GPS’s growing count…

With the unfurling truths, since the CARC (Child Abuse Royal Commission, 2013-17) most, if not all, Private Schools in SEQ GPS are being involved in Claims of Child Sexual Abuse. As a courtesy to all involved past & present students, each reported school is listed below:

BGS | Brisbane Grammar School

Gregory Terrace | St Joseph’s

BBC | Brisbane Boys’ College

Churchie | Church England Grammar School

TSS | The Southport School

NC | Nudgee College

Advertisements

Ipswich Grammar School

In joining the growing list of SEQ’s GPS Private Schools, Surviving Students from IGS have begun contact. Damages Claims have begun for Anthony (Kim) Buchanan & Clive Morehead. In joining other GPS secondaries, indeed ‘the plot thickens’, as SEQ highlights how concealed Pedophiles were, with their targets.

Anyone who knows of any Children, Students, Family, Friends or other are invited to help Share their story…

Brisbane ex-principal’s role in Anglican Diocese response to child abuse probed

EXCLUSIVE BY ALEXANDRA BLUCHER, ABC INVESTIGATIONS

PHOTO 

A royal commission found Gilbert Case was told two of his staff were abusing children.

AAP: DAN PELED

The former principal of one of Queensland’s most prestigious Anglican schools is understood to be one of the main subjects of a police investigation into the handling of child sex abuse complaints in the 1990s.

Key points:

  • Qld police have ramped up an investigation into the Anglican Diocese’s handling of child abuse complaints in the 1990s
  • The ex-headmaster of St Paul’s School in Brisbane and former governor-general Peter Hollingworth are both main subjects in the new investigation
  • Dr Hollingworth says police have told him they are not seeking to interview him

New witnesses have spoken to police, with both Brisbane’s St Paul’s School former headmaster Gilbert Case and former governor-general Peter Hollingworth understood to be the main subjects of the investigation.

Dr Hollingworth and Mr Case are being looked at due to their positions of authority in the 1990s, as part of a wider investigation into the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane’s response to child sexual abuse complaints at the time.

The revelation comes as Queensland police swell the ranks of the team tasked with investigating the diocese, growing from one detective to up to six officers since June.

Police are also examining allegations about the handling of complaints that were not heard at the child sexual abuse royal commission.

Child abuse protection advocate Kelvin Johnston said he thought the investigation was being broadened.

“A lot of it has to do with … not reporting it [abuse],” Mr Johnston said.

“They should go straight to the police when they hear about them.

“Not doing that is just protecting a brand and that’s not good enough when you’ve got children’s lives and wellbeing at stake.”

There are no allegations of child sexual abuse being committed by Dr Hollingworth or Mr Case.

Fresh investigation follows royal commission findings

Mr Case was the headmaster of prestigious Anglican Diocese-owned St Paul’s School in Brisbane between 1979 and 2000.

The royal commission found during this time, Mr Case was told two staff members at the school — music teacher Gregory Robert Knight and counsellor Kevin Lynch — were sexually abusing boys.

Mr Case denied to the royal commission that he was told in a meeting with two of Mr Lynch’s victims about the offending.

He did not report the allegations to the police and gave Knight a reference in 1984 for a new teaching job in Darwin.

Knight and Mr Lynch were subsequently charged with child sex offences. Knight was convicted and Lynch killed himself while on bail.

Mr Case was later promoted to the role of executive director of the Anglican Schools Office by a panel on which Dr Hollingworth was a member.

The royal commission found Dr Hollingworth knew of a claim Mr Case “failed to respond” to a child sexual abuse allegation at the time of the promotion, but Dr Hollingworth denied this.

Mr Case’s lawyers have been contacted for comment but did not respond.

Abuse survivors speak to police

Dr Hollingworth was Archbishop during the 1990s and later resigned as governor-general in 2003 over his handling of abuse complaints.

The ABC can reveal at least two child sexual abuse survivors who have raised concerns about Dr Hollingworth’s handling of their complaints have recently spoken to the police.

Beth Heinrich gave her account of a sexual relationship with an Anglican priest from the age of 15.

She says Dr Hollingworth heard her speak of this relationship at a failed mediation session with the clergyman in 1995 where he was an observer.

She told the ABC the detective visited her last month where she lives in Victoria.

“He was interested in what had occurred between Hollingworth and myself and documentation that I had to prove my story,” Ms Heinrich said.

The royal commission also found Dr Hollingworth made a “serious error of judgement” when he was Archbishop, by allowing paedophile priest John Elliot to continue in the ministry after finding out he had earlier abused two young boys from the same family.

