Although I have been attacked by certain trolls from a particular site that is SUPPOSED to help survivors of child abuse (which is recieving funding from the freemasons), and falsely and unjustly accused of being mean to other child abuse survivors, I think it can easily be seen that I am on a mission to try to end institutional abuses, wether they be against old, young or infirm, I just think all of this bullying has to stop.
I don't really know how I survived all the institutional abuse. It's a bit of a mystery to me, and certainly a miracle. How did so many of the Holocaust survivors survive? That's a mystery as well. All I know is that I kept praying to Jesus to help me, and He did.
In fact, that is my first tip to surviving institutional abuse. I would be very wary of any group which is either set up in a particular religion, or that bans God altogether. The Freemasons have a form of religion, but it is like a dry and dusty version of the truth. The last thing abuse survivors need is to
1) get involved in a cult
2) be spied upon by people PRETENDING to help, but secretly stabbing you in the back.
It is a horribe shock when you first discover what Common Purpose is. I wept buckets when I realised, and I just felt as though I had died inside. I felt so shocked - I didn't want to believe it at first. I spent a lot of time praying, and reading the Bible. Somehow, reading the Old Testament, the stories of Abraham, Jeramiah, David, Moses, Daniel ect, the age old struggle of good against evil made me feel comforted.
I realised that I had been living in a dream world - the History of England that I had been fed as a schoolchild was a sanitised version of the true state of affairs. It is a dreadful shock when you first realise the extent to which you have been lied to by your "superiors".
The abuse I suffered gradually started to fall into place in the wider picture. I started to realise that the way I had been abused was not the malicious targetting that I had thought at all - it was more in the mature of an attempt to stifle me into silence. The more I spoke with other people who had suffered institutional abuse the more I realised that. It is still evil - but not as evil as I had supposed. It began to dawn on me that the freemasons who I had feared to be a shadowy gang of soulless devils were, in fact, a large body of people who had lost their way somewhere between infancy and adulthood.
I have never actually been in a gang, but I do understand the nature of gang mentality. I understand how there are ringleaders who manage to control the other members using a variety of psychological tactics, fear being the main one. A gang cannot function without a ringleader at least one, but sometimes two or three. Another important thing to understand about gangs is that most people in a gang are only there out of fear. They fear being on the outside of the gang - that is the drive which compels them to comply with the gang mentality.
It gradually dawned on me that the Freemasons are, in fact, a gigantic gang. I was astonished when I first realised this, because whilst it is so obvious when you realise the truth - nevertheless, it is an amazing thing to realise that so very few people actually are responsible for so much chaos. It puts in mind a newspaper report I read of a young boy who was responsible for most of the crime on his housing estate. The police were, according to the newspaper reporter, unable to stop him wrecking the peace of the whole estate, because of his age.
That discovery re-assured me, in the sense that, although the damage and disaster is great, because it is only a very few people at the top of the pyramid who are actually responsible, who are the driving force for all the evil, which means that the great majority of freemasons would, in fact, be perfectly decent people, if only they could see clearly. If they could only see what they are a party to, they would, in fact, recoil in horror and reject it. Most freemasons are not wanting to participate in evil, and if they only could see clearly what it is they are linked with, they would turn away from it in disgust.
As Danny Kaye says, in bthe film Hans Christian Anderson, "Most people are nice"
Most people are indeed nice - but they are also frightened. Most people do live in fear. The trouble with living in fear is that it stops you actually living. You cannot live a happy joyful life if you are terrified all the time.
Institutional abuse survivors, survivors of malicious vindictive persecution, know all about the relentless attacking, and how it wears a person down. It is only when you can face up to it by saying, "Sod this - this is like hell on earth - if they get me they get me, but they are going to have to do it in front of an audience!" that you can stop the relentless bullying.
I told the Teacher about the bullies. I know that God hears my prayers, and the prayers of anyone else who calls out to Him in faith and trust. God hates bullying - I know He does.
Anyway, I hope that reading this rambling post might help someone else, as that is what I posted it for.
Monday, 29 June 2009
Friday, 26 June 2009
COWARDS FROM SAFELINE - COME AND ATTACK ME THEN!
