peggysullivan
Senior Member
What is living if I can't be free? What is freedom if I can't be me?
Posts: 662
|
Post by peggysullivan on Apr 2, 2023 23:44:49 GMT -5
enuf,
Most sex offenders have been sexually abused. Not just many.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Apr 2, 2023 23:44:57 GMT -5
Its just window dressing, if they were serious they would not have dodged the National Redress Scheme unless they have signed on with my knowledge.......to many its still a taboo topic because it's really not a problem........ They are only sorry because they been caught with their pants down and one can rarely look at it objectively if one is a enabler of the system. chuck you have summed it up ! It is just "windows dressing" ! Dodging the Redress Scheme speaks for itself. I hope after what has come out in the US that there will be change...but I will be surprised if it does. Any response is reactionary to outside pressure, the culture within is still basically the same just with window dressing, it now seems as if they are patting themselves on the back for the window dressing even though intiially it was not driven from within by being proactive........ Masters at manipulation..... Edit, I know there are good honest folk within the chuch, just not enough to change the culture.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 2, 2023 23:46:11 GMT -5
Most sex offenders have been sexually abused themselves. That statement is false.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 2, 2023 23:46:59 GMT -5
enuf, Most sex offenders have been sexually abused. Not just many. Can you post a peer-reviewed scientific study that would substantiate your claim?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 2, 2023 23:48:23 GMT -5
There have been sad and wrong things happen in the past in our church, honest people acknowledge this has sadly happened in many churches and organisation. We are so appreciate that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place. But of course that will mean nothing much to those whose primary motive is to criticise the church they were once part of. No one loses too much sleep over their 'vain jangling'. 🤷♂️😳🤣😋 Are the friends (the world over) going to be informed that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place? Great question fixit.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Apr 2, 2023 23:50:42 GMT -5
There have been sad and wrong things happen in the past in our church, honest people acknowledge this has sadly happened in many churches and organisation. We are so appreciate that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place. But of course that will mean nothing much to those whose primary motive is to criticise the church they were once part of. No one loses too much sleep over their 'vain jangling'. 🤷♂️😳🤣😋 Are the friends (the world over) going to be informed that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place? I feel the church is getting to the point were it has to admit it is no different to any other religious organisation. That's not a bad thing and may actually improve things like what your question eludes to.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Apr 3, 2023 0:01:07 GMT -5
Elisabeth Coleman, Excellent! you have acknowledged an Australian code of conduct of the church where it is unambiguously acknowledged that workers are ministers and there is NOTHING to support you allegation of our church claiming to not have ministers to avoid being charged for hiding CSA. I appreciate the opportunity you have given for readers here to know (if they didn't know already) of CSA measures and Code of Conduct that your fellow Australians have implemented! Thank you Where is it " unambigously acknowledged that workers are ministers" ? I couldn't find the word "minister" anywhere in what you posted. Should have gone to Specsavers.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 3, 2023 0:34:24 GMT -5
There have been sad and wrong things happen in the past in our church, honest people acknowledge this has sadly happened in many churches and organisation. We are so appreciate that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place. But of course that will mean nothing much to those whose primary motive is to criticise the church they were once part of. No one loses too much sleep over their 'vain jangling'. 🤷♂️😳🤣😋 Are the friends (the world over) going to be informed that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place?
I personally don't think that any of those programs guarantee sufficient change. I don't know what those 'codes of conduct' are? The police can't even keep our streets safe let alone an obscure ministry, and 'Ministry Safe' may increase awareness, but I doubt it would dissuade a pervert in disguise.
The Truth is unique in that the Workers eat, sleep, and live with the congregation, so typical 'codes of conduct' would be difficult to implement and regulate. But just as a male gynecologist should never examine a patient without a nurse present, I guess a single Worker can never be alone with an underage child. That's kinda impersonal and sad, but probably a necessary safety rule to protect both.
I wish DB didn't die, he should really be here to answer for all the havoc he caused. Too bad someone didn't finger the fox in the chicken coop earlier.
