ACC advisor Felicity Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she suggested?
Kerry
own acceptible framework, made recommendations that ACC took up in the
disastrous changes to the eligibility last year.
Why did ACC follow the advice of a member of the centrepoint
community, whose husband and father in law were imprisoned for sexual
abuse, who defends child sexual abuse as 'natural'? Why wont they
comment?
Why did they think it ok to follow the advice of someone with such an
outstated view against the harmful effects of child sexual abuse? Do
they not have rules about independent advice?
Good old NZ. Follow anyone's "good idea" if it might save you money
"Professor Felicity Goodyear-Smith is a senior academic and doctor who
was commissioned by ACC to research sexual abuse counselling. She is
also the daughter-in-law of Centrepoint guru and paedophile Bert
Potter, is married to a convicted sex offender and has controversial
views on the workings of the 'sexual abuse industry'. Tim Hume
examines allegations of Goodyear-Smith's influence in ACC's recent
drastic cut in support for victims of sex crimes.
LAST OCTOBER, ACC changed the rules governing the support available to
victims of sex crimes, introducing a heavily criticised new regime
that severely restricted access to counselling.
But what most concerned critics was an apparent similarity between a
requirement in the new "clinical pathway", and a recommendation
contained in research ACC had commissioned from a controversial senior
academic. The research was led by Professor Felicity Goodyear-Smith,
who has been a vocal detractor of the field of sexual abuse
counselling and who, as the daughter-in-law of Centrepoint founder
Bert Potter, has ongoing personal relationships with convicted child
sex offenders.
During the eight months following the clinical pathway's introduction,
ACC paid out $7 million less to 2889 fewer claimants than it had over
the same period a year previous. Approved new claims, running at 1313
in the eight months prior to the pathway's introduction, subsequently
dropped to 240 over the same length of time. Among the hundreds to
have their claims denied were two women believed to have later
committed suicide.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/4072453/ACC-adviser-silent-on-links-to-sex-abusers
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4069062/Conflicting-interests
Kerry
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:52:07 -0700, Kerry wrote:
> > Among the hundreds to have their claims denied were two women believed
> > to have later committed suicide.
>
>
> --
> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
It's known they committed suicide and were distressed by being
forbidden counselling under acc at the time of the suicide
Kerry
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:18:15 -0700, Kerry wrote:
> >> You mean it's not known for certain?
>
> > counselling under acc at the time of the suicide
>
>
> --
> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
I didn't But the journalist did
Here's another interesting bit
"Says the father of one of Potter's victims: "There were serious
hardcore paedophiles there, guys who sought out sex with children."
The man's daughter was first abused by Potter aged two, and it
continued for seven years. He says he finds it hard to understand how
Goodyear-Smith emerged from the Centrepoint experience with a
conviction that false sexual abuse allegations abound, when the abuse
that took place in the Albany commune was real, entrenched, and
persisted for years."
John Cawston
So all those bizarre allegations against peter Ellis were true?
And all those police reports of false sexual abuse and rape complaints
aren't true?
Just like there's no hiding the fact that sexual abuse and rape occurs,
so too is there clear evidence that false complaints of same occur.. in
varying degrees of 15-50% of all complaints. Goodyear-Smith is simply
one of the very few people who points out the nonsense from the sexual
abuse industry.. and is vilified for it.
JC
Kerry
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:52:14 -0700, Kerry wrote:
> >> > It's known they committed suicide and were distressed by being
> >> > forbidden counselling under acc at the time of the suicide
>
> >> So why say "believed to have later..." when you knew for certain?
>
>
>
Anything to say about the actual issue, or just the trivialities?
nz.general the thinking woman's hangout. I don't know how I manage to
stay away so long....
Kerry
The vast majority of the sexually abused never make any kind of
complaint
Do you ever wonder why?
Kerry
Hmm on reading again - what does this have to do with what I posted?
F G-S is a proponent that sexual abuse is ok, that it is the therapy
that damages kids
Anything to say about that?
John Cawston
No.
Because a) It never happened
b) They didn't recognise it was SA
c) It didn't reach a level they considered significant
d) The sexual abuse "counselors" haven't met them yet.
e) They haven't "recovered" their memory of it yet.
JC
>
>
>
Ted
> Goodyear-Smith a well-known defender of child sexual abuse within her
> own acceptible framework,
A defender of child sexual abuse? That's difficult to believe. Can
you supply a link to where she defends child sexual abuse?
John Cawston
Cite? I am aware she has questioned the mantra that all sexual abuse has
a bad effect on victims, and has quoted various followup studies.
that it is the therapy
> that damages kids
As even you agreed in the Civic Creche Case. The word we used was
"evil", remember?
>
> Anything to say about that?
Merely that FGS has a long professional history of working for the Crown
as a rape expert, and a equally long time defending people from
accusations of abuse.. especially where such allegations have arisen
from child custody cases and women with a history of such allegations or
other unrelated mental illness. She has been particularly scathing about
the abuse industry and the Civic Creche Case.
JC
>
Fred
"Kerry" <oxyt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5045a18b-f2d7-48c9...@y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 3:50 pm, Sweetpea <Herit...@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:18:15 -0700, Kerry wrote:
> >> You mean it's not known for certain?
>
> > It's known they committed suicide and were distressed by being forbidden
> > counselling under acc at the time of the suicide
>
> So why say "believed to have later..." when you knew for certain?
>
> --
> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
I didn't But the journalist did
Here's another interesting bit
"Says the father of one of Potter's victims: "There were serious
hardcore paedophiles there, guys who sought out sex with children."
The man's daughter was first abused by Potter aged two,
Who would bother reading anything else by that journalist after that? I
wouldn't even finish the article.
WorkHard
How unusual that you wouldn't accept the words of Herr Doctor Kerry.