Well, it's one thing for members of SAFELINE (the organisation that describes itself as a haven for child abuse survivors but in reality tries to control them with CIA mind control) to come here and attack me anonymously, but it takes a person with a bit more bottle to actually identify themselves whilst attacking a VICTIM of child abuse and malicious vindictive persecution.
BRING IT ON!
BRING IT ON!
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Allan Levy
Allan Levy
Family barrister and champion of children's rights
Monday, 4 October 2004
The leading family barristers are not generally known to the public. Allan Levy through his frequent broadcasts may have been the exception.
Allan Edward Levy, barrister: born Bury, Lancashire 17 August 1942; called to the Bar, Middle Temple 1969; QC 1989; Assistant Recorder 1990-93, Recorder 1993-2001; Chairman, Staffordshire Pindown Child Care Inquiry 1990; Chairman, Intercountry Adoption Lawyers' Association 1991-95; died London 26 September 2004.
The leading family barristers are not generally known to the public. Allan Levy through his frequent broadcasts may have been the exception.
He was regularly asked to comment on current events and policy relating to family law on both television and radio. He had a real flair for this. He was able to be authoritative and balanced, and yet be unpompous and unstuffy. He could explain complex ideas simply and in a way which made sense to the listener.
His media persona was based on an outstanding professional career. The law was his life, and at the centre of that he was a valiant and doughty proponent of children's rights. He was a leading expert on child law at the English Bar. His contribution to the development of the law, particularly in area of the rights of and the protection of children, was remarkable.
Levy was born in 1942 in Bury, now in Greater Manchester, and was educated at Bury Grammar School and then Hull University, where he is remembered as a quiet student. He read for the Bar and was called at the Inner Temple in 1969. He developed a growing interest in family law, children's rights and in medical ethics.
In 1982 he published Wardship Proceedings and then, in 1985, another textbook, the 10th edition of Adoption of Children (with J.F. Josling). It was as a result of this that he came to the notice of the Official Solicitor's office. He began to be instructed in a range of high-profile cases, some of which, because of the public importance of their subject matter and the difficult ethical or legal issues involved, gained significant media attention.
One of the first of these was a case in 1987 where an Oxford student attempted unsuccessfully to prevent a woman with whom he had had a brief relationship from having an abortion.
In 1992 he appeared in the first of a number of cases which have considered the question of an adult's right to refuse life-saving treatment. He acted for the father of a Jehovah's Witness. She had been admitted to hospital following a road traffic accident and had refused blood transfusions. Her condition deteriorated and she became unconscious. Her father and the man with whom she lived applied successfully to the court for a declaration that it would be lawful for the hospital to administer blood to her in the emergency situation which had arisen.
His reputation for dealing with difficult and sensitive issues, particularly in relation to children, grew. Sadly, from time to time, concerns arise over the way in which children within the care system, who are often voiceless and without defenders, are treated. One such occasion arose in 1990 when Allan Levy was asked to be Chairman of the Staffordshire Pindown Inquiry.
He was told there was "a little local difficulty" in Staffordshire which would take about three to four weeks to look at. The reality turned out to involve 75 days of evidence from 153 witnesses and the examination of about 150,000 pages of evidence, eventually leading to a 300-page report.
Pindown got its name because the main practitioner of the regime, when faced with a supposedly difficult child in his charge, would point his finger and say he would "pin down" the problem. Children were put into rooms called "pindown rooms" sometimes for periods of weeks or months without adequate clothing, recreation, communication and furnishings. The inquiry report, which was published in 1991, was both authoritative and influential; it trenchantly condemned the practice of pindown and made important recommendations. Some of the recommendations went on to be implemented, but some awaited implementation for over 10 years afterwards, to Levy's deep frustration.
After the Pindown report he continued to be at the forefront of developments in the law relating to children. A major reform of children's law, the Children Act 1989, came into force in 1991 and he was involved in leading decisions on its interpretation. The medical profession also turned to him for authoritative and balanced advice. He chaired the British Medical Association Steering Committee which led to publication in December 2000 of comprehensive practical guidance on the ethical and legal issues which arise in health care of patients under 18, Consent, Rights and Choices in Health Care for Children and Young People.