This approach solves nothing. Sex predators seem to rely on it.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Apr 3, 2023 0:38:06 GMT -5
enuf, Most sex offenders have been sexually abused. Not just many. Can you post a peer-reviewed scientific study that would substantiate your claim? I am well aware of the statistics. The point of my post was that most who have been sexually abused do not go onto abuse. I also believe that online pornography can lead to the sexual abuse of others.
|
|
|
Post by themaninthemirror on Apr 3, 2023 0:46:33 GMT -5
Yes I am a member of the church and very appreciative of what your fellow Australians have implemented in CSA matters. Yet even after this was implemented, there is still a Worker in Qld (that was called out several years ago about inappropriate behaviour with children) still in the Work ! He should NOT be in the Work around children. Who is the worker?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 3, 2023 0:49:43 GMT -5
Yet even after this was implemented, there is still a Worker in Qld (that was called out several years ago about inappropriate behaviour with children) still in the Work ! He should NOT be in the Work around children. Who is the worker? He is well know in Qld, Australia.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Apr 3, 2023 1:05:08 GMT -5
Yet even after this was implemented, there is still a Worker in Qld (that was called out several years ago about inappropriate behaviour with children) still in the Work ! He should NOT be in the Work around children. Who is the worker? Obviously for legal reasons one cannot name someone against whom there is not a recorded conviction. But I have heard the same. I also understand that the State of Queensland in Australia has refused to sign up to childsafe code of conduct. Aren't you the same person bleating over breach of privacy regarding the Dean Bruer exposure? Why are you wanting this person publicly named?
|
|
|
Post by internationalstudies on Apr 3, 2023 2:23:22 GMT -5
Elisabeth Coleman, Excellent! you have acknowledged an Australian code of conduct of the church where it is unambiguously acknowledged that workers are ministers and there is NOTHING to support you allegation of our church claiming to not have ministers to avoid being charged for hiding CSA. I appreciate the opportunity you have given for readers here to know (if they didn't know already) of CSA measures and Code of Conduct that your fellow Australians have implemented! Thank you Where is it " unambigously acknowledged that workers are ministers" ? I couldn't find the word "minister" anywhere in what you posted. Should have gone to Specsavers. Specsaver comment ? To avoid you having to acknowledge that your Australian workers have for a number of years acknowledged they are ministers with responsibilities regarding CSA?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 3, 2023 2:55:09 GMT -5
When I was young I needed a reference. Walter Frank, a NZ worker wrote me a reference and after his signature, put; Minister of Religion.
|
|
|
Post by mrdobalina on Apr 3, 2023 2:56:36 GMT -5
I don't see any point in quoting your favourite book of mythology. It is full of immorality and anyone wanting to lead a decent life would have binned it long ago. This conversation would not be occurring if Bruer and the like had kept their pants on and been leading a decent life. I quoted it for the religiously minded. I am sure your pathway to morality is some form of ever changing guideline of whatever you "feel". Who knows, maybe tomorrow you will be identifying as a three headed, triple gendered goat. Alternatively, you could avoid making assumptions based on nothing but a few words. Silly troll. You sound like a Christian to me.
