What are the advantages and disadvantages of redress schemes in relationship to institutional abuse.
The advantages I see are the ability for an institution to see patterns of abuse emerging, the ability to LIMIT the abuses within institutions through these patterns. This, however is only when seen in a non partisan approach.
Disadvantages far outweigh. Redress schemes are fraught with conflicts of interest and political bias. Speaking as a member of CLAN ( care leavers network
) I have looked at their patron list http://www.clan.org.au/page.php?pageID=222
which exemplifies the state still having oversight of how CLAN is being run and how they would conduct themselves regarding redress. I also state Andrew Murray, a Commissioner was, still is ? a patron of CLAN . Again this is a terrifying conflict of interest which places tremendous stress and zero impartiality with CLAN as its ability to function as a wholly independent organisation
Again I state CLAN receives funds from Salvation Army
, as stated in Case Study 10
by I believe Major Peter Farthing. I would not be surprised if CLAN receives funding from other Churches also. I exemplify an article in today's paper http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2320323/we-were-afraid-to-claim-abuse/?cs=2452
where it is suggested CLAN be contacted, there is NO stopping anyone from approaching the Royal Commission themselves.
There are other concerns regarding CLAN Leonie Sheedy telling me to sit up front of the room so the CLAN badges
can be seen on camera during case studies. Again the CEO of this 'organisation ' using clients for marketing.
The times Sheedy has shut people down from talking to Journalist at ABC , ' she speaks for herself, Sheedy stated, not for us. From that moment I realised I was being used..
I believe in real justice, I believe in social inclusion I believe people deserve respect. Where is that in Care leaver redress. Where is the money for truth, for the real ?
Care leavers deserve respect, as do the families traumatised from these offences. Whether that be as a family member of CLAN, a prospective member, or a care leaver, we all deserve courtesy and compassion.
One morning I was out front of Commission with Liz, Leonie . Evette handing out CLAN flyers. A middle aged gentleman came and shook my hand beginning to tell me of the traumas experienced by him at Marist
, I called out to Leonie to come and talk to this man many times. My calls were ignored . I advised her afterward about this man, who walked off in distress similarly my heart fell, Leonie Sheedy advised me ' why didn't I call out louder '
Leonie Sheedy asked me if I were going to attend the funeral for Lewis Blayse
, I felt I had no right to do so, yet I was also aware that there had been some conflict between the two in the past and I wondered how can she turn up to someone's funeral after failing to give due courtesy to that person
I wondered also, who Leonie was to ask me to attend a funeral of someone I had not even met. Again I found that disrespectful.
There was some stress for Aletha Blayse a short time ago, I approached Leonie to try and assist, Leonie ignored me. As a member, associate member, or as a daughter of someone's father whose funeral recently she had attended, Leonie Sheedy ignored my requests to assist a human being. Again !
A short time later I attended Royal Commission with over 1,000 flyers I was asked to print, by Ms Blayse. Leonie came up to me right quick all chummy wanting a copy of what was printed, sadly I gave her one.
I was informed by Leonie Sheedy that it was her who gained the funds for Lewis Blayse funeral. This was not true, a careleaver attended Salvation Army HQ with a friend and pressured Salvation Army to pay for the funeral. Leonie Sheedy was given the funds that another person busted a move to obtain.
Leonie Sheedy on twitter tweeted she had funds for the Blayse family but did not know how to get it to them Nicky Daviss, SNAP Australia
, then informed Sheedy that she could contact Aletha via Lewis Blayse.net, as Aletha was continuing the site. Again Leonie/CLAN making out they are doing the hard yards
Instead of helping, assisting, wanting the real to get out there, that these redress schemes, run through CLAN as an organisation are deliberately being limited in compensation due to funding the CLANs and yes, the MiCAHs, we have no say. Leonie Sheedy and CLAN do not assist in developing their clients full potential externally to CLAN, either.
We must have a say, please let me know when that will be ? Please let me know that Leonie Sheedy will stop selling peoples stories to media. Please let me know that Natalie, CLAN counsellor
will stop writing submissions to The Royal Commission
and focus on working with careleavers and assisting us ONLY. Please let me know that Natalie will no longer be able to see clients that are not careleavers as you would be able to see in the brochure bottom right of this screen http://www.clan.org.au/page.php?pageID=153
Please let me know why CLAN has so few careleavers and so many associate members researchers.
