Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

gzt

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582


  Reply # 1976440 14-Mar-2018 12:06
Send private message

Fred99: I believe that if they do act based on a complaint by a victim 16 years old, then the police are under no obligation to inform the parents of the victim. Expert advice from people working in agencies supporting victims of sexual assault confirm that as a general rule, the harm already caused to the victim is at risk of being exacerbated if they do.

There are three completely different things being totally confused above:

- Ethical obligations of counsellors to their clients (the experts being quoted here)
- Police practice and police legal obligations
- Legal obligations of the people running the camp inviting minors.

As far as my opinion on that goes - I'm a parent, and for sure I'd also be outraged to not be told that something like that had happened. But that doesn't change the law, nor the validity of what the experts have been saying - and saying that with the primary objective of safeguarding the victim(s).

Looks to me that no counsellors were engaged with the affected persons so no such advice could have been given. Fail.

gzt

10310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1582


  Reply # 1976443 14-Mar-2018 12:18
Send private message

Anyway, I was glad to hear part of the labour president interview on the radio this morning with labour making a hell of a lot more sense than previous days.

 
 
 
 


7591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4005


  Reply # 1976485 14-Mar-2018 13:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

gzt:
Fred99: I believe that if they do act based on a complaint by a victim 16 years old, then the police are under no obligation to inform the parents of the victim. Expert advice from people working in agencies supporting victims of sexual assault confirm that as a general rule, the harm already caused to the victim is at risk of being exacerbated if they do.

There are three completely different things being totally confused above:

- Ethical obligations of counsellors to their clients (the experts being quoted here)
- Police practice and police legal obligations
- Legal obligations of the people running the camp inviting minors.

As far as my opinion on that goes - I'm a parent, and for sure I'd also be outraged to not be told that something like that had happened. But that doesn't change the law, nor the validity of what the experts have been saying - and saying that with the primary objective of safeguarding the victim(s).

Looks to me that no counsellors were engaged with the affected persons so no such advice could have been given. Fail.

 

They weren't minors as far as consent goes, so unless they reported the incident themselves to police, they generally won't act to prosecute.  You seem to not "get" this - if they were under 16, then what's alleged to have happened is a crime, regardless of whether the victims approved or disapproved - as minors by that definition cannot "consent".  To prosecute when the victim is 16 or over, the victim is going to have to go on record stating that they were indecently assaulted - or there's no case.

 

As far as the counselors advice etc goes, I have no idea exactly what happened, I've read the claim that there was supposed to have been a policy in place, I've got no idea of what that policy stated should be done, whether that was wrong or right (in my opinion). The policy may have been clear on the ethical considerations being discussed - and that might have been appropriate, they might not have been, or their own policy might not have been followed. It is claimed that the victims were "offered support" - but then there was a gap of quite a few days before an offer of "professional help" was made. I don't know if that offer was taken up or what "professional help" was offered. 

 

Please stop venting your anger by attacking me.


12145 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3961

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1976538 14-Mar-2018 15:33
Send private message

Fred99:

 

gzt:
Fred99: I believe that if they do act based on a complaint by a victim 16 years old, then the police are under no obligation to inform the parents of the victim. Expert advice from people working in agencies supporting victims of sexual assault confirm that as a general rule, the harm already caused to the victim is at risk of being exacerbated if they do.

There are three completely different things being totally confused above:

- Ethical obligations of counsellors to their clients (the experts being quoted here)
- Police practice and police legal obligations
- Legal obligations of the people running the camp inviting minors.

As far as my opinion on that goes - I'm a parent, and for sure I'd also be outraged to not be told that something like that had happened. But that doesn't change the law, nor the validity of what the experts have been saying - and saying that with the primary objective of safeguarding the victim(s).

Looks to me that no counsellors were engaged with the affected persons so no such advice could have been given. Fail.

 

They weren't minors as far as consent goes, so unless they reported the incident themselves to police, they generally won't act to prosecute.  You seem to not "get" this - if they were under 16, then what's alleged to have happened is a crime, regardless of whether the victims approved or disapproved - as minors by that definition cannot "consent".  To prosecute when the victim is 16 or over, the victim is going to have to go on record stating that they were indecently assaulted - or there's no case.