|
|
|
Post by mrdobalina on Apr 3, 2023 2:57:57 GMT -5
When I was young I needed a reference. Walter Frank, a NZ worker wrote me a reference and after his signature, put; Minister of Religion. I was aware of him masturbating in the toilets at convention, forever after that I referred to him as Fralter Wank.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 3:12:52 GMT -5
In all fairness, names aside, (let’s just be hypothetical here) it worries me when someone downplays the reported situation. A male member of a clergy (any religion) holds an 11 year old girl on his lap to read a book (or any other activity). Puberty is 8-13 in females. Not appropriate. To classify this as “reading a book” is worrisome to me and seems purposefully discounting. Verna, I wasn't downplaying or discounting purposefully, the situation. Having someone sit on your lap at that age like that could be part of grooming behavior. However, the allegation in and of itself would be torn apart in court as it is indeed hearsay. It is not evidence of grooming or abuse. Is it appropriate? No. But we don't know anything else at this point. Correction time. Assuming a young girl of any age (or anyone else for that matter) reports or gives a statement to the effect they were encouraged to sit on the lap of an adult, then that is FIRST HAND EVIDENCE. It is not hearsay. Hearsay is stating what another person has said and in most cases, but not all, is inadmissible as evidence. What the young girl may lack is corroboration, ie the testimony of another person or sufficient other facts and circumstances to back up her testimony. If the adult admitted such an incident did take place, that would be ample corroboration. However, in itself, such an action as described is perfectly innocent, if a little unwise depending on the circumstances. What is important is what actually took place while the young girl was sitting on the man's lap. We may consider the worker's actions on this occasion to be pretty much innocent according to the information we have so far, if not a bit unwise. However, it is appropriate that he has stepped down from the work until an investigation has been carried out. That is what happens in most work places nowadays wherever inappropriate or criminal behaviour is alleged. People are reinstated once they have been cleared. Just because a worker has stepped down or been removed temporarily, should not be viewed as incriminating. It is normal practice in the world and should be part of the norm for workers. One further note. What this worker did most CERTAINLY could be seen as part of the grooming process if things went beyond what has been reported so far.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 3:25:01 GMT -5
Elisabeth Coleman, Excellent! you have acknowledged an Australian code of conduct of the church where it is unambiguously acknowledged that workers are ministers and there is NOTHING to support you allegation of our church claiming to not have ministers to avoid being charged for hiding CSA. I appreciate the opportunity you have given for readers here to know (if they didn't know already) of CSA measures and Code of Conduct that your fellow Australians have implemented! Thank you You have taken an up to date position to imply that things are all above board and hunky dory with your church down under. Do you acknowledge that this is a recent position and only came about because those in charge were dragged screaming and spitting to face up to their responsibilities and bring about these changes, in the face of many allegations of CSA and other forms of abuse, criminal and media investigations, etc., leaving them shamefully exposed with no bushel to hide under? This is not a time to feel smug, but one in which shame and remorse should be felt due to the time it took to bring the fellowship up to speed with what was/is going on behind closed doors within the sect. A far swifter response would perhaps have saved many abuse victims from the traumatic ordeals they suffered in the meantime. I will not argue over the term 'many' as even the prevention of one instance of abuse would have justified a far quicker response to these matters. Confidently proclaiming 'we are in the world, but are not of the world,' is a false premise. The situations that we are discussing on these boards most certainly identifies the sect with the world.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 3:35:39 GMT -5
Most sex offenders have been sexually abused themselves. That statement is false. I support your statement. I will also point out that on the law of averages most sex offenders are unknown (or at least reported).
|
|
|
Post by internationalstudies on Apr 3, 2023 4:39:00 GMT -5
Elisabeth Coleman, Excellent! you have acknowledged an Australian code of conduct of the church where it is unambiguously acknowledged that workers are ministers and there is NOTHING to support you allegation of our church claiming to not have ministers to avoid being charged for hiding CSA. I appreciate the opportunity you have given for readers here to know (if they didn't know already) of CSA measures and Code of Conduct that your fellow Australians have implemented! Thank you You have taken an up to date position to imply that things are all above board and hunky dory with your church down under. Do you acknowledge that this is a recent position and only came about because those in charge were dragged screaming and spitting to face up to their responsibilities and bring about these changes, in the face of many allegations of CSA and other forms of abuse, criminal and media investigations, etc., leaving them shamefully exposed with no bushel to hide under?
