Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2023 10:54:07 GMT -5
That would be at the bottom of my concerns right now... You fail to see the implications. Not surprised. Traditional Gender roles would have no place in this current situation/conversation. Offenders can be male or female. Not surprised your feminism is on display.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2023 11:08:20 GMT -5
Most sex offenders have been sexually abused themselves. That statement is false. You couldn't be more wrong... pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327831/Peggysullivan does not say those abused mostly become sex abusers. This says those that ARE sex abusers are mostly abused themselves. There is a difference. Do better research...
|
|
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 3, 2023 11:16:45 GMT -5
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. My statement is with regards to hearsay, not whether or not the incident occurred. The current allegation in question is indeed hearsay. If the person this actually happened to, [the girl on MK's lap], was the one making the allegation, that would not be hearsay. Let me make myself clear here: I am not suggesting the incident did not occur. Not even close. I am also not suggesting it was appropriate. But the allegation, as it stands is a second hand account. If that person was put on a witness stand, her account of the incident would be hearsay. I entirely agree with you having someone sit on your lap could be seen as grooming.
|
|
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 3, 2023 11:51:25 GMT -5
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 Thank you Jenny. I am retired now, but for years I worked for the prosecutors office with sexual abuse victims cases. It is important the victims themselves come forward and be willing to testify. That's was a very hard thing for them to do. But, like you say, things are changing and people are more willing to talk about it and go to the authorities. You can go to a friend, a co-worker, a minister, a counselor, anyone, but you really need to take it to the authorities, the law. Or seek legal avenues. Someone posted in order to really make a change, people may need to file lawsuits. A lawyers will tell a client early on whether or not they have a case.
|
|
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 3, 2023 12:24:14 GMT -5
You couldn't be more wrong... pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327831/Peggysullivan does not say those abused mostly become sex abusers. This says those that ARE sex abusers are mostly abused themselves. There is a difference. Do better research... Thank you, wally. I guess I wasn't clear in my post. Let me be clear: Just because someone has been sexually abused doesn't mean they will become a sex offender. Now, I never stated that in my post, but apparently someone took it that way. In those who ARE sex offenders, the likelihood of a history of being sexually abused is very high. Especially in CSA. Numerous studies have been done, all with different results. One study came out with an "estimate" of 32-75% of sex offenders have been sexually abused. That's a pretty wide margin. In other cases the initial findings were near 70%, but the sex offenders changed their story on if they were indeed sexually abused and then said they were NOT sexually abused. It was thought they made it up to garner sympathy for their case.
|
|
|
Post by 1chinesewhispers on Apr 3, 2023 12:29:23 GMT -5
At safe consumption sites , we hear their stories . Most have been abused in some way , not just sexually . 90% of addicts HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ! Thus we continue to push for a more treatment center’s that eventually address BOTH ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH We don’t have SFCS anymore in Alberta except one place . However there have been 2 drug trials done . Both British Columbia and Alberta have been giving them the drug of their addiction . Mostly with opioids . It did work , however the government will not turn over any information . So we have asked under the freedom of information act in Alberta . MSTH waits and waits & waits !!!!!
|
|
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 3, 2023 12:34:33 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-accusedWhy would all workers everywhere be suspects and why would all workers be under suspicion? Please clarify.
|
|
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 3, 2023 12:37:07 GMT -5
At safe consumption sites , we hear their stories . Most have been abused in some way , not just sexually . 90% of addicts HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ! Thus we continue to push for a more treatment center’s that eventually address BOTH ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH We don’t have SFCS anymore in Alberta except one place . However there have been 2 drug trials done . Both British Columbia and Alberta have been giving them the drug of their addiction . Mostly with opioids . It did work , however the government will not turn over any information . So we have asked under the freedom of information act in Alberta . MSTH waits and waits & waits !!!!! Yes, and there is a very high rate of substance abuse issues among those who have been sexually abused. I totally agree more treatment options need to be available at a price people can afford. It's woefully lacking.
|
|
|
Post by verna on Apr 3, 2023 12:42:49 GMT -5
You fail to see the implications. Not surprised. Traditional Gender roles would have no place in this current situation/conversation. Offenders can be male or female. Not surprised your feminism is on display. It has to do with power Wally.