 

As far as the counselors advice etc goes, I have no idea exactly what happened, I've read the claim that there was supposed to have been a policy in place, I've got no idea of what that policy stated should be done, whether that was wrong or right (in my opinion). The policy may have been clear on the ethical considerations being discussed - and that might have been appropriate, they might not have been, or their own policy might not have been followed. It is claimed that the victims were "offered support" - but then there was a gap of quite a few days before an offer of "professional help" was made. I don't know if that offer was taken up or what "professional help" was offered. 

 

Please stop venting your anger by attacking me.

 

 

 

 

Surely this cannot be completely the case. If person A rapes person B, and someone knows of that, are you actually saying that unless Person B reports it, Person A gets away with it?






26 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 1976586 14-Mar-2018 16:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

They weren't minors as far as consent goes, so unless they reported the incident themselves to police, they generally won't act to prosecute.  You seem to not "get" this - if they were under 16, then what's alleged to have happened is a crime, regardless of whether the victims approved or disapproved - as minors by that definition cannot "consent".  To prosecute when the victim is 16 or over, the victim is going to have to go on record stating that they were indecently assaulted - or there's no case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever happened to "Are you OK?" and "Speak up!"? Pretty sure there was some sort of social education campaign awhile back telling people that they have responsibility to speak up for those who are unable to or too afraid to stand up for themselves. I know those campaigns were targeted at domestic violence victims, but does the same concept not apply here?


18748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5376

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1976587 14-Mar-2018 16:36
2 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Please stop venting your anger by attacking me.

 

 

You have remarkably thin skin for someone who spends so much time in rant mode ridiculing or lambasting anyone who dares express a different opinion to you. I didn't find his post inflammatory in the least, he was simply expressing his alternative interpretation. 

 

I don't see any anger in the post you quoted.

 

Very few of the facts are known with certainty about this situation as such. There are certain conclusions I feel you can safely draw however. I feel it folly for anyone to claim to have the answers as a matter of course.

 

 

 

 


18748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5376

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1976592 14-Mar-2018 16:46
Send private message

Fred99:

 

They weren't minors as far as consent goes, so unless they reported the incident themselves to police, they generally won't act to prosecute.  You seem to not "get" this - if they were under 16, then what's alleged to have happened is a crime, regardless of whether the victims approved or disapproved - as minors by that definition cannot "consent".  To prosecute when the victim is 16 or over, the victim is going to have to go on record stating that they were indecently assaulted - or there's no case.

 

 

I don't believe that to be the case. 

 

There are domestic violence cases whereby the police can decide to investigate and or prosecute based on reports by another, even if the victim isn't co-operative.

 

I am sure there are other situations as well.


7591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4005


  Reply # 1976593 14-Mar-2018 16:46
Send private message

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

Please stop venting your anger by attacking me.

 

 

You have remarkably thin skin for someone who spends so much time in rant mode ridiculing or lambasting anyone who dares express a different opinion to you. I didn't find his post inflammatory in the least, he was simply expressing his alternative interpretation. 

 

I don't see any anger in the post you quoted.

 

Very few of the facts are known with certainty about this situation as such. There are certain conclusions I feel you can safely draw however. I feel it folly for anyone to claim to have the answers as a matter of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet another blatant direct ad hominem attack on me in breach of the FUG.

 

and this:

 


Politics
Please use this forum for any political discussion. You have to agree to disagree. This forum does not appear on Geekzone Live or Geekzone homepage. FUG rules still apply. Disagreements on political views is not a personal attack. Political threads created in other sub-forums will be deleted. 

 

 


7591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4005


  Reply # 1976594 14-Mar-2018 16:50
Send private message

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

They weren't minors as far as consent goes, so unless they reported the incident themselves to police, they generally won't act to prosecute.  You seem to not "get" this - if they were under 16, then what's alleged to have happened is a crime, regardless of whether the victims approved or disapproved - as minors by that definition cannot "consent".  To prosecute when the victim is 16 or over, the victim is going to have to go on record stating that they were indecently assaulted - or there's no case.