Ted
Sometimes, WorkHard, I wonder whether you exist in the same universe
as me.
WorkHard
> On Aug 29, 10:49 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> Ted wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 2:52 pm, Kerry <oxytoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Goodyear-Smith a well-known defender of child sexual abuse within
>>>> her own acceptible framework,
>>
>>> A defender of child sexual abuse? That's difficult to believe. Can
>>> you supply a link to where she defends child sexual abuse?
>>
>> How unusual that you wouldn't accept the words of Herr Doctor Kerry.
>
> Sometimes, WorkHard, I wonder whether you exist in the same universe
> as me.
There's no doubt... you are from a black hole far far away. How you got
here, who knows. Perhaps it spat you out.
george
She can't.
And as a 'health' professional she knows that but in order to belittle
the extensive studies and reports from Professor Felicity Goodyear-
Smith who evidently has seen the problem from both sides has to make
unsupportable assertions
Allistar
You mean they had to pay for it themselves instead of ACC, which is for
accidents. What happened to them was tragic, but still not an accident. Just
because ACC has money to pay out doesn't mean it should pay out for
everything. What does the first "A" stand for again? It's not "Victims of
crime compensation corporation", or VCCC, it's ACC.
--
Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who
tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends.
Ted
Making an unsupportable assertion of a defamatory nature... that would
be slander, wouldn't it? Or is that libel?
george
I have attended lectures by Professor Felicity Goodyear-
Smith, at no time has she 'defended' child sexual abuse' and take
exception to the following claim from Kerry:
Ted
Since Kerry has asserted that Goodyear-Smith defends child sexual
abuse and that it's well-known, then Kerry should have no trouble
suppling a link to where Goodyear-Smith does defend child sexual
abuse.
george
True.
However Kerry is a post and dash poster
Multiple-inboxes-user
> > >"Says the father of one of Potter's victims: "There were serious
> > >hardcore paedophiles there, guys who sought out sex with children."
> > >The man's daughter was first abused by Potter aged two (and it
> > >continued for seven years.)
> > Who would bother reading anything else by that journalist after that? I
> > wouldn't even finish the article.
> Wasn't Potter was very young, aged two, to be molesting children?
Both of you who misread what journalist was really saying, can't you
see that
age two refers to the victim, not the perpetratror ? !!! Either you
are stupid as a hell,
or you are trying to emulate stupid Felicity Goodyear-Smith who is a
daughter-in-law of a paedophile Bert Potter and is married to a
convicted sex offender and has stupid views on the workings of
the 'sexual abuse industry'."
Or you are both!!! To hell with you all!!!!
WorkHard
ROFL
Multiple-inboxes-user
> On , , Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:04:38 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
> You need to relax.
I'll tell you when I will be able to relax !!!
Not until the Felicity Goodyear-Smith's Father-in-law is living
peaceful life in pensioner's flat instead of jail !!!! Read the
f...ing article!!!
"TODAY, POTTER (the stupid Felicity's Father-in-law) lives in a
ramshackle $18-a-week pensioner's flat north of Auckland amidst a
paedophile's solitude, a portrait of himself on the wall smiling
beatifically. The 85-year-old has the long, matted white beard of a
swami. He does not resile from anything he brought about with
Centrepoint, telling the Star-Times in May that the former child
residents who claimed abuse were only imagining their trauma. 'A lot
of things that [the former residents] are quoting as damaging are
because they've been told that they're damaging.' He would love to get
the community up and running again. But following Centrepoint's
acrimonious disintegration, he has little contact with anyone from the
community, save for his son and Goodyear-Smith. He regards his
daughter-in-law as 'probably the one researcher in NZ who is capable
of doing sexual research'. His only other contact is regular phone
calls from Dave Mendelssohn, the slow-talking former deputy who is
still deeply connected to his spiritual teacher. Mendelssohn was one
of Centrepoint's worst sex offenders – like his guru, an unabashed
paedophile who feels no guilt for his actions because he believes he
did nothing wrong."
If a child initiates sexual contact with an adult it ABSOLUTELY shows
that the child has been harmed before. If an adult accepts that sexual
advance it ABSOLUTELY is a crime. An adult knows that sex with a child
is wrong and illegal and should 100% of the time say no and maybe even
report that the child might need help. For ANY adult to accept sexual
advances from a child it shows that the adult has issues. Adults are
in a position of authority at all times and they are at all times to
remember that they are the adult and should always lead properly and
safely. A child who initiates contact is still a child, still an
innocent child in need of protection, including from him or herself.
Sexual contact with a minor is always wrong and is always the fault of
the adult, always, always, always no matter that child’s history it is
always the fault of the adult….always.
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
She supports it as in she doesn't recognise it as being an issue. She
believes child sex (which the rest of society condemns) is not always
harmful and is only an issue when the "sexual abuse industry" gets
involved, namely, Psychologists, Psychotherapists and Counsellors.
'False Memory syndrome' is a term she uses designed by peophiles and
NOT recognised in DSM-IV or other diagnostic models. So to say she
supports something she doesn't for the most part think exists is hard
to say but even hard NOT TO SAY. However, her so called research is
disputed by the 'actual' experts working currently working is the
areas, and even the Supreme Court overturned an Appeal Court decision
where she presented some of this "research".
She researches solely in the area of sexual abuse for the purpose of
getting offenders off child sexual abuse charges. Oh yeah, and there
is the fact she is part of a family with convictions for child sex
(remember our low conviction rates in NZ) and she still assoicates
with them all... including Dave M (as talked about in the article).
So she 'supports' child sexual abuse as fair as I'm concerned.
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a lot of rubbish! Where do you get your stats from there JC??
John Potter and the MENZ website by any chance?