|
|
|
Post by internationalstudies on Apr 3, 2023 12:59:33 GMT -5
Thank you! I too accept Doyle's last letter at face value; until/unless facts come to hand that prove he has been untruthful. So...... Is it foolish/unreasonable to ask of this poster to state the lies Doyle has said and list contradictions Doyle has made? Is it foolish/unreasonable to ask this poster to state what Doyle is covering? Ask this poster's for basis to his statement "that Doyle had zero intentions of being transparent and his ONLY goal was to keep it hidden"?.
|
|
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 3, 2023 13:02:37 GMT -5
Keep mind that statistics can be skewed. With as much information as possible that can be gathered. statistics have been compiled. But in my critical mind, the reality is many sexual abuse victims never report it, so their abuse is not taken in to account. I also question the accuracy of the reporting. There have been cases of false allegations. I personally think the rate of sexual abuse is higher that what is quoted in statistical findings.
|
|
meg1
Junior Member
Posts: 148
|
Post by meg1 on Apr 3, 2023 13:10:28 GMT -5
'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? /quote] In this scenario I believe that the correct option for the couple if they reside in Canada or the USA is to call 1-800-387-5437. This is a hotline that will direct your reporting to the next step required. If the couple believe there is immediate danger the call should be to 911. All adults have a duty to report. Some adults, because of their profession or roll in activities in which children participate have an obligation to report. Failure to do so may result in a fine. A child is anyone under the age of 18 in my country. I am not sure how emancipated minors are regarded by the law in this instance so I would call regardless of the status. Adults have a duty to report. Not a duty to investigate. Child Protection Services and the police do the investigating.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2023 13:25:33 GMT -5
You couldn't be more wrong... pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327831/Peggysullivan does not say those abused mostly become sex abusers. This says those that ARE sex abusers are mostly abused themselves. There is a difference. Do better research... From the link you posted: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327831/Conclusion: There is support for the sexually abused-sexual abuser hypothesis, in that sex offenders are more likely to have been sexually abused than non-sex offenders, That's a far cry from: Most sex offenders have been sexually abused. Not just many.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2023 13:31:03 GMT -5
In other cases the initial findings were near 70%, but the sex offenders changed their story on if they were indeed sexually abused and then said they were NOT sexually abused. It was thought they made it up to garner sympathy for their case. That happens, and makes the numbers suspect for sure.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2023 13:33:09 GMT -5
Keep mind that statistics can be skewed. With as much information as possible that can be gathered. statistics have been compiled. But in my critical mind, the reality is many sexual abuse victims never report it, so their abuse is not taken in to account. I also question the accuracy of the reporting. There have been cases of false allegations. I personally think the rate of sexual abuse is higher that what is quoted in statistical findings. False allegations are always possible, but they are a very low percentage.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2023 13:38:21 GMT -5
Thank you! I too accept Doyle's last letter at face value; until/unless facts come to hand that prove he has been untruthful So...... "Is it foolish/unreasonable to ask of this poster to state the lies Doyle has said and list contradictions Doyle has made? Is it foolish/unreasonable to ask this poster to state what Doyle is covering? Ask this poster's for basis to his statement " that Doyle had zero intentions of being transparent and his ONLY goal was to keep it hiddenYou might have a point but the last two quotes have no link to the actual posts. That makes it hard to check the context of the statements you quoted.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 13:38:48 GMT -5
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. My statement is with regards to hearsay, not whether or not the incident occurred. The current allegation in question is indeed hearsay. If the person this actually happened to, [the girl on MK's lap], was the one making the allegation, that would not be hearsay. Let me make myself clear here: I am not suggesting the incident did not occur. Not even close. I am also not suggesting it was appropriate. But the allegation, as it stands is a second hand account. If that person was put on a witness stand, her account of the incident would be hearsay. I entirely agree with you having someone sit on your lap could be seen as grooming. Here is what you said to Vernz. 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.