His standing within the legal profession was recognised when he took silk in 1989, became a Bencher of the Inner Temple in 1993 and sat as an Assistant Recorder from 1990 to1993 and then as a Recorder from 1993 to 2001.
Developments in human-rights law in recent years were seen by Levy as an opportunity for advancing the rights of children. In 1998 he took a case to the European Court of Human Rights which raised an important issue in relation to the use of corporal punishment. A stepfather beat a nine-year-old boy with a garden cane causing the boy to suffer severe bruising. The stepfather was charged with the criminal offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He raised the defence of necessary and reasonable chastisement, and was found not guilty.
On behalf of the child, Levy argued that there had been a breach of the child's right not to be subjected to "inhuman or degrading treatment" under Article 3 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court found that there had been a breach and that in permitting the defence of reasonable chastisement the United Kingdom was failing to protect children from such ill-treatment.
In another case in 1999, he successfully persuaded the House of Lords that it should be possible for a child who had been brought up in local authority care, and who alleged that the negligence of the local authority had caused him psychiatric injury, to bring an action for negligence against that authority.
Even though he was suffering from cancer of the oesophagus, in May and again in July this year he was involved in preparing submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on a matter close to his heart. His concern was the proposal to leave intact the defence of lawful chastisement in offences of common assault. He made his view clear: to do so would not meet the UK's obligations under international human-rights instruments. In the same vein, in July he published an article expressing clearly and passionately his objections to corporal punishment.
Despite his skill in explaining family issues to a public audience through the media, and his friendliness and humour with those he knew, Allan Levy was an unassuming and private man. He had a love of books. His home was full of them and he once said he could not move because he could not move all the books. He had a marvellous collection of Lowry paintings. He was an unfailing supporter of Manchester City Football Club. He loved travel. He would travel to watch the English cricket team aboard, as well as to wilder and more remote shores, as far flung as Antarctica.
Sometimes he would combine his love of travel with lecturing abroad. He was, for example, a speaker at the Seventh International Congress on Child Abuse in Rio de Janeiro in 1988. He had gone to speak about child abuse in the light of the Cleveland Inquiry, but came back deeply struck by the plight of the "street children". This was typical of his compassion and the concern for the rights of children which characterised his life.
Pamela Scriven
Family barrister and champion of children's rights
Monday, 4 October 2004
The leading family barristers are not generally known to the public. Allan Levy through his frequent broadcasts may have been the exception.
Allan Edward Levy, barrister: born Bury, Lancashire 17 August 1942; called to the Bar, Middle Temple 1969; QC 1989; Assistant Recorder 1990-93, Recorder 1993-2001; Chairman, Staffordshire Pindown Child Care Inquiry 1990; Chairman, Intercountry Adoption Lawyers' Association 1991-95; died London 26 September 2004.
The leading family barristers are not generally known to the public. Allan Levy through his frequent broadcasts may have been the exception.
He was regularly asked to comment on current events and policy relating to family law on both television and radio. He had a real flair for this. He was able to be authoritative and balanced, and yet be unpompous and unstuffy. He could explain complex ideas simply and in a way which made sense to the listener.
His media persona was based on an outstanding professional career. The law was his life, and at the centre of that he was a valiant and doughty proponent of children's rights. He was a leading expert on child law at the English Bar. His contribution to the development of the law, particularly in area of the rights of and the protection of children, was remarkable.
Levy was born in 1942 in Bury, now in Greater Manchester, and was educated at Bury Grammar School and then Hull University, where he is remembered as a quiet student. He read for the Bar and was called at the Inner Temple in 1969. He developed a growing interest in family law, children's rights and in medical ethics.
In 1982 he published Wardship Proceedings and then, in 1985, another textbook, the 10th edition of Adoption of Children (with J.F. Josling). It was as a result of this that he came to the notice of the Official Solicitor's office. He began to be instructed in a range of high-profile cases, some of which, because of the public importance of their subject matter and the difficult ethical or legal issues involved, gained significant media attention.
