Being a responsible neighbour

[reneg8or]

If you believe that people are being harmed then IMO it is your civic duty to go to the police and report it at the very least.

Those who cover up the abuse deserve to face penalties as well. If you allow abuse to continue when you have the power to put a stop to it then you are guilty by your inaction.

Kudo's to you. You speeka ma language!

 

[porchrat]

Swinger scene No, dearest Porchrat, spreading love is something different. It has everything to do with intimacy, which is something only happening in the heart. Further south you will find biological entertainment but that is no love. (Under certain marital circumstances it could be an added expression of love, but between faithful partners.)

Couldn't help myself. The joke response to your post practically wrote itself.

Jokes aside, in that situation (I refer back to the OP now):

1) I see those that cover it up as accessories deserving of some sort of penalty. I also think it is one's duty to report suspected abuse (it is also the law as far as I am aware, but I recommend reporting it not simply because it is law, but more importantly because I believe it to be the moral thing to do).

2) No one wouldn't be in the wrong for expecting the Constitution of the organisation to be upheld. Provided that Constitution is a fair one that doesn't prescribe unfair discrimination or something of that nature.

3) I don't understand this point. Ideally victims should be compensated and the offender should be penalised. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way, admittedly the system is not perfect.

4) I suppose that depends on what the offender has done and whether or not those around him are prepared to forgive and forget. If it was child abuse I would not forgive and never forget. I would choose not to associate with that person ever again.

5) It won't. Not until it gets rid of the rot. Well... unless its goal is to be a thoroughly corrupt and untrustworthy organisation... then it will easily achieve its goals

 

[Grant]

my opinion :

1) no

2) no

3) victims of this type of crime should seek relief via the judicial system

4) if found guilty in a court of law (given the type of crime), the rules of the fraternity are clear - no further association.

5) given your statement:
* some members are promiscuous
* almost all gossip
* some are fraudsters
* some abuse little children, steal from the employees whilst other steal from employers

I cannot see the organization achieving any goals given it's current state of health, and thus, should be disbanded.

****
The "whistleblower" was somewhat misguided in approaching the "leadership".
The type of crime you describe is not like that of pinching a chocolate from the corner cafe.
The whistleblower should have brought the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities. In going to the "leadership" and not the correct authorities, therefore, the "whistleblower" in my opinion, is on no higher moral ground than the "leadership" who chose to cover the matter up.
I would hazard a guess that this would not be the 1st incident of it's kind as allegedly committed by the offender, probably just the 1st time the offender has been discovered.
People who choose to commit a crime tend to have a propensity to commit the same type of crime repeatedly.

 

[reneg8or]

my opinion :

1) no

2) no

3) victims of this type of crime should seek relief via the judicial system

4) if found guilty in a court of law (given the type of crime), the rules of the fraternity are clear - no further association.

5) given your statement:
* some members are promiscuous
* almost all gossip
* some are fraudsters
* some abuse little children, steal from the employees whilst other steal from employers

I cannot see the organization achieving any goals given it's current state of health, and thus, should be disbanded.

****
The "whistleblower" was somewhat misguided in approaching the "leadership".
The type of crime you describe is not like that of pinching a chocolate from the corner cafe.
The whistleblower should have brought the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities. In going to the "leadership" and not the correct authorities, therefore, the "whistleblower" in my opinion, is on no higher moral ground than the "leadership" who chose to cover the matter up.
I would hazard a guess that this would not be the 1st incident of it's kind as allegedly committed by the offender, probably just the 1st time the offender has been discovered.
People who choose to commit a crime tend to have a propensity to commit the same type of crime repeatedly.

Grantza, some really good points you have made and especially the highlighted last two sentences, but not discounting anything above. Thanks!

 

[reneg8or]

Couldn't help myself. The joke response to your post practically wrote itself.

Jokes aside, in that situation (I refer back to the OP now):

1) I see those that cover it up as accessories deserving of some sort of penalty. I also think it is one's duty to report suspected abuse (it is also the law as far as I am aware, but I recommend reporting it not simply because it is law, but more importantly because I believe it to be the moral thing to do).

2) No one wouldn't be in the wrong for expecting the Constitution of the organisation to be upheld. Provided that Constitution is a fair one that doesn't prescribe unfair discrimination or something of that nature.

3) I don't understand this point. Ideally victims should be compensated and the offender should be penalised. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way, admittedly the system is not perfect.

