Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Whooter on September 27, 2010, 04:44:00 PM
-
So you're gonna weasel out again. It's ok.....I didn't really expect that you would follow thru. Even if I was mistaken in my interpretation of your post about the hotline (which I wasn't), at least I put forth a good faith effort and posted what I believed to be your opposition to the hotline. You don't even have the integrity to do that. But again, we've all come to expect that from you.
No your being a weasel, I explained to you what I meant and asked you to read it in context with the conversation. If you choose not to take my meaning then I have the option to chose the same. I can interpret any of your posts the way I want regardless of whether you explain your intent. I can chose not to listen to your explanation.
It can go both ways, Anne.
Fine, so have the integrity to post the link to where you THINK I said anything close to what you've claimed I have. Or, continue your tapdance to weasel out again because you know I've never written anything like that.
Like I said it is right below where I stated: a hotline is a bad idea because the operator could talk dirty to the kids. If you find where I stated that then you will find your post also.
Lets leave it at that.
...
-
Like I said it is right below where I stated: a hotline is a bad idea because the operator could talk dirty to the kids. If you find where I stated that then you will find your post also.
Here you go Johnny. Now you can get on backing up yet another claim you made about another poster that you have no evidence for. After that I'm still waiting on you to back up your claims regarding me. What's the hold up John?
http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=21256&p=255763&hilit=+hotline#p255754
Read the original post. There you'll find that not only is John worried about former phone sex operators being hired on to work hotlines, but someone might use it to order 100 pizzas! John clearly feels that pizza rationing and potential phone sex operators are a far greater concern than a childs safety.
-
I actually said: The guy on the abuse hot line could talk dirty to the kids also, but it is highly unlikely.
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=255754#p255754)
Uh huh....and that was your reason for not putting hotlines in programs.
No it wasnt. Go read the discussion. I was making a point that nothing is a 100% safe. It was stated if a kid is abused in a program he may have to report the abuse to the same person who abused him. I felt it was highly unlikely and that putting a hotline in the facility the person answering the phone could talk dirty to them which is unlikely also. I went on to stipulate what could be looked at to determine if a hotline would be effective.
...
-
I dont think he ever did come up with the link!!
Just like you never produced the link I asked for where you not only misquoted me, but pulled it right out of your ass.
Just like you pulled this quote out of your ass:
Whooter thinks having an abuse hotline in programs is a bad idea because the hotline operator might talk dirty to the kids.
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=380256#p380256)
You claimed you quoted me exactly but you never produced the link.
She didn't have to Whooter. RobertBruce brought it up right after that, and you even thanked him (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=31238&start=45#p380424) for proving that link.
Did you think that Anne should have to repeat RobertBruce's post in case you missed it?
Incidentally, Anne did not misquote you, at least as far as your example above is concerned. Nor did she claim to have quoted you. Nor did she claim to have quoted you exactly. She paraphrased you. You might take issue with how she interpreted what you said or what your position is or was, but she never tried to claim that those were your exact words.
You, on the other hand, put words in other people's mouths, so to speak. You try to pass off manipulated and edited posts as being authentic to the original poster when, in fact, they are not. They are deliberate and explicit misrepresentations of others' words.
Anne said: I didn't misquote you. I quoted exactly what you said it it's entirety.
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=380759#p380759)
But the evidence proves otherwise. RobertBruces link showed that she mis quoted me and helped to clear it up.
Anne said: Whooter thinks having an abuse hotline in programs is a bad idea because the hotline operator might talk dirty to the kids.
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=380256#p380256)
I actually said: The guy on the abuse hot line could talk dirty to the kids also, but it is highly unlikely.
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=255754#p255754)
Again a double standard and a lie, Ursus, you just lied openly about Anne not quoting me trying to cover for her. You are the one putting words in other people mouths.
Plus if you take the time to read the original discussion you will see what my intention was in making that comment.
NO. You just added a whole lot more links to the discussion. They were not part of the post to which I responded.
My post above (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=30956&p=380789#p380770), which quotes your post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=30956&p=380789#p380760) to which I responded, only had ONE link. That link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=380256#p380256) was to the following post:
If you were beat and starved in a program, then call the cops. Tell them the staff member's name who beat you and starved you, and have them charged with aggravated assault on a minor.