One of these survivors also confirmed to the ABC he had recently spoken to police.

Police not seeking interview: Hollingworth

Lawyer for Dr Hollingworth, Bill Doogue said his client was not being investigated, and the royal commission and previous enquiries had never suggested Dr Hollingworth had committed any offences.

“I rang the Queensland Police and they told me that they were not seeking to interview Dr Hollingworth,” Mr Doogue said.

The lawyer said there was no legislation mandating the reporting of child sex abuse in the 1990s in Queensland.

Mr Doogue said his client only found out about the abuse committed by John Elliot when the survivor was in his mid-twenties.

“Dr Hollingworth made the priest go and confess … which he did,” Mr Doogue said.

“At any point after that the family could have gone to the police … which the victim did in fact do a couple of years later.”

Mr Doogue also said when Dr Hollingworth was invited to be part of a mediation between Ms Heinrich and the clergyman she accused of abusing her, the clergyman was at that point denying the allegations.

Calls for state-wide team

Queensland State Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the Queensland Government needed to create a specialist statewide taskforce that investigated historical cases of child sexual abuse, like that which exists in NSW.

“We understand that police resources are already stretched and regional child-protection units do not have the allocation of detectives needed to fully investigate some of these historical abuse claims,” Mrs Frecklington said.

“Many stretch back decades and contacting witnesses can be very challenging.”

Mrs Frecklington wrote to Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in June asking for more resources after advocates raised concerns about police resourcing with her and the Premier.

Mr Johnston said a special taskforce to investigate historical cases was essential.

“That’s what has got to happen, and if it doesn’t then the Queensland Government is negligent,” Mr Johnston said.

The Premier has been contacted for comment.

The child sexual abuse royal commission has made close to 700 referrals relating to all institutions to the Queensland Police Service (QPS) for investigation.

There were 371 complaints of child sexual abuse to the royal commission against the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane alone, the highest of any diocese in Australia.

QPS said all referrals had been “assessed and appropriately managed within current resources”, with all investigations conducted by the Sexual Crimes Unit and regional child-protection units.

“The QPS is continuing to review allegations concerning the handling of complaints of child sexual abuse by the Anglican diocese,” the Queensland Police Service said in a statement.

“The investigation is appropriately resourced.”

Retrieved: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-18/brisbane-ex-principal-role-anglican-diocese-response-child-abuse/10376578?pfmredir=sm

The plot thickens …

Having re-watched a favourite TV Series (Da Vinci Demons), attention was drawn to something that’s now screaming out louder and loader. Despite the appalling deception, tomfoolery & murders committed in the times of Leonardo Da Vinci (15th Cen.) in this staged re-enactment, the common powers possessed by the Catholic Church was always taken for granted. Social dynamics included a default framework of the church’s primary inclusion in the basic ecosystem. Australia’s recent mis-focus on Captain Cook, ahead of Captain Flinders & Bungaree. Each summarises how History has been remembered, not genuinely proven.

Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse had been the Initial national confrontation, followed by numerous other global countries addressing this common issue. Catholic Vatican’s Pope (Francis) has at least begun publicly addressing this issue, after Millenia of denials-hiding evidence-moving wrongdoers & almost a century of rewritten Papal Orders advocating sins being hidden. As mammoth an issue this is, what’s becoming apparent is the immensity of addressing it. The lives of these children is paramount, as is the resulting residual impacts these Sexual Abuses has had. Postings such as these help share some of these factual truths.

As numerous bodies of Surviving Victims, Medical, Commercial & Community bodies provide help, News reports in the Journalism of individual to broad scale cases & each country offering their own nuances of interpreting & reacting to these ordeals – the immensity of this understanding also risks being ‘swept under the carpet‘ as CSA had been, to grow to what it had. Together, we need to openly address this publicly, openly, transparently & suitably as possible. Groups such as this RoyalCommBBC are only getting started on our mission & via your simply sharing these posts about your contacts – another Survivour may remember things & get suitable help, pictures may remind a family of an unsolved mystery or News of someone being caught out for inappropriate behaviour triggers off flashbacks leading to arrest. We hope this helps out open up our lives.

More institutions join the National Redress Scheme

This newsletter includes an update on institutions as they finalise arrangements to participate in the National Redress Scheme.

For more information or to find support services, visit the National Redress Scheme websiteor call 1800 737 377 Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm
(local time) excluding public holidays.

Institution Update

More institutions have undertaken the steps to formally join the National Redress Scheme, they are listed below.

