[Ansteorra] The original complaint filed.

[Richard Threlkeld]

One thing I've noticed is a tendency to say we have been negligent because
we did not do everything the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. have done to
protect children. Please note these are groups whose central purpose is
providing activities and structures for youth. Adults are only present in
the role of leaders and helpers. The SCA is not such a group. We are an
adult group that has become family friendly as our members grew into having
families. I think the best practices might be somewhat different in these
groups as compared to the SCA because our goals are different. 

Nonetheless, two-deep leadership when interacting with children and training
to recognize trouble signs are effective and not too expensive in time or
money. Just be careful in pointing at another, dissimilar group and saying,
"they do it, we should do it too".

In Service,
Caelin on Andrede



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ansteorra-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org [mailto:ansteorra-
> bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Rose
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:59 AM
> To: Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] The original complaint filed.
> 
> "Hopefully the other points decrease the importance of this point by
> itself. Again, this is the original complaint and not the findings of
> the court itself. I also note this simply calls out "member" and not SCA
officer
> or "Head of the Page School". So this might be read to imply
> anyone having contact with children needs a background check. I would
> hope not."
> 
> I don't think that this paragraph is nearly as important as the multiple
other
> times when they cite the best practices that other organizations follow,
that
> we did not follow, despite ample evidence that abuse of this nature was a
> problem. (What, did anyone really think that this was the only time it
> happened?) Also, it's not as important as the paragraph that implies that
> other officers suspected or knew about the abuse and did nothing. (I wish
> Pennsylvania were a mandatory-reporter state.)
> 
> 
> "Someone had asked how long had this happened before the pervert was
> caught and punished, and when was the suit finally filed. It appears
> that the suit was not filed until at least four years after the events
> happened and three years after the pervert was convicted."
> 
> Four points:
> 
> 1. Schragger wasn't sentenced until 2005, so the case wasn't yet complete.
> 2. I believe that this is the second suit, not the first one. I think the
first suit
> was filed the previous year, in 2006.
> 3. Even if they had waited three years, that seems like a reasonable
amount
> of time to wait for the SCA to take action of their own accord.
> 4. In regards to the amount of time that had passed, I don't understand
why
> that's relevant. There are a myriad of reasons that they might have waited
to
> file, from the emotional state of any one of the many victims, to a show
of
> patience on their end. Or two years is how long it took for them to
realize
> that the SCA needed a financial cattle prod to get moving.
> 
> 
> 
> -R the O
> 
> 
> 
> *               *               *               *          
*               *               *               *               *
>    *               *               *               *
> 
> Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum,
iudicium
> difficile. ~Hippocrates
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org