One of the first of these was a case in 1987 where an Oxford student attempted unsuccessfully to prevent a woman with whom he had had a brief relationship from having an abortion.
In 1992 he appeared in the first of a number of cases which have considered the question of an adult's right to refuse life-saving treatment. He acted for the father of a Jehovah's Witness. She had been admitted to hospital following a road traffic accident and had refused blood transfusions. Her condition deteriorated and she became unconscious. Her father and the man with whom she lived applied successfully to the court for a declaration that it would be lawful for the hospital to administer blood to her in the emergency situation which had arisen.
His reputation for dealing with difficult and sensitive issues, particularly in relation to children, grew. Sadly, from time to time, concerns arise over the way in which children within the care system, who are often voiceless and without defenders, are treated. One such occasion arose in 1990 when Allan Levy was asked to be Chairman of the Staffordshire Pindown Inquiry.
He was told there was "a little local difficulty" in Staffordshire which would take about three to four weeks to look at. The reality turned out to involve 75 days of evidence from 153 witnesses and the examination of about 150,000 pages of evidence, eventually leading to a 300-page report.
Pindown got its name because the main practitioner of the regime, when faced with a supposedly difficult child in his charge, would point his finger and say he would "pin down" the problem. Children were put into rooms called "pindown rooms" sometimes for periods of weeks or months without adequate clothing, recreation, communication and furnishings. The inquiry report, which was published in 1991, was both authoritative and influential; it trenchantly condemned the practice of pindown and made important recommendations. Some of the recommendations went on to be implemented, but some awaited implementation for over 10 years afterwards, to Levy's deep frustration.
After the Pindown report he continued to be at the forefront of developments in the law relating to children. A major reform of children's law, the Children Act 1989, came into force in 1991 and he was involved in leading decisions on its interpretation. The medical profession also turned to him for authoritative and balanced advice. He chaired the British Medical Association Steering Committee which led to publication in December 2000 of comprehensive practical guidance on the ethical and legal issues which arise in health care of patients under 18, Consent, Rights and Choices in Health Care for Children and Young People.
His standing within the legal profession was recognised when he took silk in 1989, became a Bencher of the Inner Temple in 1993 and sat as an Assistant Recorder from 1990 to1993 and then as a Recorder from 1993 to 2001.
Developments in human-rights law in recent years were seen by Levy as an opportunity for advancing the rights of children. In 1998 he took a case to the European Court of Human Rights which raised an important issue in relation to the use of corporal punishment. A stepfather beat a nine-year-old boy with a garden cane causing the boy to suffer severe bruising. The stepfather was charged with the criminal offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He raised the defence of necessary and reasonable chastisement, and was found not guilty.
On behalf of the child, Levy argued that there had been a breach of the child's right not to be subjected to "inhuman or degrading treatment" under Article 3 of the Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court found that there had been a breach and that in permitting the defence of reasonable chastisement the United Kingdom was failing to protect children from such ill-treatment.
In another case in 1999, he successfully persuaded the House of Lords that it should be possible for a child who had been brought up in local authority care, and who alleged that the negligence of the local authority had caused him psychiatric injury, to bring an action for negligence against that authority.
Even though he was suffering from cancer of the oesophagus, in May and again in July this year he was involved in preparing submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on a matter close to his heart. His concern was the proposal to leave intact the defence of lawful chastisement in offences of common assault. He made his view clear: to do so would not meet the UK's obligations under international human-rights instruments. In the same vein, in July he published an article expressing clearly and passionately his objections to corporal punishment.
Despite his skill in explaining family issues to a public audience through the media, and his friendliness and humour with those he knew, Allan Levy was an unassuming and private man. He had a love of books. His home was full of them and he once said he could not move because he could not move all the books. He had a marvellous collection of Lowry paintings. He was an unfailing supporter of Manchester City Football Club. He loved travel. He would travel to watch the English cricket team aboard, as well as to wilder and more remote shores, as far flung as Antarctica.
Sometimes he would combine his love of travel with lecturing abroad. He was, for example, a speaker at the Seventh International Congress on Child Abuse in Rio de Janeiro in 1988. He had gone to speak about child abuse in the light of the Cleveland Inquiry, but came back deeply struck by the plight of the "street children". This was typical of his compassion and the concern for the rights of children which characterised his life.