It reads to me as if it was the person sitting on the lap who made the allegation not a third party. If this is the case it would be first hand evidence. Most instances of hearsay are not heard in court simply because it is inadmissible. However, in cases of sexual assault in my country (UK), some instances of hearsay are admissible in evidence if, it is a statement made by a victim of a sexual assault to the first person(s) met soon after the assault takes place. If I misunderstood what you were meaning, I apologise, but it was easy for me to misunderstand you.
|
|
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 3, 2023 13:45:47 GMT -5
My statement is with regards to hearsay, not whether or not the incident occurred. The current allegation in question is indeed hearsay. If the person this actually happened to, [the girl on MK's lap], was the one making the allegation, that would not be hearsay. Let me make myself clear here: I am not suggesting the incident did not occur. Not even close. I am also not suggesting it was appropriate. But the allegation, as it stands is a second hand account. If that person was put on a witness stand, her account of the incident would be hearsay. I entirely agree with you having someone sit on your lap could be seen as grooming. Here is what you said to Vernz. 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.
It reads to me as if it was the person sitting on the lap who made the allegation not a third party. If this is the case it would be first hand evidence. Most instances of hearsay are not heard in court simply because it is inadmissible. However, in cases of sexual assault in my country (UK), some instances of hearsay are admissible in evidence if, it is a statement made by a victim of a sexual assault to the first person(s) met soon after the assault takes place. If I misunderstood what you were meaning, I apologise, but it was easy for me to misunderstand you. Thank you for the apology. Because the "allegation" is this: Someone said someone told her she sat on MK's lap when she was 11 while he read her a story. The person who spoke up about this incident recently in WA state is not the same person it happened to. We have no knowledge currently of the actual person on MK's lap bringing this allegation forward directly in a formal complaint. Because of this "allegation" MK has stepped aside and it was shared openly in a letter to all the friends.
|
|
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 3, 2023 13:49:58 GMT -5
Keep mind that statistics can be skewed. With as much information as possible that can be gathered. statistics have been compiled. But in my critical mind, the reality is many sexual abuse victims never report it, so their abuse is not taken in to account. I also question the accuracy of the reporting. There have been cases of false allegations. I personally think the rate of sexual abuse is higher that what is quoted in statistical findings. False allegations are always possible, but they are a very low percentage. Can you clarify what you mean by "low percentage"? All I said is there have been cases of false allegations.
|
|
|
Post by internationalstudies on Apr 3, 2023 13:49:58 GMT -5
Thank you! I too accept Doyle's last letter at face value; until/unless facts come to hand that prove he has been untruthful So...... "Is it foolish/unreasonable to ask of this poster to state the lies Doyle has said and list contradictions Doyle has made? Is it foolish/unreasonable to ask this poster to state what Doyle is covering? Ask this poster's for basis to his statement " that Doyle had zero intentions of being transparent and his ONLY goal was to keep it hiddenYou might have a point but the last two quotes have no link to the actual posts. That makes it hard to check the context of the statements you quoted. Apr 2, 2023 10:33:29 GMT 12 vinnyt said:
"Not sure why in God's green Earth you find anything remotely similar to the truth from "Doyle Smith". Now I know why regardless of WHEN I post the case numbers which I can't yet and that is THE ONLY THING THAT YOU TYPE OF. PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE AND THEN YOU WILL FIND FAULT EVEN THEN I will say what I can when I can that doesn't undermine the integrity of the multiple investigations that are ongoing. The likes of you who belive the MANY contradicting statements of "Doyle Smith" and the many worker letters that have came out is simply amazing. Doyle Smith is a bold faced liar, period. It's not open for discussion. He contradicts himself, as well as do the workers letters. All of what they say cannot possibly be true. He is covering. It is really sad to see you believe the likes of DOYLE Smith who "in his own words" K N E W of victims that came forth as well as underage victims yet DID NOT COME FORWARD UUUUUUUNTIL a private investigator came and met with him. It's absildisgisting and shows he had zero intentions of being transparent and his ONLY goal was to keep it hidden because that's what him and all the rest do. They don't do the right thing unless their hand is forced. Your opinion is completely irrelevant ad to the facts at hand. He did NOT come forward until he had to, if he was going to he would have in the months prior. So please stop with your useless pandering, condoning and support of "The Truth" which is far far from being anything similar to the truth. "
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 13:52:06 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-accusedWhy would all workers everywhere be suspects and why would all workers be under suspicion? Please clarify. Simply because of the system of operation, the culture of the group and the potential for extended operation involving other workers. When these things come to light suspicion could fall on everyone in the group, particularly the homeless, itinerant ministry and its authoritative control over its members, until investigation tells otherwise. I did point out this out in a precautionary sense and not to get too hung up about it. When a crime occurs and until the culprits are identified, the general rule is that 'the lieges are liable to suspicion.' In other words, anyone can be a suspect, especially those whose activities are close to the matter. I'm sure many people, including sect members, have been looking at their spiritual leaders and wondered if 'they' have been involved in similar practices. Bruer and others before him have placed their fellow workers in an awkward position where they feel they are suspects themselves.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 13:57:42 GMT -5
Here is what you said to Vernz. 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.