The statute of limitations has run out in my case. And most of these places don't provide access to a telephone or even a hotline to report abuse, as hospitals are required to. (Whooter thinks having an abuse hotline in programs is a bad idea because the hotline operator might talk dirty to the kids) Even if the kid does speak up, they're met with the same derisiveness that you spew out here. That abuse didn't really happen, that it's just a disgruntled druggie kid, that the program was just trying to help etc.
[/list]
Where does Anne say that she is quoting you in this post, Whooter? She is paraphrasing you, perhaps not even paraphrasing, but interpreting your words or position.
You may have found other posts in which she said she was quoting you, but I was responding to your post as noted above. Sorry if you misunderstood me.
-
I actually said: The guy on the abuse hot line could talk dirty to the kids also, but it is highly unlikely.
Link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=255754#p255754)
Uh huh....and that was your reason for not putting hotlines in programs.
No it wasnt. Go read the discussion. I was making a point that nothing is a 100% safe. It was stated if a kid is abused in a program he may have to report the abuse to the same person who abused him. I felt it was highly unlikely and that putting a hotline in the facility the person answering the phone could talk dirty to them which is unlikely also. I went on to stipulate what could be looked at to determine if a hotline would be effective.
Uh huh. ::)
-
watch as john now avoids this topic, and accountability like the plauge.
-
watch as john now avoids this topic, and accountability like the plauge.
Plague... We finished this discussion up hours ago and have moved on.
...
-
Well, shit.
I just spent a significant amount of time writing a post, off and on, which got lost when I tried to submit it and it said I wasn't signed in any more.
So, here was my main point, it was re: Whoot and the hotlines comment.
1. We've already established that kids don't have uncensored phone access. (Whoot said that was because kids would manipulate their way out of programs, in general; while in my program, specifically, we weren't allowed phone access because the facility had quite a bit invested in not letting abuse reports get out.)
2. Kids don't have the ability to send letters without censorship.
3. Many kids don't have visitors, so lack even the opportunity to tell someone face-to-face.
So what kids are left with is a "grievance process." This is taken seriously in some places, such as some recovery-oriented facilities I have come across as an adult. But in the place where I was as a child, it was on the books for show.
It went something like this:
Step one: Beg for a grievance form. Get denied it many times. Get allowed access to the form when another staff member who might be pro-accountability is present.
Step two: Turn in the grievance form to a lower-level staff member. Who is abusing you. But if they aren't abusing you, it gets turned over to...
Step three: The staff supervisor. Who, in my case, was the worst perpetrator of physical abuse in the facility.
Step four, which you almost never get to because your grievances line trash cans and shredders: Call the facility main office. Which you can't do without the phone being disconnected for mentioning the abuse.
So, my point was to clarify - it seemed like Whoot didn't understand how a kid could be placed in a situation of reporting abuse to their abuser. There it is, and I'm sending it before I get cut off again.
Hedge
-
I agree 100% Hedge... Most programs for teens have a way of manipulating a child not to say anything in fear of some type of reprise over trying to tell. Early on in the program a child don't even get to have 1 on 1 visits with their families unless a more senior child in the program is there listening to the conversation. Then if the child makes any type of remark about how they are being abused the more senior child basically tells staff that were attempting to manipulate their parents...Then staff at that point makes their life a real living nightmare.. Point blank a child should be able to tell a parent and advocate or somebody about the abuse without being censored and under surveillance while doing it so the parent or advocate can start looking into the issue for themselves... And yes the programs do not want any news getting ou as the child's parents noney is the life blood of the programs.. Imagine what would happen if the children had the freedom to tell about it.. There would be no programs.
-
I agree 100% Hedge... Most programs for teens have a way of manipulating a child not to say anything in fear of some type of reprise over trying to tell. Early on in the program a child don't even get to have 1 on 1 visits with their families unless a more senior child in the program is there listening to the conversation. Then if the child makes any type of remark about how they are being abused the more senior child basically tells staff that were attempting to manipulate their parents...Then staff at that point makes their life a real living nightmare.. Point blank a child should be able to tell a parent and advocate or somebody about the abuse without being censored and under surveillance while doing it so the parent or advocate can start looking into the issue for themselves... And yes the programs do not want any news getting ou as the child's parents noney is the life blood of the programs.. Imagine what would happen if the children had the freedom to tell about it.. There would be no programs.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Same experience in Straight
-
(Whoot said that was because kids would manipulate their way out of programs, in general; while in my program, specifically, we weren't allowed phone access because the facility had quite a bit invested in not letting abuse reports get out.)