No I don't acknowledge your emotional statement! What I set out in a recent post is the why I reject it. Vinny posted:
They know of at least 3 children he molested/raped Doyle wrote in his statement:
Sadly, it has come to light just this month that 3 known victims were minors when he abused them in years past. Vinny posted
* They knew of 2 victims of Dean Bruer since LAST SEPTEMBER yet they did NOT come forward til now. Doyle wrote in his statement:
Our disclosure timing was thus victim-sensitive and victim-led, respecting the fact our known victims were in a “process to uncover.” It was very clear, to counsellors and to us, the victims would have been very traumatized by an earlier disclosure. Just prior to sending out our letter last week, the victims did agree to disclosure, but with considerable trepidation. Vinny posted:
The wording of Doyle's last letter is deceptive but very incriminating if you break down the sentence structure and syntax. His positive and transparent spin is complete bullsh-. If the church was actually transparent they would have came forward in September of last year when they found out. Coming forward AFTER you meet with a private detective in a Shari's for 3.5 hours theeeen coming forward is in no way being transparent. These disgusting people hid it until they couldn't hide it. Then ONLY came forward when they had no choice. I personally have spoken to someone who is high up and not involved with the investigation but found out for me. Doyle wrote in his statement:
Contrary to internet speculation the disclosure was not forced by legal authorities nor anyone else. We didn't have any conversation of this kind with a legal authority or anyone else. The disclosure was 100% voluntary, a serious attempt to be transparent about what happened for the sake of all victims. We understand under such egregious circumstances, the reality is that there could be more victims. We would never consider covering up something like this at the expense of leaving known and unknown victims lost in their very difficult circumstance, desperately needing help. Vinny posted:
- Doyle Smith has came out and said more statements stating he knew for almost a year that Bruer molested people including children. Doyle wrote in his statement:
The only incriminating evidence we ever discovered was email between him and one adult victim. Dean's computer is now in the hands of the police, and forensics would be able to detect if and when any alterations were made (we did not alter anything). In late September the second adult victim surfaced, and no other victims were confirmed until just before our disclosure letter went out last week (March 23).Since the perpetrator is deceased, we were advised by a professional trauma counsellor to be careful first of all for the needs of the victims. Obviously, no one else is more important in all of this than the victims. Mandatory reporters are required to immediately report sexual abuse that involves minors but must respect the wishes of abuse victims who are now adults with regards to when and if their abuse is reported. We have no known victims that are presently minors. I openly accept and acknowledge that there are instances when workers in the past did not deal with CSA in the right way. When that has happened we are no better than any church, organisation, business, family, or individual found in a spectrum across society who has done the same. Is that happening in the present aftermath of the Bruer case? There have been wholesale speculation and allegation on this thread suggesting that, about Doyle and his handling of it. I haven't seen an accusation made yet that is not refuted by the timeline details in statement he has written. EVERYTHING he has stated can be checked and confirmed back to the sources he mentions in his writings.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 3, 2023 4:45:53 GMT -5
When I was young I needed a reference. Walter Frank, a NZ worker wrote me a reference and after his signature, put; Minister of Religion. I was aware of him masturbating in the toilets at convention, forever after that I referred to him as Fralter Wank. Frank the w.ank.
