consequences. (I have a threatening letter from a head worker regarding the consequences if anything was 'exposed'). Which leads to my next problem with something you said in later post. "Organisations do not apologise - individuals do." The above scenario proves that the "organisation" is at fault and should mend their ways. Yes individuals should apologise too, IF they are truly sorry but the workers should be saying "Don't come to us. Go straight to the police AND WE WILL UPHOLD YOU." Yep, and I can see some pigs coming in for landing right now. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 10, 2016 20:37:09 GMT -5
You say "Give both the children and all members the power to report any abuse or suspicion of abuse to the authorities" I totally disagree. THEY ALREADY HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS. Of course they have the power. No one will physically restrain them. But as long as they believe that the actions of those in power can damn them they actually don't have the power. People don't report because, as has been mentioned in this thread, they are afraid that they will be cast out. The by putting the workers above the law they no longer feel they have the power to report to the authorities. They have, for all purposes, lost their power. And thus they gave up the power to report to the workers. This is what people need to regain. Did you report/expose? An organization cannot take any action. Individuals in the organization can. The people running the organization are the ones writing the letters. People within the organization may side with one leader or the other. But the organization takes no action without the members allowing it to do so - that is - allowing the leaders to do what they do. Yes they should. And there should not be negative consequences when someone does report. This has not been the case in the past. You will not get an argument from me. Going back to your statement regarding the letter - did you report/expose what they told you not to report? |
|
shar
New Member
Posts: 2 
|
Post by shar on Nov 20, 2016 8:22:22 GMT -5
Just a quick note on this issue the workers are very serious about this matter and there are steps being taken to resolve this matter. I am not at liberty to say much as yet as there are still matters that need to be worked out and resolved. It is not written in stone that CJ will be returning to work or even that he has a field. Discussions are being held with professionals who deal with CSA as well as other concerned parties.
|
|
shar
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by shar on Nov 20, 2016 15:40:54 GMT -5
Yes they are very concerned about this man and the added stress it has placed on families as well as the workers themselves.The worry is, of course, that as no one as yet has come forward with a definite CSA claim the law cant act. He has obvious worrying tendencies that a lot of people have observed and those concerns have been raised with the the law but frustratingly as he hasn't done anything legally wrong the law cant act. Unfortunately the law cant act on morality and the lack of common sense. So that fact puts the workers in a bind no one really wants him and some states have understandably flatly refused him. But on the other hand do we want someone like that released into the broader community where he can fly under the radar where those, perhaps sympathetic; disbelieving of the accusations, family members would shelter him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 16:25:07 GMT -5
Yes they are very concerned about this man and the added stress it has placed on families as well as the workers themselves.The worry is, of course, that as no one as yet has come forward with a definite CSA claim the law cant act. He has obvious worrying tendencies that a lot of people have observed and those concerns have been raised with the the law but frustratingly as he hasn't done anything legally wrong the law cant act. Unfortunately the law cant act on morality and the lack of common sense. So that fact puts the workers in a bind no one really wants him and some states have understandably flatly refused him. But on the other hand do we want someone like that released into the broader community where he can fly under the radar where those, perhaps sympathetic; disbelieving of the accusations, family members would shelter him? since were talking about someone that hasn't broken the law yet what are these "tendencies" you are talking about? |
|
bgm
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by bgm on Nov 20, 2016 21:27:26 GMT -5
Yes they are very concerned about this man and the added stress it has placed on families as well as the workers themselves.The worry is, of course, that as no one as yet has come forward with a definite CSA claim the law cant act. He has obvious worrying tendencies that a lot of people have observed and those concerns have been raised with the the law but frustratingly as he hasn't done anything legally wrong the law cant act. Unfortunately the law cant act on morality and the lack of common sense. So that fact puts the workers in a bind no one really wants him and some states have understandably flatly refused him. But on the other hand do we want someone like that released into the broader community where he can fly under the radar where those, perhaps sympathetic; disbelieving of the accusations, family members would shelter him? since were talking about someone that hasn't broken the law yet what are these "tendencies" you are talking about? It seems that discussion on this topic is extremely restricted on this site. Much more information and discussion is available on the WINGS Facebook site. While that site is not unmoderated, you will be able to find the information you are looking for there, as well as much more open discussion. www.facebook.com/wings.fortruth?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf |
|
|
|
Post by magpie1 on Oct 7, 2018 22:52:01 GMT -5
When will they get it the difference between Homosexuality and paedophelia,yes one can be both,some are women. Paedophelia catalogued by the WHO(World Health Organisation) seperate it as a mental illness,and the paedophile's quarry is "prepubesant children and non human " I believe the WHO. magpie
|
|