Show us the stats that say 15-50%.....or do you assume that a not
guilty verdict means it was a false complaint? In NZ in case you have
forgotton, not gulity doesn't mean 'innocent' just not enough evidence
to convict. Just ask David Bain about that!!
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are you taking exception George?
Why do you think DSAC won't allow her to be a member any longer? DSAC
(Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care) are not just GP's.... they include
Psychiatrists, Pathologists, Pediatricians etc etc. Now why aren't
they letting her be a member any longer? Oh yeah, they also must be
part of the "sexual abuse industry". NOT! Wake up!!
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyone has been scathing about the Civic Creche Case, she is not
alone there. But the "sexual abuse industry"? In case, you forget
people go to their GP or an ACC accredited counsellor for help. It's
not counsellors standing on street corners saying, 'come get free
sexual abuse counselling'. Also, people generally have to pay a part
charge on top of the ACC subsidy when having counselling... it's not
FREE counselling like in the mental health service (that requires you
to have a moderate to severe mental illness) and even then, they (the
mental health service) tell you to apply for ACC counselling for the
counselling in the community as they don't have the staff or resources
to handle the DEMAND! So, if we follow the conspiracy theory we would
have to say the Mental Health Service are in on the game also!
John Cawston
> On Aug 29, 4:07 pm, John Cawston<rewar...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 29/Aug-2010 3:52 p.m., Kerry wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 3:50 pm, Sweetpea<Herit...@Sweetpea.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:18:15 -0700, Kerry wrote:
>> So all those bizarre allegations against peter Ellis were true?
>>
>> And all those police reports of false sexual abuse and rape complaints
>> aren't true?
>>
>> Just like there's no hiding the fact that sexual abuse and rape occurs,
>> so too is there clear evidence that false complaints of same occur.. in
>> varying degrees of 15-50% of all complaints. Goodyear-Smith is simply
>> one of the very few people who points out the nonsense from the sexual
>> abuse industry.. and is vilified for it.
>>
>> JC- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What a lot of rubbish! Where do you get your stats from there JC??
> John Potter and the MENZ website by any chance?
No. That range comes from half a dozen NZ newspapers of comments from
the police of the many, many times they have to deal with false rape and
abuse accusations. Thats further supported by the cases that get
reported to police, only about 40% meet a standard for prosecution and
of these the majority get thrown out.
Further confirmation of this comes from the big studies in the US, and
the individual cases where DNA is showing many so called rapists could
not have committed the particular crime.
> Show us the stats that say 15-50%.....or do you assume that a not
> guilty verdict means it was a false complaint? In NZ in case you have
> forgotton, not gulity doesn't mean 'innocent' just not enough evidence
> to convict. Just ask David Bain about that!!
"Not guilty" means not guilty. "Not enough evidence" means its a bum case.
And in the case of a current advert where children are encouraged to
report anything "yucky" that occurs.. means that every normal child
should report most uncles and aunts who swoop in for an embrace. Any
such indoctrinated child observing the typical before and aftermath of a
funeral would perforce consider the event as a meeting of pedophiles and
other sexual deviants.
Felicity Goodyear-Smith is a breath of fresh in a culture that states
750,000 New Zealanders have been abused as children.. according to the
criteria established by the fanatics and beneficiaries of the child
abuse industry.
JC
g...@inspire.net.nz
AGAIN YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING THE STATS or REFERENCES ...and for these
MANY MANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (please refer). LOOK FORWARD TO
THOSE :)
>
> "Not guilty" means not guilty. "Not enough evidence" means its a bum case.
I AGREE... NOT GUILTY MEANS NOT GUILTY RATHER THAN INNOCENT. I DON'T
RECALL 'bum case' BEING USED IN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY THOUGH. LOL
>
> And in the case of a current advert where children are encouraged to
> report anything "yucky" that occurs.. means that every normal child
> should report most uncles and aunts who swoop in for an embrace. Any
> such indoctrinated child observing the typical before and aftermath of a
> funeral would perforce consider the event as a meeting of pedophiles and
> other sexual deviants.
OH YES AND THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME DOESN'T IT ESPECALLY AFTER
FUNERALS? WTF? THE POLICE PROBABLY GETS HEAPS OF THOSE TOO A, LOL.
>
> Felicity Goodyear-Smith is a breath of fresh in a culture that states
> 750,000 New Zealanders have been abused as children.. according to the
> criteria established by the fanatics and beneficiaries of the child
> abuse industry.
REALLY BECAUSE THE STATS I HAVE COME FROM THE POLICE AND OTHER
PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATIONS! EVER WONDER WHY PEOPLE MIGHT BE ON A
BENEFIT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
ITS SO GOOD THAT NO ONE YOU KNOW HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED and YOU ARE
A 'FUNCTIONAL' ADULT. SO WHY THEN ARE YOU SO INVESTED IN THIS CAUSE?
SOME OTHER REASON PERHAPS??
IN CASE YOUR NEXT COMMENT IS TO SAY I MUST BE A FUNDENTAMENTAL
CHRSITAIN OR FEMISTIST (I can't even spell the word) as is standard
practice from FGS and those on your MENZ website..... I am neither. I
AM A MARRIED REGISTERED HEALTH PROFESSIONAL WORKING IN THE PUBLIC
SYSTEM AND AM NOT PART OF THIS SO CALLED CREATED "SEXUAL ABUSE
INDUSTRY" (your and FGS expression.....not mine)
Ted
Hold on. First, "not recognising it as being an issue" is *not the
same* as supporting it. Your statement is a distortion. And second, I
can't believe that Goodyear-Smith doesn't see child sexual abuse as an
issue. Perhaps you could supply a link to where she says that child
sexual abuse is not something to be concerned about.