4) I suppose that depends on what the offender has done and whether or not those around him are prepared to forgive and forget. If it was child abuse I would not forgive and never forget. I would choose not to associate with that person ever again.

5) It won't. Not until it gets rid of the rot. Well... unless its goal is to be a thoroughly corrupt and untrustworthy organisation... then it will easily achieve its goals

Yes, I stepped into it........... And your observations are really good. But your joke made my day - can I sue you for torn muscles in the abdomen?

 

[Sherbang]

PPhhheeeww! Thanks for this, I followed your hint and now I am dizzy and have palpitations. No, I am not angry with you and I am very glad for your response, but I got caught up so much in what is right and what is wrong that I totally forgot about the aspect of Love being broken-hearted.

Someone from another country said we must forgive the sinner. OK, I am prepared to do that, but should we now let criminals loose among our young? Close the cop shops and the courts? If we prosecute, are we doing it out of vengeance or are we just protecting the innocent?

Wow, you got all that from 2 words? Talk about reading between the lines

 

[porchrat]

Yes, I stepped into it........... And your observations are really good. But your joke made my day - can I sue you for torn muscles in the abdomen?

LOL I laughed at your post too, the wording was priceless.

You could probably sue in America. I hear they sue over things like a lack of "HOT" warnings on coffee cups.

By the way I LOVE the signature.

 

[reneg8or]

Wow, you got all that from 2 words? Talk about reading between the lines

No, I got it from the letter from abroad. I apologise; I realize now that I should have stated that. Yet your comment remains acutely true and correct. Take these two words from it: true and correct.

 

[Sherbang]

No, I got it from the letter from abroad. I apologise; I realize now that I should have stated that. Yet your comment remains acutely true and correct. Take these two words from it: true and correct.

Well your response was to scudsucker saying "Jesus wept" so if you wanted to respond to your own OP you should have quoted that one.

The phrase "Jesus wept" is a common expletive spoken to express incredulity.
As in, Jesus wept, of course you must report child abuse to the police :wtf:

 

[reneg8or]

Jesus wept

Well your response was to scudsucker saying "Jesus wept" so if you wanted to respond to your own OP you should have quoted that one.

The phrase "Jesus wept" is a common expletive spoken to express incredulity.
As in, Jesus wept, of course you must report child abuse to the police :wtf:

Interesting, I never heard this where I lived, anywhere across S.Africa. Of course, I know those words since childhood but it just never get mentioned where I am.

For the record, I have been excommunicated so lovingly by a fraternity that I wasn't even part of, simply because of this post today. Ousted while I never even was IN in the first place.

Thanks to each and everyone here who had shared wisdom and either confirmed what I believe in or added insight. All had posted nice things so far and I really appreciate the lovely conversation we had today.

 

[Arthur]

Love requires first that you act to protect the innocent, vulnerable, weak, and defenceless.

 

[reneg8or]

Love requires first that you act to protect the innocent, vulnerable, weak, and defenceless.

Wise words, indeed. And a message I can shout from the rooftops.

Some poster(s) thought that gossip is a lesser evil than child molestation. The reason why I left my very last fraternity six years ago, is because of the pastor and an elder who had gone from house to house, gossiped and sowed division. The end result was that several families were torn apart, divorces followed bankruptcy and also the lives of children were messed up. Two families ended up literally on the streets.

Guess what? Not only the fraternity but their entire communities sided by the culprits. To me, this is where we need to start fighting corruption and worry less about government. First fix the shaky foundation before mending the roof.

In the same vein: a youth leader was accused by three minors of sexual deeds. On two charges he was found guilty. The third could not be proven because the victim was three years old. Of course, he showed remorse (as for his own losses suffered, not of repentance) and he received a commuted sentence on the proviso that he never get involved with children again. That is a court sentence, not a mere suggestion.

Guess what? With two Christian radio stations, scores of schools and churches and even SAPS being aware of this, he skipped one year's involvement with kids but then was forgiven by the community, not just the churches, and he has been (illegally) involved with (your?) child for the past five years.

I see no restoration of the losses victims suffered. I see no justice done. So I ask this question: would our society have been as accommodating and forgiving if any of the transgressors were from a different ethnic orientation? How can we expect government to succeed when the foundation of society is crumbling yet the cracks get plastered over and painted, so that all can believe that there is not a worry in this world? It is said that government always isa reflection of society. I have always been opposing that line of thought but, slowly, I start seeing some sense in that.