It reads to me as if it was the person sitting on the lap who made the allegation not a third party. If this is the case it would be first hand evidence. Most instances of hearsay are not heard in court simply because it is inadmissible. However, in cases of sexual assault in my country (UK), some instances of hearsay are admissible in evidence if, it is a statement made by a victim of a sexual assault to the first person(s) met soon after the assault takes place. If I misunderstood what you were meaning, I apologise, but it was easy for me to misunderstand you. Thank you for the apology. Because the "allegation" is this: Someone said someone told her she sat on MK's lap when she was 11 while he read her a story. The person who spoke up about this incident recently in WA state is not the same person it happened to. We have no knowledge currently of the actual person on MK's lap bringing this allegation forward directly in a formal complaint. Because of this "allegation" MK has stepped aside and it was shared openly in a letter to all the friends. Many thanks for the clarification. I now see where you are coming from. Thank you. Unless the person on the lap comes forward and makes a statement, this case against MK will likely remain unresolved, an unsatisfactory position, even for MK, unless of course other allegations against him surface? It has the characteristics of blowing over in time, yet leaving MK with a stigma.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 14:00:28 GMT -5
'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? /quote] In this scenario I believe that the correct option for the couple if they reside in Canada or the USA is to call 1-800-387-5437. This is a hotline that will direct your reporting to the next step required. If the couple believe there is immediate danger the call should be to 911. All adults have a duty to report. Some adults, because of their profession or roll in activities in which children participate have an obligation to report. Failure to do so may result in a fine. A child is anyone under the age of 18 in my country. I am not sure how emancipated minors are regarded by the law in this instance so I would call regardless of the status. Adults have a duty to report. Not a duty to investigate. Child Protection Services and the police do the investigating. Thank you. However my question was a cynical response to another poster's naivety, not a serious question seeking procedural guidance.
|
|
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 3, 2023 14:01:39 GMT -5
Why would all workers everywhere be suspects and why would all workers be under suspicion? Please clarify. Simply because of the system of operation, the culture of the group and the potential for extended operation involving other workers. When these things come to light suspicion could fall on everyone in the group, particularly the homeless, itinerant ministry and its authoritative control over its members, until investigation tells otherwise. I did point out this out in a precautionary sense and not to get too hung up about it. When a crime occurs and until the culprits are identified, the general rule is that 'the lieges are liable to suspicion.' In other words, anyone can be a suspect, especially those whose activities are close to the matter. I'm sure many people, including sect members, have been looking at their spiritual leaders and wondered if 'they' have been involved in similar practices. Bruer and others before him have placed their fellow workers in an awkward position where they feel they are suspects themselves. Mountain: ".... could say that all workers everywhere are 'suspects,' as all are under suspicion..."I can understand how this issue can raise suspicion toward workers. But I disagree with what you wrote and it's an inaccurate statement. Not all and not everywhere. Perhaps you need to just speak for yourself. You suspect all everywhere because of the system....until otherwise is determined.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2023 14:11:45 GMT -5
False allegations are always possible, but they are a very low percentage. Can you clarify what you mean by "low percentage"? All I said is there have been cases of false allegations. 2% - 8% depending on the study.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 3, 2023 14:16:15 GMT -5