> She
> believes child sex (which the rest of society condemns) is not always
> harmful and is only an issue when the "sexual abuse industry" gets
> involved, namely, Psychologists, Psychotherapists and Counsellors.
> 'False Memory syndrome' is a term she uses designed by peophiles and
> NOT recognised in DSM-IV or other diagnostic models.
> So to say she
> supports something she doesn't for the most part think exists is hard
> to say but even hard NOT TO SAY.
That's confused and unclear.
> However, her so called research is
> disputed by the 'actual' experts working currently working is the
> areas, and even the Supreme Court overturned an Appeal Court decision
> where she presented some of this "research".
So some authorities dispute what she says. Take a look at the title
of this thread - "why did ACC do what she suggested?" That implies
that other authorities go along with what she says.
>
> She researches solely in the area of sexual abuse for the purpose of
> getting offenders off child sexual abuse charges.
Or maybe for defending the accused. Sounds like you believe that
child sexual abuse is so serious that even innocence is no defence.
Do you believe that child sexual abuse is so serious that even
innocence is no defence?
> Oh yeah, and there
> is the fact she is part of a family with convictions for child sex
> (remember our low conviction rates in NZ) and she still assoicates
> with them all... including Dave M (as talked about in the article).
>
> So she 'supports' child sexual abuse as fair as I'm concerned.
In other words, you made that up and are trying to justify it through
word play. I would prefer to see some evidence.
Ted
> ITS SO GOOD THAT NO ONE YOU KNOW HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED and YOU ARE
> A 'FUNCTIONAL' ADULT. SO WHY THEN ARE YOU SO INVESTED IN THIS CAUSE?
Perhaps the other poster has an objection to injustice.
> SOME OTHER REASON PERHAPS??
I read this as an attempt to imply that the other poster supports
pedophilia. If that was your intent, it is despicable. It is
dishonest, and must affect how your other statements are seen.
g...@inspire.net.nz
OH SO YOU CAME UP WITH PEDOPHILIA? INTERESTING! I WAS ACTUALLY
MEANING THEY WERE FRIENDS OR FAMILY OF JP AND FGS. BUT THERE YOU GO!
WorkHard
Shouting and trying to ram things down peoples' throats only make you look
like an idiot and won't get you anywhere.
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
YES I AGREE. ABSOLUTELY IS A CRIME..... EVEN THE COURTS AND POLICE
RECOGNISE THAT! SHAME FGS AND HER MENZ DON'T!
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> Shouting and trying to ram things down peoples' throats only make you look
> like an idiot and won't get you anywhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh and name calling doesn't make you look the same WorkHard?
I'm not trying to 'get anywhere' ..... I am already here.... LOL
Ted
> On Sep 2, 3:30 am, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 10:59 pm, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > > ITS SO GOOD THAT NO ONE YOU KNOW HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED and YOU ARE
> > > A 'FUNCTIONAL' ADULT. SO WHY THEN ARE YOU SO INVESTED IN THIS CAUSE?
>
> > Perhaps the other poster has an objection to injustice.
>
> > > SOME OTHER REASON PERHAPS??
>
> > I read this as an attempt to imply that the other poster supports
> > pedophilia. If that was your intent, it is despicable. It is
> > dishonest, and must affect how your other statements are seen.
>
> OH SO YOU CAME UP WITH PEDOPHILIA? INTERESTING!
... and I read this as a repetition of the accusation, this time
against me.
> I WAS ACTUALLY
> MEANING THEY WERE FRIENDS OR FAMILY OF JP AND FGS.
I don't believe you.
> BUT THERE YOU GO!
Ted
> On Sep 2, 12:25 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Shouting and trying to ram things down peoples' throats only make you look
> > like an idiot and won't get you anywhere.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh and name calling doesn't make you look the same WorkHard?
I see that you are agreeing with WorkHard here. In this instance, so
do I.
> I'm not trying to 'get anywhere' ..... I am already here....
Your agenda is obvious.
> LOL
John Cawston
You have to have some sympathy.. the poor thing's ACC gravytrain has
been choked off. No longer are the magic words "You've been abused" good
enough for an indefinite amount of counseling.
JC
>
>> LOL
>
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What gravy train is that JC? I at receiving NOTHING from ACC and I am
in employment... are you?
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which poor dear is that JC? I am in employment.... I have had NOTHING
cut off that I know of? Are you in employment JC or does that wife of
yours keep you while you play computers all day?? As maybe that
explains the 'gravy train' you are referring to?
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry JC... I didn't read your comment correctly the first time. No I
am not getting counselling or anything from ACC..... and nor was I
someone who had their much needed counselling discontinued or
refused. But you have made your agenda clear with this statement.
Counselling..... since when is that a gravy train for the client?
Maybe you need to go back to your like minded friends at MENZ where
all that rubbish comes from.
Kerry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Felicity Goodyear Smith is often called by the defence in abuse cases
This is because of her beliefs about abuse and its effects
Kerry
> On Aug 30, 12:29 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 8:13 am, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 29, 6:07 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 29, 2:52 pm, Kerry <oxytoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Goodyear-Smith a well-known defender of child sexual abuse within her
> > > > > own acceptible framework,
>
> > > > A defender of child sexual abuse? That's difficult to believe. Can
> > > > you supply a link to where she defends child sexual abuse?
>
> > > She can't.
> > > And as a 'health' professional she knows that but in order to belittle
> > > the extensive studies and reports from Professor Felicity Goodyear-
> > > Smith who evidently has seen the problem from both sides has to make
> > > unsupportable assertions
>
> > Making an unsupportable assertion of a defamatory nature... that would
> > be slander, wouldn't it? Or is that libel?