Pamela Scriven
Why are pubescent boys being adopted by homosexual couple?
Why are pubescent boys being adopted by homosexual couple?
February 1, 2009
Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx may be stellar individuals and wonderful role models for all I know, but I still have to ask what was their motivation to adopt 3 pubescent boys, and why did the Children's Aid Society allow this to happen to these boys?
I was one of the busiest psychologist consultants for Catholic Children's Aid Society, starting in 1976. I saw hundreds of these unadoptable children. By the time that a foster child had reached 9 or 10, we knew that the child was not going to bond with a parent figure. They were not adoptable. The focus was on providing care and maintaining family relationships, even though those family relationships may have been problematic and the reason why the children were in care in the first place. They needed these primary attachments. In other words, they were Crown Wards with Access. They would grow up in care, but they would remain attached to their birth parents and kinship bonds. These children typically had many problems and did not fit into foster homes, so there were many moves. The growth in group homes came as a result of this population of children who needed basic care but who were not going to form parent-child bonds with anyone else, children who had "special needs," i.e. many emotional and behavioural issues. A Society lawyer was known to say that any kid growing up in Regent Park had been sexually abused before reaching age 12. This was his catchment area but could apply to many neighborhoods, given the large number of pedophiles which live amongst us.
So, back to Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx. Suddenly, 2 homosexuals with presumably no parental experience can deal with not one, not two, but 3 foster boys of the demographic that not even seasoned foster parents can manage in a family setting---pubescent foster boys who may have a history of abuse and expect it and need extra care, children who are vulnerable, distrustful and rebellious. I was especially troubled by the fact that this couple was able to hire their own social service worker to approve their parenting plan. What kind of oversight for vulnerable children is this? It has been demonstrated that the rate of pedophilia is high among homosexual men -- reference the existence and lobbying efforts of the National Man Boy Love Association. This is not to say that every homosexual is a pedophile, of course, or that Mustafa and Groulx are. I want to make it clear that I am not making this assertion about them.
However, given that the incidence of pedophilia is higher among homosexual men, the risk of placement of children, particularly boys, particularly pubescent boys with surging levels of hormones, is necessarily higher. Yet, this risk is not taken into account in adoption placement, and thus there is a dereliction of duty to protect these children. I cannot help but hypothesize that these children are being placed at higher risk in order to placate the homosexual community, but if the child welfare system loses its focus on its mandated priority -- the protection of children -- it loses the reason for its existence and becomes a danger in itself.
I was also concerned about the fact that these boys were moved far away from their community and away from their friends and sources of support and assistance if they run into trouble in their "adoptive family."
I also have other other admittedly dangerous and incendiary questions for the child welfare system. Given that the government provides funding for foster children, and that group homes reap benefits from youths growing up in care, and given that these benefits end when a child is adopted, what is their motivation in providing homes for pubescent boys who don't want to be adopted. Are these children essentially for sale? Is the CAS trying to reduce its liability given the amount of abuse that happens while children are in their care? It appears, that contrary to their legal rights, these children may have been used as property, put up to bidders, without having their legal rights to consent or refuse their placement. The law presumes capacity to make decisions about one's residence, irrespective of age, (Substitute Decisions Act, 1992) but there is nothing in the newspaper article that indicated that these children knew that they had these rights and were able to exercise them. If the Children's Aid Society were to go into the human trafficking business, they have a good supply and there is undoubtedly a high demand.
Dr Marty McKay
February 1, 2009
Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx may be stellar individuals and wonderful role models for all I know, but I still have to ask what was their motivation to adopt 3 pubescent boys, and why did the Children's Aid Society allow this to happen to these boys?