Simply because of the system of operation, the culture of the group and the potential for extended operation involving other workers. When these things come to light suspicion could fall on everyone in the group, particularly the homeless, itinerant ministry and its authoritative control over its members, until investigation tells otherwise. I did point out this out in a precautionary sense and not to get too hung up about it. When a crime occurs and until the culprits are identified, the general rule is that 'the lieges are liable to suspicion.' In other words, anyone can be a suspect, especially those whose activities are close to the matter. I'm sure many people, including sect members, have been looking at their spiritual leaders and wondered if 'they' have been involved in similar practices. Bruer and others before him have placed their fellow workers in an awkward position where they feel they are suspects themselves. Mountain: ".... could say that all workers everywhere are 'suspects,' as all are under suspicion..."I can understand how this issue can raise suspicion toward workers. But I disagree with what you wrote and it's an inaccurate statement. Not all and not everywhere. Perhaps you need to just speak for yourself. You suspect all everywhere because of the system....until otherwise is determined. If you appreciate how this issue can raise suspicion toward workers, how can you not appreciate that all workers may be liable to suspicion, especially in view of the potential for extended and international reaches provided by the system? I fully appreciate that most workers are above reproach, but the actions and position of those like Bruer cast a shadow of doubt over the whole ministerial system. There can hardly be a single worker across the globe who is now aware of the details of this unfolding case, who do not feel they themselves are under some sort of scrutiny or suspicion. It goes with the territory. Also there are many who are now questioning the integrity of workers everywhere are a result of this and previous cases. This is why actions should be taken with immediate effect, to reduce the chances of these incidents occurring, including the prohibition of of workers staying in homes where there are unrelated children, vulnerable persons, or persons of the opposite sex when their spouses are away. Until such things are brought strictly into play, not only will suspicions continue but actual incidents as well! Keep in mind I did qualify my statements (twice so far) by saying don't get too hung up about it. If the Bruer case is being investigated with an international dimension, then potentially all workers fall under possible suspicion, while the unknown factor prevails.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 3, 2023 14:24:01 GMT -5
You might have a point but the last two quotes have no link to the actual posts. That makes it hard to check the context of the statements you quoted. Apr 2, 2023 10:33:29 GMT 12 vinnyt said:
"Not sure why in God's green Earth you find anything remotely similar to the truth from "Doyle Smith". Now I know why regardless of WHEN I post the case numbers which I can't yet and that is THE ONLY THING THAT YOU TYPE OF. PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE AND THEN YOU WILL FIND FAULT EVEN THEN I will say what I can when I can that doesn't undermine the integrity of the multiple investigations that are ongoing. The likes of you who belive the MANY contradicting statements of "Doyle Smith" and the many worker letters that have came out is simply amazing. Doyle Smith is a bold faced liar, period. It's not open for discussion. He contradicts himself, as well as do the workers letters. All of what they say cannot possibly be true. He is covering. It is really sad to see you believe the likes of DOYLE Smith who "in his own words" K N E W of victims that came forth as well as underage victims yet DID NOT COME FORWARD UUUUUUUNTIL a private investigator came and met with him. It's absildisgisting and shows he had zero intentions of being transparent and his ONLY goal was to keep it hidden because that's what him and all the rest do. They don't do the right thing unless their hand is forced. Your opinion is completely irrelevant ad to the facts at hand. He did NOT come forward until he had to, if he was going to he would have in the months prior. So please stop with your useless pandering, condoning and support of "The Truth" which is far far from being anything similar to the truth. " It's still hard to find without a clickable link but thanks for the context. I understand where you're coming from internationalstudies.
|
|
meg1
Junior Member
Posts: 148
|
Post by meg1 on Apr 3, 2023 14:30:23 GMT -5
Thank you. However my question was a cynical response to another poster's naivety, not a serious question seeking procedural guidance. I am very aware that you are not in need of procedural guidance. But some people are. And I apologize for using your words to further my own agenda. That is to keep the focus on support for survivors by reinforcing the responsibility we each have to work at ending this horror.
|
|