Here is a posting from a past member of CLAN, name redacted, you know how that works
Ms T "The CEO of Clan is trying to control who gets to speak publically at the RC, she thinks she has the monopoly on us all. She needs to realise that the RC is not about her and Clan and there are more of us out there than there are FA's amonst her members. Most of Clan membership is made up of Researchers, students, authors, Donor conception parents and offspring, and past providers, Yes you heard right past providers you know those orgs than ran the hell holes. It is also a research training ground as well apparently, how the f...k did it become and org for these people to use it as a laboratory. And if you have given your story at any stage you can bank on that it has been sold to some of these researchers and students. She was confronted on this, tried to deny it, but realised there was evidence of it, so she finally had to admit it, and then goes oh well its extra money for Clan whats wrong with that. She is paid over $135.000 per annum. In the early days when Clan first started they lived off donations, good willed people donated, but were never given a receipt, At the rallies she had someone walking up and down with a tin holding it out to people walking by. God knows what ever happened to that money. Many of us gave our time, dontated stationary,money, I even know some who lost thier houses because they had faith thinking that this org was going to do big things for us. Instead the only people who's quality of life improved was a little clicky elite group who are still running things today. I could go on but I'd be here for ever."
Please let me know.
Please let me know that our future is safe in the hands of the Royal Commission
when Justice McClellan
is apparently arriving for CLAN 14th Anniversary.
Justice McClellan, too is biased, and seen to be by arriving for the event. All will be good though. I have a placard for his arrival. Please let me know when the fraud will stop and the truth will begin
I believe that once harm is done then nothing can rectify the abuse. I believe money can help because growth is stunted for not only the victim but the surrounding family as well. My father was in Christian Brothers, the sentence " you would never make anything of your life " was told to me so many times over growing up. Then. I also was in an orphanage, Government Run. This is to show the lineal effects of the abuse through the generations.
I very minimally believe that Church or government should have anything to do with Redress schemes. I also do not believe that support groups should have anything to do with redress schemes either. I believe redress schemes should be ENTIRELY RUN by victims/survivors of the abuse.
The aim of redress schemes is to minimise the payment to victims. The aim is also for deeds of release to be signed, eventhough they should be seen as not worth the paper they are written on. The redress scheme run by Micah projects for example is heavily infiltrated with Salvation Army dollars.
CLAN as I have already stated is diseased by Church dollars also.
I believe it does a LOT of harm having counselling and redress run by the abusive institutions and this needs to stop. It is about time we, the survivors of the abuse were paid for the looking after we have done for one another in the dark times when these institutions continuously turn their backs on us, because it is best left covered up, right ? Wrong
It is here that I would like to say I commend Lewis Blayse
for his work in supporting victims/survivors from the goodness and truth of his heart. I also comment his daughter Aletha, who is continuing on in her fathers footsteps. Micah Projects and CLAN
for example, learned a lot from Lewis Blayse. Sadly they did not learn to stop the collusion that stands in the way of independent and transparent redress for survivors of, in this case, child sexual abuse.
I strongly advocate against group redress. Every person handles abuse differently. To work on a large group, any group redress would also be giving more power to legalese, again diminishing opportunity for victims/survivors to speak out against their abuser
If group redress were to occur, which by the wording it looks most probable, I believe it should be minimised at every level for people to speak, time for survivors to show these institutions of church and state we have had enough now. Is this the methodology of Child Abuse Royal Commission, do this one institution and as a whole, it wont hurt so much then ?
I believe there needs to be an INDEPENDENT
redress scheme with zero input from church and state
have done well by harming, they can do just as well by continuing the harm in present day. The redress scheme can be set up as a peak body, however state wide they can have branches as well. The redress scheme should be run by survivors of abuse
, for example leaders of support networks doing most of the work for little courtesy or regard. people such as Nicky Daviss, Aletha Blayse, Gabrielle Phillips Short
, even myself. That is the truth, your system is NOT our system. And your system has hurt us enough. Redress should be care for life. Redress should look at for example setting up employment and integration prospects for survivors, redress should be about always, not about 3 mins then I am busy now !
The redress scheme should be set up from tithes from the churches
, either that or start taxing them The church affiliated organisations, and state govt organisations set up an insurance plan that is managed by the INDEPENDENT REDRESS organisation
The other option would be to outright tax the churches
and those funds go to redress organisation. Property could be sold, for example and funds from property sales go toward redress
. Be mindful that amassed property and wealth and hocking off children has assisted to the amassed wealth of these institutions. WHETHER THEY BE GOVERNMENT OR CHURCH RUN
If any oversight I believe that should be limited to numbers of people coming forward, and desensitised information related to statistics.
Please be mindful here that people are not coming forward to the Child Abuse Royal Commission as they see their abusers in the room/building, same as people will not claim restitution/redress from the abusive institution.