>
> I have attended lectures by Professor Felicity Goodyear-
> Smith, at no time has she 'defended' child sexual abuse' and take
> exception to the following claim from Kerry:
> "> Goodyear-Smith a well-known defender of child sexual abuse within
> her
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Felicity Goodyear Smith's book First Do No Harm which argues strongly
that child abuse is a problem grossly exaggerated by mental health
professionals and that there is little scientific evidence to support
the view that sexual activity between adults and children is
inevitably harmful. The author suggests that the banning of pro-
paedophilia organisations is a result of our "sexually repressive"
attitudes. She thinks the age of consent should be abandoned as
unenforceable and trails the argument that an older man may be a
better "sexual initiator" for a young women than a boy of her own
age."
"Felicity Goodyear-Smith: "Sexual abuse workers usually operate under
the assumption that all sexual activity between adults and children is
inevitably harmful. This is not actually supported by the limited
sociological and psychological evidence available." (First Do No Harm,
1993) "
Goodyear-Smith: "Being a victim of sexual abuse can be an excellent
scapegoat. Many people who discover that they were abused as children
then blame all their social and psychological problems on this
experience. This can effectively absolve them from responsibility for
their subsequent behaviour." (FDNH) "Today, in some circles it is even
chic to be a victim." (FDNH)
"There’s also the fact that author Felicity Goodyear-Smith is the
founder of COSA, Casualties of Sexual Abuse, an organisation that
wants to see fewer convictions for sexual violence crimes because it
argues many of those convicted are innocent.
She’s also the author of First Do No Harm, in which she argues adult-
child sex can be harmless.
"
I know Felicity Goodyear Smith does lots of great work as a doctor and
an educatator. As I said, not an unbiased person in the field of
sexual abuse and its ramifications. Should such a biased person be
the sole informant in a sexual abuse assessment and treatment policy?
Kerry
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is true that I rarely venture into nz. general, and when I do I
quickly regret bothering to talk with the intellectually impaired that
linger here aimless, except to viciously snap the ankles of those who
occasionally walk by. Think of angry dogs on short chains in denuded
gardens and you get my drift.
But ALP, Sue, Cliff, Kaye, Gaye, David and others of sanity I do not
have time to recount, and those delightful erudite folk long gone -
realising the futility of wrestling with pigs long before I - I salute
you and miss the days when intelligent people walked these shores.
Yes, I dash for a reason. I feel so unclean seeing the minds at work
here.
WorkHard
> On Sep 2, 12:25 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Shouting and trying to ram things down peoples' throats only make
>> you look like an idiot and won't get you anywhere.- Hide quoted text
>> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh and name calling doesn't make you look the same WorkHard?
Who gives a fuck? I had a valid and constructive criticism about your
posting style.
WorkHard
Yes, it is. But what concerns me is that the subject claims to work in the
health sector. Must be the psych ward.
Seems to me the subject needs all the help it can get.
WorkHard
So much for calling people names. Seems when it comes down to it, abuse is
all you have to offer.
My guess is you've escaped the psych ward but will be back there soon
enough.
WorkHard
Nor do I!
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh how sad that when your arguements fail you try attacking people.
Oh let me guess, the public 'psych system' is also in on this
"conspiracy theory" of yours? LOL You people totally crack me up.
Are you for real?
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok which is it Workhard... patient or staff member.... make ya mind
up! LOL Not that where I work or don't work (in this case) changes
the arguements presented. But it's good you recognise how people with
"associations" could possibly have other motives. This is actually
the arguement presented. That being if EVERYONE knows about FGS
assoications with the sexual offending community how does that make
her the best person to research for the counselling needs of
survivers. So thanks for bringing us back to the issue at hand :)
John Cawston
Then you had better ring up your own peers and have a go at them for
praising the new, well communicated guidelines developed by Massey and
implemented by ACC. They particularly admire the fact that the
guidelines are "evidence based":
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0911/S00005.htm
"GPs welcome evidence-based care guidelines
Monday, 2 November 2009, 11:09 am
Press Release: Royal NZ College of General Practitioners
Media Release
2 November 2009
GPs’ College welcomes evidence-based care guidelines
The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners has welcomed
moves by ACC to follow evidence-based care guidelines for sensitive
claims clients.
College president, Dr Harry Pert, said the new guidelines will ensure
patients receive best practice care that has been proven to deliver
optimum results.
“The team approach has been proven to be the most effective in cases of
mild to moderate mental injury.” Dr Pert said.
“Recent pilot programmes have shown that very good results come from
doctors working together with counsellors, psychologists and others.”
“ACC’s practice guidelines for sexual abuse and mental injury will
strengthen these results still further. All the clinical evidence
suggests the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the best interests
of the patient,” Dr Pert said.
“By working with psychologists early on, GPs, counsellors and others
will be able to provide the best and most focussed care possible.”
ACC’s new treatment framework is in line with the recommendations of the
Massey guidelines for the assessment and treatment of mental injury as a
result of sexual assault and sexual abuse.
Published in 2008, the Massey guidelines outline a clear, evidence-based
approach for the most effective treatment and rehabilitation of people
who have suffered sexual abuse.
“The provision of safe, quality treatment and care that suits patients’
needs and provides them with the very best health outcomes, is a major
goal of the College. It is very pleasing to know that ACC’s new approach
is based on extensive research and clinical evidence,” Dr Pert said."
You could also look at the Massey report:
http://whatumanawa.massey.ac.nz/reports/tech_reports.htm
Particularly the first pdf which shows NZ research on the topic. FGS is
just one of many.
JC
>
Kerry
And dear Brian
Kerry
I am very familiar with the Massey Report. It was interesting that
ACC ignored the evidence based Massey Study recommendations for
treatment for victims of sexual assault, instead preferring F Goodyear
Smiths 2005 advice that there is no psychological trauma if you cannot
give a DSM IV diagnosis.
