Check out the link. It seems someone has been up to their old tricks of insults & accusations.
http://www.romancingvictims.net/activist.html
Saturday, 3 January 2015
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Prairie Bible Institute Abuse Scandal
Now a year after the Three Hills and Alberta RCMP concluded their investigation I am re-posting a historical summary I did at the time (see below). Since the RCMP investigation never had much to investigate and now appears unlikely to ever proceed, this blog will be closed. A big thank-you to all the
Monday, 1 April 2013
Two Methods For Reaching Conclusions
You may have noticed that the activists are reluctant of using words
like "alleged" when discussing the accusations of abuse at PBI. Instead
they repeatedly refer to the various people involved as "victims" or
"abusers" without regard to the fact that an investigation has taken
place through the RCMP and established that there is no evidence to
support the accusations. When questioned about this the activists will
speak of the importance of
Sunday, 10 February 2013
G.R.A.C.E. Dismissed from Abuse Investigation for Bias & Unprofessional Conduct
Update Feb 25, 2014: Bob Jones U has once again reversed their decision, tossed by the wind it would seem. They have now rehired G.R.A.C.E. to resume the non-due process pseudo investigation/kangaroo court.
[ Update Feb 10, 2014: Last week yet another G.R.A.C.E. pseudo-investigation was brought to a halt. A university in South Carolina named Bob Jones University which originally seemed to accept the flawed reasoning of G.R.A.C.E. has now decided to terminate that kangaroo court after all. Better late than never. The G.R.A.C.E. activists are predictably up in arms demanding that Boz and his crystal ball get reinstated rather than advocate for a proper due process investigation by the proper authorities. That is telling of course.
If there is sufficient evidence for a legitimate verdict then proper due process will follow it. If little to no evidence, well, that is where G.R.A.C.E. and their circular reasoning come in. Of course there is no actual legitimacy in that. If Bob Jones University is interested in following the evidence wherever it leads then they must encourage the full strength of law enforcement to investigate and forget the kangaroo court offered by G.R.A.C.E. who at best collect accusations without the true power to investigate them and then offer a rubberstamp based on their self declared "expert opinion"
News flash: Opinions are of little value compared to proper due process objectively examining the evidence.
History is littered with examples of due process being so lightly regarded, for instance the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition or even the "trial" of Jesus.
A proper civil investigation following due process can achieve any objective or avenue that G.R.A.C.E. can only better because the civil authorities can do much more since they have actual authority. For example;
They can compel testimony, They can issue warrants so they can seize records & evidence, They can subpena.
They can use forensic science to analyze evidence.
They can arrest.
They can hold a trial according to due process (for example the counsel for the accused gets to cross examine any accuser).
They can imprison and throw away the key.
Due Process offers a result FAR, FAR superior. A result far less likely to be contested.
G.R.A.C.E. offers none of that, thus a kangaroo court.
Of course due process requires EVIDENCE not just accusations & rhetoric.
I say convince the proper authorities to pursue the matter. I recommend that to everyone, the University, the accused & the accusers. At the end no one can gripe about a rigged process. If the evidence is there then the civil authorities will be happy to pursue it. If the evidence is not there to compel the civil authorities then that is not the problem of the University, they don't need to drastically lower the evidence bar for a pseudo-investigation which will only end up highly contested because proper due process was not followed.
As an abuse advocacy group G.R.A.C.E. may have some valuable tips regarding policy to consider but leave any investigation to those with the POWER & AUTHORITY to properly carry it out.
I strongly encourage that.
What exactly is G.R.A.C.E.'s intent? If it is to investigate criminal or potentially criminal behavior they have no authority to do that. Any of the accusations mentioned which contain that element are best handled by the civil authorities as a truly independent third party, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Even if GRACE were held in high esteem by all (which obviously is not the case) they would at best be a needless & toothless redundancy or worse, their meddling could botch a police investigation.
If their intent is to only deal with non-criminal elements they have a different problem namely that those issues would therefore be legal and entirely within the liberty of the University to decide how to proceed. G.R.A.C.E. would have no more right to impose their standards of behavior on BJU than would BJU have the right to impose theirs on anyone else.
If their intent is to act only as a mediator or ombudsmen (as BJU seems to understand it) then they should not cross out of those bounds. Meaning they hear complaints and try to help resolve them but have no formal ability to determine what criminal accusations are TRUE. That is a police & courts matter. GRACE could only offer a subjective opinion based on their experience, credible or not. Thus highly contestable and unlikely to be of much use. Let the police & courts deal with anything illegal. Anything that's legal, well that is BJU's right to decide like it or not, we all get that right.
