Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry
WWASP- Abusing teens since 1987
Carey:
That was me.
The parents who were having second thoughts and yet agreed to what was written in the Parent Manual must have said to themselves when having those second thoughts, "let me see, I really don't like the idea of the program using pepper spray on my child if the program thinks it is necessary, but then again I really don't like the idea of bringing my child home and having to deal with him/her...so I'll choose the pepper spray senario."
Come on, it was the parents choice in this situation in Samoa or where ever it was that that contract was written for. It was the parents choice to send the child there and it was the parents choice to allow the "pepper spray" if so chosen by the "untrained" staff.
It sounds to me like WWASP was being used as the "hitman" by the parents. Now the parents are regretful for what they have done, the choices they made, and want to blame it on the "hitman" who carried out their orders. Don't we as a nation prosecute both, the hitman and the one who has paid them? I think we even prosecute harder the person who paid for the hit?
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-10-09 05:30 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-10-09 05:31 ]
Anonymous:
Carey:
stop for a moment and think that the parent may have been thinking "gee, my son/daughter has had some problems, but not the kinds of problems that would instigate the use of "restraint" or peper spray--not my child-- That is in the contract for the REALLY BAD kids, not my son/daughter. Now, what the contract should say is: if your son/daughter speaks at any time other than 15 minutes group and then and only during his/her turn during 1 hour in the evening, he/she will be thrown to the floor, staff knee pressed against his/her head, possibly axsphysiated from the weight placed on their body from "restraint", his/her head will or could be bashed into the wall, wrestled to the ground for smiling, randomly punished for and UNKNOWN offense or one they didn't exist, all at the discretion of the staff, and you hereby give us permission to do so and will indemnify that behavior (yes, face khan, illegally). now, thats REALLY what it should say. BUT WE EXPOSE THE TRUTH AND THE ABUSE WILL STOP. ::armed::
anon:
[ This Message was edited by: KarenZ on 2003-10-18 17:51 ]
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---stop for a moment and think that the parent may have been thinking "gee, my son/daughter has had some problems, but not the kinds of problems that would instigate the use of "restraint" or peper spray--not my child-- That is in the contract for the REALLY BAD kids, not my son/daughter.
--- End quote ---
I DID stop and think,that is why my boys are not still in a program. The risk to me was not worth the taking. I did NOT want uneducated, untrained, unqualified staff working with my kids...because of the risk of abuse. And just think, the contract that my ex had signed was not even near that extreme, it was still pretty bad, but not to that extent.
If you are not willing to protect your own child, then why do you expect others too? I am not condoning any kind of abuse...just trying to make a point.
Carey:
That was me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version