|
|
|
Post by jennyfromtheblock on Apr 3, 2023 5:02:00 GMT -5
There have been sad and wrong things happen in the past in our church, honest people acknowledge this has sadly happened in many churches and organisation. We are so appreciate that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place. But of course that will mean nothing much to those whose primary motive is to criticise the church they were once part of. No one loses too much sleep over their 'vain jangling'. 🤷♂️😳🤣😋 Are the friends (the world over) going to be informed that Codes of Conduct, police checks, Ministry Safe training are now in place? Not sure about “the world over”, but I would say that especially the millennials are absolutely not cool with sweeping under the rug, as it is our kids who are coming up. We aren’t living with a 1950s worldview, we are modern people raising children in a modern world; where Mothers/Wives have careers, we aren’t afraid of the internet or radios, we aren’t afraid of reading other religious material… oh and podcasts! We are the ones writing letters and setting meetings with our workers and asking questions about everything. Our parents generation went along with things a bit easier and a bit quieter. I see a lot of broad brush painting on here in regards to 2x2’s; I get it, but those are generalizations and stereotypes. The next generations especially Gen X is completely different to how our parents and grandparents looked at things. Even the way we treat the workers is much different; we don’t roll out the red carpet. We don’t like worker worship as our parents and grandparents got caught up in that. Anyways - some areas will do great to communicate, others won’t. But we’re trying to make sure the message is spread far and wide; which is also probably why there are so many new members on these boards right now
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 6:19:18 GMT -5
You have taken an up to date position to imply that things are all above board and hunky dory with your church down under. Do you acknowledge that this is a recent position and only came about because those in charge were dragged screaming and spitting to face up to their responsibilities and bring about these changes, in the face of many allegations of CSA and other forms of abuse, criminal and media investigations, etc., leaving them shamefully exposed with no bushel to hide under? Internationalstudies responded to my statement above. No I don't acknowledge your emotional statement! What I set out in a recent post is the why I reject it. You could replace 'emotional' with factual and that would be far more accurate, only it would not give you grounds to reject it. Assuming for the moment there is an element of emotion in my statement, can you point out one part which is NOT factual? What you set out in your recent post, if I am thinking of the same one, is naivety at best and downright ignorance at worst. Here is a scenario based on your way of thinking. 'A young teenage girl rushes out of a house, sobbing uncontrollably and in a heightened state of distress. She meets a couple walking their dog and screams out that she has just been attacked and raped.' What should happen next? The girl's claims are dismissed on account of her heightened emotional state, OR, should the matter be investigated to discover what the truth is? Whatever you think of the statement that I gave, it is factual and will be recognised and supported by most people on this board and far beyond who have knowledge of these things. For what it's worth I made a recent post in which I clearly stated that we should accept Doyle's last letter at face value until we know more information. I also stated, in support of him, that he would be foolish to try and water down or diminish the allegations and speculation without factual support, as it would be bad for him in the longer term. This was to add credibility to his words. Of course when I made that post I may well have been overcome with emotions and thus my post should be rejected?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 3, 2023 7:16:56 GMT -5
internationalstudies' writing style reminds me of Review.
|
|
|
Post by themaninthemirror on Apr 3, 2023 7:56:09 GMT -5
Obviously for legal reasons one cannot name someone against whom there is not a recorded conviction. But I have heard the same. I also understand that the State of Queensland in Australia has refused to sign up to childsafe code of conduct. Aren't you the same person bleating over breach of privacy regarding the Dean Bruer exposure? Why are you wanting this person publicly named? Not at all Elizabeth, in fact it was you bleating about privacy when I made a tongue in cheek comment about your buddy's speculation and idle speak on Facebook. Stop creating a false narrative. I find it odd that you and Rosyln after all this choose to conceal the identity of someone accused. It is the exact same with Mark Huddle, he is only accused. Why are you hiding it? Blizzre.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 8:25:38 GMT -5