  • Geelong Grammar School Ltd
  • The Presbetarian Church of Queensland

Six more Anglican organisations have joined represented by Anglican Representative Limited, they are:

  • Anglican diocese of Bendigo
  • Anglican diocese of the Northern Territory
  • Anglicare Northcoast
  • Camberwell grammar school
  • St John’s Anglican College and The Springfield Anglican College (FSAC Ltd)
  • The William Branwhite Clark College Council

One more Catholic institution represented by Australian Catholic Redress Limited has also joined the Scheme, it is:

  • The personal ordinate of our Lady of the Southern Cross

This means 34 out of the 35 Catholic Dioceses and Archdiocese have now joined the Scheme.

In addition, one more Catholic Religious Order has also joined the Scheme, it is:

  • Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart

For more information about which sites are covered by these institutions go to the Scheme’s website. There is also a full list of institutions that have joined the Scheme at: www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions/joined-scheme

Where do I get Support?

Redress Support Services are available to help people understand the Scheme, provide emotional support and guide people through the application process. A list of support services is available on the website.

Those who need immediate emotional support can contact:

Seek Support from outside the circle!

As frightening as it may be, it’s becoming highly publicised that ‘support is available from the … church/club/school/Institution‘. BEWARE: These may be another example of ‘bight the hand that feeds you‘. Also, that numerous wrongdoers of CSA were often involved as ‘Counsellor’, ‘Supporter’, ‘Family-liaison’ & so forth.

It has been found that experts in the fields of CSA Counselling+Support are available on both the CARC, knowmore & NationalRedressScheme sites. Often, these discussions & meetings are a much needed step in a victim’s recovery.

Survivors and Solicitors

Survivors of child sexual abuse, who courageously gave evidence to The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, are now torn between applying for compensation through the Redress Scheme and/or launching legal proceedings against the perpetrating organisations. Neither pathway is easy and neither has a guaranteed outcome. Historical child sexual abuse cases are notoriously difficult…
— Read on notforgotten.tv/2018/10/27/survivors-and-solicitors/

Acknowledge the legal process will trigger trauma symptoms

Gather a support team

Commit to a rigorous self-care plan

Engaging a solicitor

Key points to remember when working with a solicitor

MANAGING COMMUNICATION

Supporting Survivors

LEGAL SUPPORT

EMERGENCY CONTACTS

Redress: the setting right of that which is morally wrong

August 9, 2018. Anne

Through the Redress Scheme, those who have been sexually abused in Australian institutions now have the opportunity to obtain financial compensation, counselling and a personal apology for the horror they endured. But don’t for one minute think it will be an easy process.

On 14 September 2015 the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released its Redress and Civil Litigation Report. After receiving submissions from more than 250 individuals and institutions, the 589-page report made 99 recommendations. There was an enormous financial cost to the Australian public for the Royal Commission so we should listen to what the Royal Commission had to say.

Here are some of the most significant recommendations regarding the Redress Scheme and what’s happened so far:

A national redress scheme for the estimated 60,000 likely claimants be established and commence accepting applications from survivors no later than 1 July 2017.

The Redress Scheme started on 1 July 2018, just a year late.  While everyone can start the application process, my understanding is that some State legislation needs to catch up. Applications from Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia can be received but they can’t yet be assessed.

The major perpetrators of institutional child sexual abuse (the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting churches, Salvation Army, Scouts and YMCA) have agreed to join the scheme.  However, the current lack of legislation in some States creates a loophole, so let’s hope those non-government institutions don’t use it to opt out.

The redress scheme to be independent of the offending institutions.

The applications for redress will be assessed by Independent Decision Makers, but we don’t know who they are. The Redress Scheme assures applicants that the Independent Decision Makers have no connection with participating institutions.  Does this mean there will be no Catholic, Anglican or Uniting Church parishioners?  No ex or current members of the Salvation Army, Scouts or the YMCA?  How can the assessment process be transparent if the Independent Decision Makers are not named?

Appropriate redress for survivors would include a financial payment up to $200,000.

The payment through the National Redress Scheme has been reduced to a maximum of $150,000.

$150,000 is a paltry amount for the impact of child sexual abuse on your life.  It would go nowhere near compensating Ms Forgotten Australian for her lack of ability to sustain full-time employment throughout her life, without taking into account her suffering.  The average redress payment is expected to be $76,000 and many will get less than that.

Applicants may receive a greater payout if they pursue compensation through the court process but the burden of proof will be greater in the court system than through the Redress Scheme.  However, the burden of engaging in the court process is likely to be more adversarial and stressful than the Redress Scheme. It’s challenging for survivors to provide the detailed particulars (time, date, location etc) often required for the court process, particularly if the child sexual abuse occurred many years ago and occurred multiple times.