I was one of the busiest psychologist consultants for Catholic Children's Aid Society, starting in 1976. I saw hundreds of these unadoptable children. By the time that a foster child had reached 9 or 10, we knew that the child was not going to bond with a parent figure. They were not adoptable. The focus was on providing care and maintaining family relationships, even though those family relationships may have been problematic and the reason why the children were in care in the first place. They needed these primary attachments. In other words, they were Crown Wards with Access. They would grow up in care, but they would remain attached to their birth parents and kinship bonds. These children typically had many problems and did not fit into foster homes, so there were many moves. The growth in group homes came as a result of this population of children who needed basic care but who were not going to form parent-child bonds with anyone else, children who had "special needs," i.e. many emotional and behavioural issues. A Society lawyer was known to say that any kid growing up in Regent Park had been sexually abused before reaching age 12. This was his catchment area but could apply to many neighborhoods, given the large number of pedophiles which live amongst us.
So, back to Yo Mustafa and Paul Groulx. Suddenly, 2 homosexuals with presumably no parental experience can deal with not one, not two, but 3 foster boys of the demographic that not even seasoned foster parents can manage in a family setting---pubescent foster boys who may have a history of abuse and expect it and need extra care, children who are vulnerable, distrustful and rebellious. I was especially troubled by the fact that this couple was able to hire their own social service worker to approve their parenting plan. What kind of oversight for vulnerable children is this? It has been demonstrated that the rate of pedophilia is high among homosexual men -- reference the existence and lobbying efforts of the National Man Boy Love Association. This is not to say that every homosexual is a pedophile, of course, or that Mustafa and Groulx are. I want to make it clear that I am not making this assertion about them.
However, given that the incidence of pedophilia is higher among homosexual men, the risk of placement of children, particularly boys, particularly pubescent boys with surging levels of hormones, is necessarily higher. Yet, this risk is not taken into account in adoption placement, and thus there is a dereliction of duty to protect these children. I cannot help but hypothesize that these children are being placed at higher risk in order to placate the homosexual community, but if the child welfare system loses its focus on its mandated priority -- the protection of children -- it loses the reason for its existence and becomes a danger in itself.
I was also concerned about the fact that these boys were moved far away from their community and away from their friends and sources of support and assistance if they run into trouble in their "adoptive family."
I also have other other admittedly dangerous and incendiary questions for the child welfare system. Given that the government provides funding for foster children, and that group homes reap benefits from youths growing up in care, and given that these benefits end when a child is adopted, what is their motivation in providing homes for pubescent boys who don't want to be adopted. Are these children essentially for sale? Is the CAS trying to reduce its liability given the amount of abuse that happens while children are in their care? It appears, that contrary to their legal rights, these children may have been used as property, put up to bidders, without having their legal rights to consent or refuse their placement. The law presumes capacity to make decisions about one's residence, irrespective of age, (Substitute Decisions Act, 1992) but there is nothing in the newspaper article that indicated that these children knew that they had these rights and were able to exercise them. If the Children's Aid Society were to go into the human trafficking business, they have a good supply and there is undoubtedly a high demand.
Dr Marty McKay
PINDOWN WAS A BOOMING INDUSTRY - AKA BOOT CAMP
Relief for Teens
January 31, 2009
A small industry exists to correct the behavior of teenagers. Some market their services to parents, claiming that their trained counselors will provide therapy for their clients, others market primarily to criminal courts and child protection agencies. Either way, once the teenager gets into their custody, he gets nothing but boot-camp humiliation. When an inmate has a medical problem, the staff construes it as malingering, and becomes even more abusive, often until it is too late and the child is dead. Since children in these circumstances are often uncooperative and unruly, the camps employ goons to keep them under control, another source of frequent death. Our list of deaths in non-parental care includes 61 caused by "restraint", most in boot camps or mental hospitals.
An article below from the blog of Mother Jones magazine shows that the current economic downturn is forcing many of these camps to close.
expand
collapse
Economy Killing Abusive Teen Programs
Below is a guest blog entry by MoJo author Maia Szalavitz:
There is a silver lining to this bleak economy: Abusive and ineffective "tough love" programs for teens are failing right and left.
In just the last few weeks, the notorious Tranquility Bay program in Jamaica, Spring Creek Lodge in Montana, and Pathway Family Center in Detroit and Ohio have all been shuttered.
Tranquility Bay was known for making kids kneel on concrete for days, using "restraint" so harsh that it broke bones. Both Tranquility Bay and Spring Creek Lodge were part of a network called the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASP or WWASPS)—and the group’s philosophy involves constant use of emotional attacks and humiliation in a rigid, structured day in order to break teens' spirits.