Obviously for legal reasons one cannot name someone against whom there is not a recorded conviction. But I have heard the same. I also understand that the State of Queensland in Australia has refused to sign up to childsafe code of conduct. Aren't you the same person bleating over breach of privacy regarding the Dean Bruer exposure? Why are you wanting this person publicly named? Not at all Elizabeth, in fact it was you bleating about privacy when I made a tongue in cheek comment about your buddy's speculation and idle speak on Facebook. Stop creating a false narrative. I find it odd that you and Rosyln after all this choose to conceal the identity of someone accused. It is the exact same with Mark Huddle, he is only accused.Why are you hiding it? Blizzre. I don't want to be sounding pedantic or straining at a gnat, but there is a difference in legal terms between a 'suspect' and an 'accused.' Normally the former is applied to someone who is under investigation for some wrongdoing whilst the latter is someone who has actually been charged with a crime or offence. My limited knowledge of the matter involving MA is that currently he is a suspect only and has not yet been charged with any crime or offence, therefore it is legally incorrect at this time to name him as an accused? Once a sufficiency of evidence is found against a suspect, he/she is normally charged with the relevant crime or offence, pending further legal proceedings and his/her status changes to that of an accused, which grants him or her certain legal rights which must be respected. A criminal charge is just a legal term meaning criminal accusation, hence the term 'accused' being applied to someone who has been charged with doing something criminally naughty! By the nature of this case, you could say that all workers everywhere are 'suspects,' as all are under suspicion, at least until we see the ultimate course of this matter. There is of course a degree of flexibility in the way we regard this point, so don't get too hung up about it. Technically all accused persons are suspects until their case is heard in court and verdicts have been reached. However, a suspect may not be regarded as an accused until they have been charged. www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-suspect-and-accused
|
|
|
Post by themaninthemirror on Apr 3, 2023 9:37:06 GMT -5
Not at all Elizabeth, in fact it was you bleating about privacy when I made a tongue in cheek comment about your buddy's speculation and idle speak on Facebook. Stop creating a false narrative. I find it odd that you and Rosyln after all this choose to conceal the identity of someone accused. It is the exact same with Mark Huddle, he is only accused.Why are you hiding it? Blizzre. I don't want to be sounding pedantic or straining at a gnat, but there is a difference in legal terms between a 'suspect' and an 'accused.' Normally the former is applied to someone who is under investigation for some wrongdoing whilst the latter is someone who has actually been charged with a crime or offence. My limited knowledge of the matter involving MA is that currently he is a suspect only and has not yet been charged with any crime or offence, therefore it is legally incorrect at this time to name him as an accused? Once a sufficiency of evidence is found against a suspect, he/she is normally charged with the relevant crime or offence, pending further legal proceedings and his/her status changes to that of an accused, which grants him or her certain legal rights which must be respected. A criminal charge is just a legal term meaning criminal accusation, hence the term 'accused' being applied to someone who has been charged with doing something criminally naughty! By the nature of this case, you could say that all workers everywhere are 'suspects,' as all are under suspicion, at least until we see the ultimate course of this matter. There is of course a degree of flexibility in the way we regard this point, so don't get too hung up about it. Technically all accused persons are suspects until their case is heard in court and verdicts have been reached. However, a suspect may not be regarded as an accused until they have been charged. www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-suspect-and-accusedThat is fair and therefore what Elizabeth and Rosalyn have said is purely speculation. If it isn't speculation and there is indeed an abuser going home to home, they are guilty themselves for sitting back with their arms folded, whilst accusing the workers or 2x2s of the same behaviour - the height of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 10:31:23 GMT -5
I don't want to be sounding pedantic or straining at a gnat, but there is a difference in legal terms between a 'suspect' and an 'accused.' Normally the former is applied to someone who is under investigation for some wrongdoing whilst the latter is someone who has actually been charged with a crime or offence. My limited knowledge of the matter involving MA is that currently he is a suspect only and has not yet been charged with any crime or offence, therefore it is legally incorrect at this time to name him as an accused? Once a sufficiency of evidence is found against a suspect, he/she is normally charged with the relevant crime or offence, pending further legal proceedings and his/her status changes to that of an accused, which grants him or her certain legal rights which must be respected. A criminal charge is just a legal term meaning criminal accusation, hence the term 'accused' being applied to someone who has been charged with doing something criminally naughty! By the nature of this case, you could say that all workers everywhere are 'suspects,' as all are under suspicion, at least until we see the ultimate course of this matter. There is of course a degree of flexibility in the way we regard this point, so don't get too hung up about it. Technically all accused persons are suspects until their case is heard in court and verdicts have been reached. However, a suspect may not be regarded as an accused until they have been charged. www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-suspect-and-accusedThat is fair and therefore what Elizabeth and Rosalyn have said is purely speculation. If it isn't speculation and there is indeed an abuser going home to home, they are guilty themselves for sitting back with their arms folded, whilst accusing the workers or 2x2s of the same behaviour - the height of hypocrisy. I'm sorry, but I am struggling to grasp exactly what you are getting at. Don't worry though, this isn't the first time my comprehension skills have let me down.
|
|