The Redress Scheme is of significant benefit for the perpetrating institutions as payouts are likely to be less than through the legal process, and they won’t be tied up and financing legal processes for years.

A person should be eligible to apply to a redress scheme for redress if he or she was sexually abused as a child in an institutional context and the sexual abuse occurred, or the first incidence of the sexual abuse occurred, before the cut-off date.

That is unless you’re in prison.  If you are currently incarcerated you cant apply, you can do so when you’ve been released. If you’re out of gaol, but you’ve served more than a 5-year term then probably no redress for you, unless you are able to prove how rehabilitated you are.

Now I don’t want to get into an argument about prisoners getting money but here’s what infuriates me. The Royal Commission visited 60 prisons to take statements from prisoners who had been sexually abused in institutions.  They did this because there is such a clear understanding that child sexual abuse derails peoples lives to such an extent they are over-represented in the prison system.

I provided counselling to prisoners who had attended private sessions with the Royal Commission.  Their accounts of the sadistic child sexual abuse perpetrated against them were horrendous.  For some, the Royal Commission was the first time they had disclosed the abuse and the process of disclosing was traumatic.

Of the, 6,875 survivors and/or their family and friends who attended private sessions between May 2013 and May 2017 to share their experiences of child sexual abuse in Australian institutions, 713 (10.4 per cent) were in prison at the time of their private session.

On average, survivors in prison were aged 11.3 years when they were first sexually abused in an institutional context, though many said they experienced physical and sexual abuse prior to this, often within the family. The majority were sexually abused on multiple occasions (86.7 per cent). Most said they were sexually abused by a single person (53.7 per cent), and almost three-quarters for a duration of one year or less (71.5 per cent).

Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report – Private Sessions

So the Redress Scheme seems to be saying to prisoners “thanks for telling us what happened to you, we know that it stuffed your life up, but too bad, no Redress for you or your family”.  Surely prisoners could apply and, if successful, any payout placed in trust.

Oh… and if you’re not an Australian citizen or permanent resident you also can’t apply.  So too bad if you came to Australia, went to school here, got sexually abused as a child at school and then went home!  No redress for you either.

A redress scheme should rely primarily on completion of a written application form.

Sounds easy, but filling out that 44-page document is complex.  Some survivors believed that their statement to the Royal Commission would have been sufficient as an application. It’s agonising to document a detailed account of child sexual abuse and then send it off to be assessed, by an unknown party. Once again survivors are placed in the role of having to prove what happened to them.

There are supports available to help people with the application process.  You can access them here: Redress Support Services.  I would encourage anyone completing the application to be supported by family, friends and/or the support services offered.

Counselling and psychological care should be supported through redress in accordance with the following principles:

  • Counselling and psychological care should be available throughout a survivor’s life.
  • Counselling and psychological care should be available on an episodic basis.
  • Survivors should be allowed flexibility and choice in relation to counselling and psychological care.
  • There should be no fixed limits on the counselling and psychological care provided to a survivor.
  • Without limiting survivor choice, counselling and psychological care should be provided by practitioners with appropriate capabilities to work with clients with complex trauma.
  • Treating practitioners should be required to conduct ongoing assessment and review to ensure treatment is necessary and effective. If those who fund counselling and psychological care through redress have concerns about services provided by a particular practitioner, they should negotiate a process of external review with that practitioner and the survivor. Any process of assessment and review should be designed to ensure it causes no harm to the survivor.
  • Counselling and psychological care should be provided to a survivor’s family members if necessary for the survivor’s treatment.

New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have free counselling services as part of the redress offer.  Counselling services in Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have not yet been finalised. Applicants living where States are not offering free counselling services will receive a payment of $5,000 to cover counselling.  That’s about 25 sessions throughout a lifetime.  That may not be sufficient to address complex trauma.

Some final thoughts….

We now have a situation where some child abuse survivors may feel abandoned by the Redress Scheme.  If you were in an institution and were viciously beaten and neglected, but not sexually abused you are now “unlucky” because you can’t access the Redress Scheme. The Royal Commission didn’t just uncover child sexual abuse, it also uncovered systemic physical and emotional abuse and neglect in institutions and yet these non sexually abused survivors have no access to the Redress Scheme.

I’m not sure the Redress Scheme sets right that which is morally wrong.

What are your thoughts regarding the Redress Scheme?

https://notforgotten.tv/2018/08/09/redress-the-setting-right-of-that-which-is-morally-wrong/