Hedge, I never stated this.
So, my point was to clarify - it seemed like Whoot didn't understand how a kid could be placed in a situation of reporting abuse to their abuser. There it is, and I'm sending it before I get cut off again.
Hedge
Hedge, I understand that it is possible for the person handling the reporting of abuse is also the abuser.... "Just like an abuse hotline operator could talk dirty to the caller" But I still feel it is very unlikely. Maybe a third "independent" party like a social worker who works for the state could be present at these schools and walk the campus and be available in a minimal capacity.
You could place a hotline phone in every school. But they could easily deny access to it. The hotline itself would not make kids any safer in my opinion. Abuse occurs so infrequently that I dont believe that this would become a requirement even understate or federal regulation.
...
-
I agree 100% Hedge... Most programs for teens have a way of manipulating a child not to say anything in fear of some type of reprise over trying to tell. Early on in the program a child don't even get to have 1 on 1 visits with their families unless a more senior child in the program is there listening to the conversation. Then if the child makes any type of remark about how they are being abused the more senior child basically tells staff that were attempting to manipulate their parents...Then staff at that point makes their life a real living nightmare.. Point blank a child should be able to tell a parent and advocate or somebody about the abuse without being censored and under surveillance while doing it so the parent or advocate can start looking into the issue for themselves... And yes the programs do not want any news getting ou as the child's parents noney is the life blood of the programs.. Imagine what would happen if the children had the freedom to tell about it.. There would be no programs.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Same experience in Straight
Very true. Whooter has stated before, many times, that he thinks it's fine for the abused kid to have to report the abuse directly to his/her abuser. That's how programs work and Whooter has said he supports this 100%.
-
Hedge, I understand that it is possible for the person handling the reporting of abuse is also the abuser.... "Just like an abuse hotline operator could talk dirty to the caller" But I still feel it is very unlikely. Maybe a third "independent" party like a social worker who works for the state could be present at these schools and walk the campus and be available in a minimal capacity.
In my experience and research, the "independent" party is more likely to believe the abuser than the abused.
You could place a hotline phone in every school. But they could easily deny access to it. The hotline itself would not make kids any safer in my opinion.
At least kids in regular schools have access to their parents and have contact with the real world. Kids in programs are isolated so that they only touchstone they have IS the program. They have no access to reality.
Abuse occurs so infrequently that I dont believe that this would become a requirement even understate or federal regulation.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
-
In my experience and research, the "independent" party is more likely to believe the abuser than the abused.
It was just a thought. Having people who are not on the schools payroll on campus would be better than having to report to the school itself in my opinion.
At least kids in regular schools have access to their parents and have contact with the real world. Kids in programs are isolated so that they only touchstone they have IS the program. They have no access to reality.
I understand that this is your perspective, but the programs that I have seen and the parents I have spoken to tell a different story. The kids have many more freedoms and are not isolated like you described occurred to you. The kids can easily tell their parents or run away to a local store to call someone.
Abuse occurs so infrequently that I dont believe that this would become a requirement even understate or federal regulation.
:roflmao: :roflmao:
Ha,Ha,Ha I dont know what is so funny but I like those little laughing guys.
...
-
I agree 100% Hedge... Most programs for teens have a way of manipulating a child not to say anything in fear of some type of reprise over trying to tell. Early on in the program a child don't even get to have 1 on 1 visits with their families unless a more senior child in the program is there listening to the conversation. Then if the child makes any type of remark about how they are being abused the more senior child basically tells staff that were attempting to manipulate their parents...Then staff at that point makes their life a real living nightmare.. Point blank a child should be able to tell a parent and advocate or somebody about the abuse without being censored and under surveillance while doing it so the parent or advocate can start looking into the issue for themselves... And yes the programs do not want any news getting ou as the child's parents noney is the life blood of the programs.. Imagine what would happen if the children had the freedom to tell about it.. There would be no programs.
:tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Same experience in Straight
Ditto. I had the same experience at Cedu.
-
The kids can easily tell their parents or run away to a local store to call someone.
Sure, they can try, but they don't because they know the punishments they'll receive if they dare to question or complain aren't worth it. I watched someone who did try to tell their parents they were being abused and the parents reported it to staff and that kid was in the 'time-out room' for 3 weeks, being beaten and starved the whole time. We learned very quickly to keep our mouths shut.