Spring Creek was notorious for a frigid, small isolation room called "the Hobbit"—sometimes teens were left there for months.
From Pathway—which was descended from the infamously abusive Straight Inc.—I received two separate accounts of suicide attempts by girls which were not reported to their parents, and many stories of the usual attack therapy and humiliation. Unfortunately, neither WWASP nor Pathway is completely dead yet: WWASP still has centers operating in the US and abroad, and Pathway has sites in Indiana: Porter and Indianapolis.
The media tends to present these closures as sad examples of needed services being cut—but in fact, teens are better off with no treatment than with treatment that often divides families and has characteristics known to produce post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Family support tends to be crucial to long term recovery—and PTSD doubles the odds that a drug problem will become a lasting addiction.
Troubled teen programs were yet another sign of the bubble economy. Many were financed by mortgage and home equity loans because they cost thousands of dollars a month and because insurers, quite correctly, don't usually pay for programs that aren't proven to help.
Since there are proven alternatives for teens with drug and other problems that do not carry the risks of "tough love," we should greet the closings of these centers with glee. And those who care about this issue should keep the pressure on so that the wounded programs finally die. After all, there are still teens suffering inside, being "treated" without dignity or respect—some of whom were just transferred from closed programs to other similar, sites.
Legislation to ban the most egregious practices is coming—and may well be strengthened now that the Democrats control Congress and the White House. But an even better outcome would be for the "troubled teen" industry to wither and be replaced by what the evidence shows works: community-based, family-centered, minimally restrictive, and youth-driven care.
Maia Szalavitz is the author of "Help At Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids," and Senior Fellow at stats.org.
Posted by Nikki Gloudeman on 01/30/09 at 2:03 PM
Source: Mother Jones blog January 30, 2009
January 31, 2009
A small industry exists to correct the behavior of teenagers. Some market their services to parents, claiming that their trained counselors will provide therapy for their clients, others market primarily to criminal courts and child protection agencies. Either way, once the teenager gets into their custody, he gets nothing but boot-camp humiliation. When an inmate has a medical problem, the staff construes it as malingering, and becomes even more abusive, often until it is too late and the child is dead. Since children in these circumstances are often uncooperative and unruly, the camps employ goons to keep them under control, another source of frequent death. Our list of deaths in non-parental care includes 61 caused by "restraint", most in boot camps or mental hospitals.
An article below from the blog of Mother Jones magazine shows that the current economic downturn is forcing many of these camps to close.
expand
collapse
Economy Killing Abusive Teen Programs
Below is a guest blog entry by MoJo author Maia Szalavitz:
There is a silver lining to this bleak economy: Abusive and ineffective "tough love" programs for teens are failing right and left.
In just the last few weeks, the notorious Tranquility Bay program in Jamaica, Spring Creek Lodge in Montana, and Pathway Family Center in Detroit and Ohio have all been shuttered.
Tranquility Bay was known for making kids kneel on concrete for days, using "restraint" so harsh that it broke bones. Both Tranquility Bay and Spring Creek Lodge were part of a network called the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASP or WWASPS)—and the group’s philosophy involves constant use of emotional attacks and humiliation in a rigid, structured day in order to break teens' spirits.
Spring Creek was notorious for a frigid, small isolation room called "the Hobbit"—sometimes teens were left there for months.
From Pathway—which was descended from the infamously abusive Straight Inc.—I received two separate accounts of suicide attempts by girls which were not reported to their parents, and many stories of the usual attack therapy and humiliation. Unfortunately, neither WWASP nor Pathway is completely dead yet: WWASP still has centers operating in the US and abroad, and Pathway has sites in Indiana: Porter and Indianapolis.
The media tends to present these closures as sad examples of needed services being cut—but in fact, teens are better off with no treatment than with treatment that often divides families and has characteristics known to produce post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Family support tends to be crucial to long term recovery—and PTSD doubles the odds that a drug problem will become a lasting addiction.