 

 

I don't believe that to be the case. 

 

There are domestic violence cases whereby the police can decide to investigate and or prosecute based on reports by another, even if the victim isn't co-operative.

 

I am sure there are other situations as well.

 

 

Yes there are, but this wasn't a domestic violence case, and as such I believe you're wrong.

 

 


BDFL - Memuneh
61784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12437

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1976595 14-Mar-2018 16:53
Send private message

This sums up nicely https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/14-03-2018/why-the-mishandling-of-sexual-assault-complaints-is-a-political-mess-for-labour/ 

 



Kirton and other party officials made the call not to tell police or parents in the interests of the victims. He justified that approach by saying that was consistent with advice from specialist support agencies.

That advice was, however, received three weeks after he and other top-ranking officials – including the Party president – made no move to inform authorities or the prime minister. Endorsement was then sought for the plan to “keep the circle small”.

 





18748 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5376

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1976600 14-Mar-2018 16:55
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Yes there are, but this wasn't a domestic violence case, and as such I believe you're wrong.

 

 

Quite prepared to be wrong, but do you have some evidence to support the view that the police handle domestic violence cases differently to all other areas of law? I'd expect Sexual Assault, or in fact, most violent crimes would be handled the same way due to the victim being un-cooperative because of fear or reprisal or retaliation? I know for a fact last year (or the year before) police investigated the posting of explicit images of others. I can't quite recall the name of the investigation. I admit in the end, without the evidence, they couldn't file charges, but they did investigate.

 

I obviously can look this up myself, but in case you had something handy. 

 

I am not arguing, I am asking for citation.

 

 


BDFL - Memuneh
61784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12437

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1976601 14-Mar-2018 16:57
One person supports this post
Send private message

It doesn't matter. The discussion is not about sexual abuse but how Labour handled it.

We all know it was badly handled. Just read the link I posted above.




7591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4005


  Reply # 1976607 14-Mar-2018 17:06
Send private message

networkn:

 

Fred99:

 

Yes there are, but this wasn't a domestic violence case, and as such I believe you're wrong.

 

 

Quite prepared to be wrong, but do you have some evidence to support the view that the police handle domestic violence cases differently to all other areas of law? I'd expect Sexual Assault, or in fact, most violent crimes would be handled the same way due to the victim being un-cooperative because of fear or reprisal or retaliation? I know for a fact last year (or the year before) police investigated the posting of explicit images of others. I can't quite recall the name of the investigation. I admit in the end, without the evidence, they couldn't file charges, but they did investigate.

 

I obviously can look this up myself, but in case you had something handy. 

 

I am not arguing, I am asking for citation.

 

 

 

 

This for a start:

 

http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/family-violence/police-safety-orders

 

 

The purpose of the PSO is to protect people at risk from violence, harassment or intimidation. The PSO stays in force until the expiry time/date listed on the Order. Police do not need the consent of the person at risk to issue the order.

 

IANAL , but I'm pretty sure there may have been other law changes before this too, as police were frustrated with being called (by neighbours etc) reporting domestic violence, and as well as not being able to do anything even if it was pretty obvious for example that a woman had been beaten, but she wouldn't want to lay charges.

 

How many women or men want to admit to being abused by their partner?  "I got the black eye from bumping into a cupboard door" is a real thing - not just something you hear about on TV.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that the law is right - the "roast busters" incident was an insight perhaps into how unfair things can be, and in that case there was at least one 13 year old complainant - yet the police investigated but did not prosecute.

 

 


BDFL - Memuneh
61784 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12437

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 900


  Reply # 1976632 14-Mar-2018 17:33
2 people support this post
Send private message

Despite the PM now saying they have let down the teens, I believe heads must roll. This is appalling series of events for a Government party.

 

They clearly have their heads in the sand and are very fortunate parliament is in recess.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.