Of course if you had read anything I posted you would have found all
this in there...
John Cawston
(Translation)
"I'm a doctor and one of the Left social elite in this country.. how
dare people challenge me when I make, stupid, unsupported, jealous and
defamatory remarks about a much more famous, experienced and qualified
colleague.. I'm outa here".
JC
>
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok JC,
Maybe you are not aware Peter Jansen sits on the Council of the
RCNZGP's and is head of sensitive calms. Maybe you need to read the
submission that College has since sent in to the Independant Review
Panel. The College no longer stands by that statement now. Maybe you
need to read their now recent media release.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3842542/GPs-uneasy-over-ACCs-changes
As Peter Jansen himself has since said, no endorsement was source for
the pathway or has been received. But don't believe me, ask him
yourself!
Anyway, I'm still waiting for those stats and many newspaper
statements that you stated claimed that false allegations are between
15-50% (rather a large range, isn't it). Are these stats credible
with such a huge range? Those stats would be of much more interest to
me. Thanks.
Kerry
>
> You could also look at the Massey report:
>
> http://whatumanawa.massey.ac.nz/reports/tech_reports.htm
>
> Particularly the first pdf which shows NZ research on the topic. FGS is
> just one of many.
>
> JC
>
>
And if you really did follow the issue, you would have read that
Massey actually distanced itself from the punitive 'updated
guidelines ' produced at the end of 2009, the ones that required
formal DSMIV diagnoses of mental illness before people could qualify
for any help from ACC.
The original evidence based Guidelines were launched in 2008. But in
October 2009 a very different guideline was set in place. A new
pathway that was roundly rejected by health professionals working in
sexual abuse work, and the Massey department that wrote the original
guidelines.
A 'review'. One that saw ACC approved new claims for victims of
sexual assault, running at 1313 in the eight months prior to the
pathway's introduction, subsequently dropped to 240 over the same
length of time. Among the hundreds to have their claims denied were
two women believed to have later committed suicide.ACC paid out $7
million less to 2889 fewer claimants than it had over the same period
a year previous. You must also bear in mind, this is not money paid
to victims, this is a part payment to enable cheaper counselling for
victims of sexual assault.
Guidelines ACC has since reversed.
"“ACC has listened to concerns expressed by several groups that more
support is needed. Those groups included the public, the sexual abuse
treatment sector, and the independent panel appointed by the Minister
to review the sensitive claims pathway,” said Denise Cosgrove, General
Manager Claims Management."
On national radio that day Denise Cosgrove had to admit ACC got it
wrong, when the clinical pathway was changed in late 2009.
As Nick Smith stated 17th August 2010 “I’m not satisfied that ACC has
handled the issue of counselling services for sensitive claims that
well. I’m going to await the final report from the independent
clinical panel before drawing final conclusions”" "given the level of
concern from colleagues and the public I have established an
independent clinical panel to review the corporation’s approach."
Smith insisted that the Oct 2009 changes were set in place by the
previous government but was proven to be quite frankly, lying in that
assertion as proven by ACC reports tabled in the House showing there
was no such clinical pathway planned before late 2009. Smith also
refused to stump up the huge evidence base he said underpinned the
changes, an evidence base supported by F G-S own publications, fancy!
She was the only one calling for DSMIV diagnoses, and it suited ACC/
givt purposes and saved $7 million
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1008/S00258/questions-and-answers-17-august-2010.htm
Smith got a bit of a shock with the uproar from the sector, the
evidence- based uproar about punitive pathways. And now they have
retracted.
"“I’m not satisfied that ACC has handled the issue of counselling
services for sensitive claims that well."
Indeed Nick. Maybe some consultation with the sector would have been
a good idea
Kerry
Are you really JC?
Well I never
g...@inspire.net.nz
> On Thursday, 2/Sep-2010 3:01 p.m., Kerry wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 9:03 am, george<gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> You could also look at the Massey report:
>
> http://whatumanawa.massey.ac.nz/reports/tech_reports.htm
>
> Particularly the first pdf which shows NZ research on the topic. FGS is
> just one of many.
>
> JC
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes she research was noted in the technical reports as it had to be
because it was ACC commissioned research and makes up the body of
knowledge.... every good researcher has to look at all the research
around a topic (something FGS doesn't do in her research), but you
will note it is not referenced in the actual Massey Clinical
Guidelines, is it? You know the guidelines that were written as a
result of all those technical reports and that ACC are meant to be
using?
http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_providers/documents/guide/prd_ctrb112799.pdf
g...@inspire.net.nz
> On , , Wed, 1 Sep 2010 03:59:43 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
>
>
>
>
>
> suggested?, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:18:15 -0700, Kerry wrote:
> >> >> So all those bizarre allegations against peter Ellis were true?
>
> >> >> And all those police reports of false sexual abuse and rape complaints
> >> >> aren't true?
>
> >> >> Just like there's no hiding the fact that sexual abuse and rape occurs,
> >> >> so too is there clear evidence that false complaints of same occur.. in
> >> >> varying degrees of 15-50% of all complaints. Goodyear-Smith is simply
> >> >> one of the very few people who points out the nonsense from the sexual
> >> >> abuse industry.. and is vilified for it.
>
> >> >> JC- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > John Potter and the MENZ website by any chance?
>
> >> No. That range comes from half a dozen NZ newspapers of comments from
> >> the police of the many, many times they have to deal with false rape and
> >> abuse accusations. Thats further supported by the cases that get
> >> reported to police, only about 40% meet a standard for prosecution and
> >> of these the majority get thrown out.
>
> >> Further confirmation of this comes from the big studies in the US, and
> >> the individual cases where DNA is showing many so called rapists could
> >> not have committed the particular crime.