It is my belief with a redress run entirely away from the institutions, so many more people will come forward. Are you ready
Participating in a NEW FRAMEWORK
for institutions regarding redress MUST
be compulsory. If redress worked we would not be having so many suffering today.
Claimants must always have their interests at the heart of anything . Claimants are the people left to suffer and live with their hurts. Civil litigation should always be seen as an option. It is the right of any person left to rot with memories of trauma for so long.
To answer fairness amongst institutions that have more assets than the other. The Child Abuse Royal Commission needs to understand links between churches.
Father Usher was asked by Paul Keating in
early 1990 to formulate a report on how to better fund welfare for people in Australia, it came as no surprise to see the now, Monsignor Usher say let the churches do this, but ' we have to get the funding, was his response " Since then church and state have become araldited in minds of people like myself who have been abused..
To say one has more than another is WRONG, historically churches and Govt, the perpetrators have a lot of cash and assets.
To say different would mean I would need to prove this to you, which would take a few moments research on my part ! In fact St Vincent De Paul Society in Australia scalp off a percentage of all funds accrued and send a tithe to the Vatican, additionally once a year Catholic Church do a collection for the Vatican. Hello, we the people say the people need redress first
I fail to believe there is no successive institution for any institution, it is all linked from the first institution Benevolent Society ,
who by the way was
throughout, you MAY prove me incorrect, let's see if you can !
I believe there must be fairness for survivors NOT the institutions
. Institutions have had great time to look after us. Have they ? Governments and Churches have committed the greatest offenses to humanity for 200 years. Time to take back our right. Time to realise that affordability comes secondary to humanity
. Sadly but truthfully, the only way the institutions and government will listen is to move them to bankruptcy. HECK they already are morally bankrupt
Please allow me to add I will add anyway, ZERO institutions follow god or jesus, for jesus, if were true stated build no temples, worship no idols. The churches are meccas for revenue raising failing their greatest assets, humans.
Yesterday I attended Salvation Army HQ Elizabeth Street Sydney, having words with officers/staff/attendees. I was advised by a staffer/officer, in SArmy 50 years. The transcripts from Royal Commission are lies, they are wrong he also stated
. Commissioner Condon is a good man. Have you not heard of forgiveness another called out to me.
As I stated, fairness for survivors. I would, again rather prefer standing by the REAL http://lewisblayse.net/2014/04/11/james-condon-and-salvation-army-organisational-culture-or-a-fish-rots-from-the-head-down/
If Child Abuse Royal Commission were to be honest they would understand by following examples from survivors not the abusee institutions we will have a better, fairer and safer country.
In order to verify an act of sexual abuse on another we would look at grooming
, was child in same place as perpetrator at time, gifts
, inclusion at family or social gatherings
, witness statements
that show perpetrator was there at time, documents from social services you do not need to witness the event, there are always other ways of verifying, in all likelihood that yes, the offence did occur.
Given the institutions have horridly supported many victims so far, I suggest the Royal Commission has a panel training exercise a couple of weeks before the Commission ends and trains the new redress group. Signatures on document that says what the mandatory guidelines are. These must be followed. NO arguments from either, church or state, or redress. Counselling and other support should NOT be provided by a redress scheme,
as we have witnessed and heard redress schemes are profiteering off the government for counselling the victims/survivors they created. What a wonderful life FOR THEM , additionally these dirty schemes are then using client data for reports that they may or may not sell. However they do report on this to agencies such as AHURI research institute, for example. Profit before people I say, is their motto. Counselling should be part of the whole person approach however NOT in affiliation with the abusive institutions so they can learn, guide against and publicise victim stories
. How do you think I got to learn what I do, if it weren't for stories being publicised.
Legal advice should be affiliated with redress, yet not legalese for any of the churches or Government, for example we have seen Corrs lawyers now doing deeds of release for Salvation Army, where they initially were there at the request of
I believe for Legal or Counselling there should be no limits. A person is damaged for life, and the struggles are lifelong.
Finally the compensation in many cases has been limited by institutions over many years. We sat and watched the Ellis Defence and saw what occurred with John Ellis. I believe the Government and Religious Institutions have done the same with many more survivors. Sadly not those that lost their lives in the battle.
I therefore believe out of cautionary regard, which includes institutions such as Salvation Army now mailing their survivors asking them if they have been paid enough, that NO they have no right to take that from the claim they make now. That is like a knife into the heart, liver and brain simultaneously.
Time to move forward, not backward in to the orphanage mentality.