As the commissioning authority it is for BJU to decide what they want the role & scope of the ombudsman to be. Anything beyond that can only be mandated by the civil authorities.
Over 7000 views on this post in the past 3 days. Perhaps the G.R.A.C.E. bubble has burst. ]
[Original post]
The prior decision by PBI to not hire G.R.A.C.E. due to concern regarding the poor reputation and conflicting behavior of G.R.A.C.E. has now been vindicated. The advocacy group Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment or G.R.A.C.E. has just been dismissed from another investigation as a result of their
[ Update Feb 10, 2014: Last week yet another G.R.A.C.E. pseudo-investigation was brought to a halt. A university in South Carolina named Bob Jones University which originally seemed to accept the flawed reasoning of G.R.A.C.E. has now decided to terminate that kangaroo court after all. Better late than never. The G.R.A.C.E. activists are predictably up in arms demanding that Boz and his crystal ball get reinstated rather than advocate for a proper due process investigation by the proper authorities. That is telling of course.
If there is sufficient evidence for a legitimate verdict then proper due process will follow it. If little to no evidence, well, that is where G.R.A.C.E. and their circular reasoning come in. Of course there is no actual legitimacy in that. If Bob Jones University is interested in following the evidence wherever it leads then they must encourage the full strength of law enforcement to investigate and forget the kangaroo court offered by G.R.A.C.E. who at best collect accusations without the true power to investigate them and then offer a rubberstamp based on their self declared "expert opinion"
News flash: Opinions are of little value compared to proper due process objectively examining the evidence.
History is littered with examples of due process being so lightly regarded, for instance the Salem witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition or even the "trial" of Jesus.
A proper civil investigation following due process can achieve any objective or avenue that G.R.A.C.E. can only better because the civil authorities can do much more since they have actual authority. For example;
They can compel testimony, They can issue warrants so they can seize records & evidence, They can subpena.
They can use forensic science to analyze evidence.
They can arrest.
They can hold a trial according to due process (for example the counsel for the accused gets to cross examine any accuser).
They can imprison and throw away the key.
Due Process offers a result FAR, FAR superior. A result far less likely to be contested.
G.R.A.C.E. offers none of that, thus a kangaroo court.
Of course due process requires EVIDENCE not just accusations & rhetoric.
I say convince the proper authorities to pursue the matter. I recommend that to everyone, the University, the accused & the accusers. At the end no one can gripe about a rigged process. If the evidence is there then the civil authorities will be happy to pursue it. If the evidence is not there to compel the civil authorities then that is not the problem of the University, they don't need to drastically lower the evidence bar for a pseudo-investigation which will only end up highly contested because proper due process was not followed.
As an abuse advocacy group G.R.A.C.E. may have some valuable tips regarding policy to consider but leave any investigation to those with the POWER & AUTHORITY to properly carry it out.
I strongly encourage that.
What exactly is G.R.A.C.E.'s intent? If it is to investigate criminal or potentially criminal behavior they have no authority to do that. Any of the accusations mentioned which contain that element are best handled by the civil authorities as a truly independent third party, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Even if GRACE were held in high esteem by all (which obviously is not the case) they would at best be a needless & toothless redundancy or worse, their meddling could botch a police investigation.
If their intent is to only deal with non-criminal elements they have a different problem namely that those issues would therefore be legal and entirely within the liberty of the University to decide how to proceed. G.R.A.C.E. would have no more right to impose their standards of behavior on BJU than would BJU have the right to impose theirs on anyone else.
If their intent is to act only as a mediator or ombudsmen (as BJU seems to understand it) then they should not cross out of those bounds. Meaning they hear complaints and try to help resolve them but have no formal ability to determine what criminal accusations are TRUE. That is a police & courts matter. GRACE could only offer a subjective opinion based on their experience, credible or not. Thus highly contestable and unlikely to be of much use. Let the police & courts deal with anything illegal. Anything that's legal, well that is BJU's right to decide like it or not, we all get that right.
As the commissioning authority it is for BJU to decide what they want the role & scope of the ombudsman to be. Anything beyond that can only be mandated by the civil authorities.
Over 7000 views on this post in the past 3 days. Perhaps the G.R.A.C.E. bubble has burst. ]
[Original post]
The prior decision by PBI to not hire G.R.A.C.E. due to concern regarding the poor reputation and conflicting behavior of G.R.A.C.E. has now been vindicated. The advocacy group Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment or G.R.A.C.E. has just been dismissed from another investigation as a result of their
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
RCMP Cease Investigation of allegations citing "no evidence"
“We investigated every one of those complaints and there’s no information or no evidence to support any charges,” said Three Hills RCMP Sgt. Joe Sangster as quoted in the Calgary Herald
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)