Troubled teen programs were yet another sign of the bubble economy. Many were financed by mortgage and home equity loans because they cost thousands of dollars a month and because insurers, quite correctly, don't usually pay for programs that aren't proven to help.
Since there are proven alternatives for teens with drug and other problems that do not carry the risks of "tough love," we should greet the closings of these centers with glee. And those who care about this issue should keep the pressure on so that the wounded programs finally die. After all, there are still teens suffering inside, being "treated" without dignity or respect—some of whom were just transferred from closed programs to other similar, sites.
Legislation to ban the most egregious practices is coming—and may well be strengthened now that the Democrats control Congress and the White House. But an even better outcome would be for the "troubled teen" industry to wither and be replaced by what the evidence shows works: community-based, family-centered, minimally restrictive, and youth-driven care.
Maia Szalavitz is the author of "Help At Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids," and Senior Fellow at stats.org.
Posted by Nikki Gloudeman on 01/30/09 at 2:03 PM
Source: Mother Jones blog January 30, 2009
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
"Safeline" trolls
Looks like I'm going to have the "Safeline" trolls tagging me all over the internet from now on.
Good.
If they are wasting their time tailing me and leaving nasty comments then they have less time to play mind games with more vunerable abuse survivors!
Praise the Lord!
Good.
If they are wasting their time tailing me and leaving nasty comments then they have less time to play mind games with more vunerable abuse survivors!
Praise the Lord!
OPERATION BLAST - WHAT A BLASTED WASTE OF POLICE TIME!
Jersey Police keep secret files on States members
Jersey's Home Affairs minister has told States members the police have been keeping secret files on every elected States member. It was called 'Operation Blast' and was known to only a handful of top police officers.
Each file included a photograph of the member, their full criminal record and information gathered from both local and national police forces.
Senator Ian Le Marquand says the operation was so secret every effort was made to keep the 'recording of the information out of normal procedure.'
The revelation has angered States members. They've been told they can contact the acting police chief but they can't look at their files.
Deputy Trevor Pitman has likened Jersey to Zimbabwe and Deputy Mike Higgins wants to know why, under the Freedom of Information Act, members cannot look at their files.
Senator Stuart Syvret has asked whether any former crown officers knew about 'Operation Blast'. Senator Syvret is also worried MI5 and Special Branch have been gathering information on his involvement with Greenpeace.
Acting Police Chief David Warcup of the States of Jersey Police has issued the following statement:
"Action has already been taken to instigate a review to look at the retention of information within the States of Jersey Police. When the review is complete, I will then determine what if any, action needs to be taken.
I would, however, like to reassure the public that there are clearly laid down and regulated practices and procedures governing the handling of information by the police and I will be making sure that they are fully complied with.
At this time, we have nothing further to add in addition to the minister's statement."
We'll have more on this story in Channel Report on Channel Television, tonight at 6pm.
Jersey's Home Affairs minister has told States members the police have been keeping secret files on every elected States member. It was called 'Operation Blast' and was known to only a handful of top police officers.
Each file included a photograph of the member, their full criminal record and information gathered from both local and national police forces.
Senator Ian Le Marquand says the operation was so secret every effort was made to keep the 'recording of the information out of normal procedure.'
The revelation has angered States members. They've been told they can contact the acting police chief but they can't look at their files.
Deputy Trevor Pitman has likened Jersey to Zimbabwe and Deputy Mike Higgins wants to know why, under the Freedom of Information Act, members cannot look at their files.
Senator Stuart Syvret has asked whether any former crown officers knew about 'Operation Blast'. Senator Syvret is also worried MI5 and Special Branch have been gathering information on his involvement with Greenpeace.
Acting Police Chief David Warcup of the States of Jersey Police has issued the following statement:
"Action has already been taken to instigate a review to look at the retention of information within the States of Jersey Police. When the review is complete, I will then determine what if any, action needs to be taken.
I would, however, like to reassure the public that there are clearly laid down and regulated practices and procedures governing the handling of information by the police and I will be making sure that they are fully complied with.
At this time, we have nothing further to add in addition to the minister's statement."
We'll have more on this story in Channel Report on Channel Television, tonight at 6pm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)