-
The kids can easily tell their parents or run away to a local store to call someone.
Sure, they can try, but they don't because they know the punishments they'll receive if they dare to question or complain aren't worth it. I watched someone who did try to tell their parents they were being abused and the parents reported it to staff and that kid was in the 'time-out room' for 3 weeks, being beaten and starved the whole time. We learned very quickly to keep our mouths shut.
Thats awful, Anne, I am glad the placed closed down. My daughter ran away after a few months and they talked her back to campus. I was notified and allowed to speak with her and she explained why she ran away.
She was told (and I was told) that if she ran away again then she would not be able to complete the program and would be sent home. So at ASR, Anyway, there is no abuse like that and they are a little bit more understanding of the children.
...
-
Thats awful, Anne, I am glad the placed closed down. My daughter ran away after a few months and they talked her back to campus. I was notified and allowed to speak with her and she explained why she ran away.
She was told (and I was told) that if she ran away again then she would not be able to complete the program and would be sent home. So at ASR, Anyway, there is no abuse like that and they are a little bit more understanding of the children.
And you would have just welcomed her home? From what I've read both here and other sites, ASR uses the "exit plan" (either the kid stays or they're kicked out of their home) to get the kids to stay, which isn't really a choice.
-
Thats awful, Anne, I am glad the placed closed down. My daughter ran away after a few months and they talked her back to campus. I was notified and allowed to speak with her and she explained why she ran away.
She was told (and I was told) that if she ran away again then she would not be able to complete the program and would be sent home. So at ASR, Anyway, there is no abuse like that and they are a little bit more understanding of the children.
And you would have just welcomed her home? From what I've read both here and other sites, ASR uses the "exit plan" (either the kid stays or they're kicked out of their home) to get the kids to stay, which isn't really a choice.
So that is what "Exit Plan" means. No, we never had anything like that. I would imagine if she became a chronic runaway that they would suggest another step, but she would always be welcome home.
...
-
So that is what "Exit Plan" means. No, we never had anything like that. I would imagine if she became a chronic runaway that they would suggest another step, but she would always be welcome home.
That's great that you wouldn't use that tactic, but it is definitely "suggested" in Aspen programs.
And what would that 'other step' be?
-
And what would that 'other step' be?
Usually it entails sending them off to yet another program.
-
And what would that 'other step' be?
Usually it entails sending them off to yet another program.
I never got that far but knowing business practices I am sure they have another aspen program which would take kids who are a flight risk. ASR wouldnt take those types.
...
-
Abuse occurs so infrequently that I dont believe that this would become a requirement even understate or federal regulation.
Neither you nor I are qualified to speak about the frequency of abuse. Please feel free to visit http://http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics for more information about how often child abuse is reported in the United States. We can safely assume that not all child abuse is reported, so those numbers are baselines. Neither of us can say "my experience was X, so it must be that everyone experiences X." Not every child in every facility was abused because I was. But if you were not abused, or you know of someone who wasn't abused, this does not decrease the likelihood that many children are, and were.
And actually, there is already a relevant federal regulation in place: a law called "mandatory reporting." Every single staff member who witnessed abuse but did not report it to the local authorities is in violation of the law.
For reference, here is a brief description of what minimum definitions for child abuse is, in the United States.
"CAPTA mandates "minimum definitions" for child abuse and sexual abuse. Child abuse or neglect is any recent act or failure to act:
Resulting in imminent risk of serious harm, death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation
Of a child (usually a person under the age of 18, but a younger age may be specified in cases not involving sexual abuse)
By a parent or caretaker who is responsible for the child's welfare"
http://http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/mandatory_reporting.htm
So, there should not even be a need for kids to report abuse directly to the authorities - the staff members are required by law to do the reporting if they witness abuse, or if a child mentions abuse or neglect. For details about the specific punishments for not following this law by state, please visit http://http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/legal-resources/mandatory-reporting-database.
But, as several people have confirmed, their experiences were also that they were blocked from making abuse reports to anyone outside the facility (and I detailed the joke that reporting abuse within the facility can be). We might hope and envision that kids would be encouraged to make reports when abuse takes place so that every child should be safe. Because that is theoretically the job of the facility: keeping kids safe.
-
:bump:
This was a conversation actually worth having. What, aside from stupid reasons like Whooter John's phone sex fantasy, and his plan to order 100 pizzas, are any legitimate reasons to not have an abuse hotline?