>
> >> > Show us the stats that say 15-50%.....or do you assume that a not
> >> > guilty verdict means it was a false complaint? In NZ in case you have
> >> > forgotton, not gulity doesn't mean 'innocent' just not enough evidence
> >> > to convict. Just ask David Bain about that!!
>
> >AGAIN YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING THE STATS or REFERENCES ...and for these
> >MANY MANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (please refer). LOOK FORWARD TO
> >THOSE :)
>
> >> "Not guilty" means not guilty. "Not enough evidence" means its a bum case.
>
> >I AGREE... NOT GUILTY MEANS NOT GUILTY RATHER THAN INNOCENT. I DON'T
> >RECALL 'bum case' BEING USED IN LEGAL TERMINOLOGY THOUGH. LOL
>
> >> And in the case of a current advert where children are encouraged to
> >> report anything "yucky" that occurs.. means that every normal child
> >> should report most uncles and aunts who swoop in for an embrace. Any
> >> such indoctrinated child observing the typical before and aftermath of a
> >> funeral would perforce consider the event as a meeting of pedophiles and
> >> other sexual deviants.
>
> >OH YES AND THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME DOESN'T IT ESPECALLY AFTER
> >FUNERALS? WTF? THE POLICE PROBABLY GETS HEAPS OF THOSE TOO A, LOL.
>
> >> Felicity Goodyear-Smith is a breath of fresh in a culture that states
> >> 750,000 New Zealanders have been abused as children.. according to the
> >> criteria established by the fanatics and beneficiaries of the child
> >> abuse industry.
>
> >REALLY BECAUSE THE STATS I HAVE COME FROM THE POLICE AND OTHER
> >PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATIONS! EVER WONDER WHY PEOPLE MIGHT BE ON A
> >BENEFIT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
>
> >ITS SO GOOD THAT NO ONE YOU KNOW HAS BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED and YOU ARE
> >A 'FUNCTIONAL' ADULT. SO WHY THEN ARE YOU SO INVESTED IN THIS CAUSE?
>
> What the hell kind of crack is that?
> Is that a sleazy way of saying that they are in favour of child molestation?
>
> >IN CASE YOUR NEXT COMMENT IS TO SAY I MUST BE A FUNDENTAMENTAL
> >CHRSITAIN OR FEMISTIST (I can't even spell the word) as is standard
> >practice from FGS and those on your MENZ website..... I am neither. I
> >AM A MARRIED REGISTERED HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
>
> Nonsense, no registered professional of any kind would post such garbage as you
> have here.
> Identify yourself if you are not too scared to do so. Name, address, telephone
> number. Credentials, education, qualifications, degrees, diplomas etc so we can
> judge if what you are saying has any relevance to your claims of being a
> "registered professional".
> Merely claiming you are something in this forum does not wash.
> If you make an extraordinary claim like you have here, claiming to be a
> "registered professional", you have to have extraordinary proof.
>
> >WORKING IN THE PUBLIC
> >SYSTEM AND AM NOT PART OF THIS SO CALLED CREATED "SEXUAL ABUSE
> >INDUSTRY" (your and FGS expression.....not mine)
>
> >> JC- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted
It doesn't bother me one way or another weather you believe me. But
I'm not such a total "muppet" that I am likely to publish my details
for you to Judge and persecute. Plus how does this change anything?
Are my statements suddenly then valid? I think not.... you are then
likely to try and attack me personally and professionally, right??
However, if you feel the need to disclose all of yours .... please
do.... I'm also interested at the backgrounds of such people! I have
disclosed more about myself than any of you have about yourselves.
But I can say that RCNZGP, NZNO, RANZCP, ANZASW, PSYCHOLOGISTS, DASC
have all put submissions in expressing their concerns regarding this
pathway to the Independant Review Panel. So that doesn't leave many
Registered Health Professionals left who are supporting it! Seems FGS
is costing the country millions again with her "constructed"
research.
Kerry
Rosemary McLeod wrote a very sensible article today I thought
" Goodyear-Smith is Auckland University's medical and health sciences
professor. More controversially, a change in ACC policy, now reversed,
that impacted on help for victims of sexual abuse has now been partly
sheeted home to her door.
Her critics are amazed that she was commissioned to provide input on
this sensitive area.
They see her as stigmatised by close association with the family of
former Centrepoint guru - and convicted child sex and drugs offender -
Bert Potter.
She is married to his son, and was formerly the GP for the
controversial community, where the consensus on sexual relations
between adults and children seems, in hindsight, to have been not only
potentially damaging, but loony, and the use and manufacture of drugs
there downright reprehensible. "
" Because of her academic standing, that background may not have
occurred to her as being a problem when she agreed to help ACC. But
academic credentials aren't everything: perception counts, too.
It would have been wiser of her to see the big picture and opt out,
and much wiser of ACC not to ask her in the first place, since her
views are well known, and polarising.
If you disliked her, you'd say it was a bit like asking a ferret to
give advice on the care of chickens. If you supported her you'd advise
her against it because it was sure to rebound on both her and the
corporation, for whom she does other, less controversial work. "
John Cawston
Which I show above is embraced by your own peers.
I can understand the sexual abuse industry's objection to this ruling..
it claims its clients are mentally ill because of sexual abuse, but
doesn't like its clients defined as mentally ill, ie, they want ACC and
the public to accept that mental illness caused by sexual abuse to be
considered quite differently to any other cause in order to continue the
ACC gravy train. You can see the convoluted reasoning here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596123
And the quite logical response from ACC:
But he added: "ACC's legislative role is clearly defined. We are only
able to assist those who have a diagnosed significant mental injury
resulting from the abuse/assault they've suffered."
The proposed new rules say the counsellor making the DSM-IV diagnosis
"needs to affirm that they have the relevant training and/or
qualifications to make this assessment".
And of course the sexual abuse industry is complaining that its awful
that their untrained counselors aren't qualified to make mental illness
assessments:
"Dr McGregor said most counsellors did not have those qualifications and
the DSM-IV diagnosis had never been required before.
"Previously it was optional. Now there's an insistence upon it."
She said the new procedure would alsoallow ACC to check with sexual
abuse victims' doctors and employers to assess whether their mental
condition could be traced directly to the abuse."
Fancy, ACC shouldn't be allowed to check whether the mental illness
diagnosed by unqualified counselors, is real or not.
"They will be very likely to find some pre-existing condition or other
contributing factors such as stress at work, not getting on with a
partner or depression, and will therefore conclude that there is not a
clear clinical link between the rape and the mental injury," she said."
Good God! The sexual abuse industry is deeply distressed that experts in
the field will find out the *real* reason for the mental illness and cut
off the gravy train.
JC
Kerry
The college of GPs has been very clear. It welcomed the 2008 evidence
based approach to treating sexual assault. It did not welcome the
pathway that was the extrapolation of the evidence base. They have
retracted their support and voiced serious concerns
The Massey group that produced the 2008 Guidelines have also rejected
the new pathway.
The RNZC
23/6/2010
Doctors are concerned about the ACC's new way of dealing with sexual-
abuse claims, a survey shows.
The ACC changed the way sensitive claims are handled last October,
prompting criticism from counsellors and victims.
In April, the Government announced a review of the changes, which
require those making claims to have a firm diagnosis showing mental
injury caused by sexual abuse. Counsellors are also not permitted to
diagnose.
A Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners survey released
to The Press yesterday showed many GPs were concerned about the
changes.
About 40 per cent of 150 doctors surveyed had used the new system, and
70 per cent of those had concerns. These included delays for patients
in getting counselling and lack of clarity on who was qualified to
make an assessment.
GPs were also concerned about how much information the ACC now
required and problems using the process for children under 17.
The survey results are part of the college's submission to the
Government's review.
Christchurch GP and sexual-assault clinician Claire Healy said the new
system had made it harder for victims to get help.
Before it was introduced, referring sexual-abuse patients for
counselling was "fairly easy", she said.
Now it was difficult, confusing and involved them having to tell their
story to several people, she said. This meant many victims just "gave
up".
"They've just suffered a huge insult to their self-esteem anyway and
are feeling battered," she said. "The idea of going through something
even more traumatic is just too much."
Figures released in March showed just 32 sexual-abuse claims for
counselling were approved in the first two months of this year,
compared with 472 in January and February last year.
RNZCGP Karen Thomas in written reply to a questioning of the colleges
position said:
"I know that you have already seen our media release but I am
attaching it again for you to re-read. You will see that while the
College has welcomed ACC using evidence-based guidelines, we make no
mention of the pathway that they introduced to support the guidelines.
The Minister of ACC referred to our media statement in the House, but
any attempt to imply that our statement was anything more than the
College supporting the use of an evidence-based approach is unhelpful.
We have welcomed the Minister's recent review and we remain committed
to ensuring that all patients, including those who require assistance
following sexual abuse, are provided with safe, quality treatment and
care that suits their specific needs.
We will continue to work with the College of Psychiatrists and ACC on
this matter.
Yours sincerely
Karen Thomas
Chief Executive Officer
Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners
PO Box 10 440
Wellington 6036
Ph 64 4 496 5990
karen....@rnzcgp.org.nz
The RANZ College of Psychiatrists also replied in writing:
This from Lyndy Matthews (the Chairperson)
The College has not supported the new ACC Pathway – indeed declined to
release a press statement in support of this last year. The College
has expressed no position on regulating counselling etc – this is an
ACC initiative. Indeed psychiatrists cannot work effectively for New
Zealanders MH needs without the support of, and collaboration with,
our non medical psychotherapist and other colleagues. It is therefore
good to be able to address the very issue you raise - that of doctors
being seen to be turf protecting. Please be assured this is something
we are actively not engaged in.
There is a difference between the independently produced Massey
Guidelines for the Treatment of PTSD – commissioned by ACC – and the
new ACC Sensitive claims pathway. The two have become muddled I think.
The Massey guidelines we have ‘supported’ as an up to date literature
review of the evidence based treatments for PTSD. We are concerned by
and actively advocating for better rather than more restricted access
for New Zealanders to psychotherapies – whether through ACC, General
Practice or DHB services.
> And the quite logical response from ACC:
>
> But he added: "ACC's legislative role is clearly defined. We are only
> able to assist those who have a diagnosed significant mental injury
> resulting from the abuse/assault they've suffered."
>
> The proposed new rules say the counsellor making the DSM-IV diagnosis
> "needs to affirm that they have the relevant training and/or
> qualifications to make this assessment".
But that is spurious. Nowhere in the legislation does it state that
DSMIV is required to determine injury, only in this latest addition to
the rules, now on hold at ACCs behest.
This is the definition in the Act 2001
Mental injury
Mental injury means a clinically significant behavioural,
cognitive, or psychological dysfunction.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 30
There is nothing in the legislation about needing DSMIV to determine
Mental injury. It has been introduced as an afterthought. Clinicall
it is highly controversial, plenty of injured people do not fit a
DSMIV diagnosis - but their injury is assured.
> "Dr McGregor said most counsellors did not have those qualifications and
> the DSM-IV diagnosis had never been required before.
>
> "Previously it was optional. Now there's an insistence upon it."
Thats true. A foolish consistency that real people do not fit
within. So it denies people treatment - which suits ACC at this time.
>
> She said the new procedure would also allow ACC to check with sexual
> abuse victims' doctors and employers to assess whether their mental
> condition could be traced directly to the abuse."
>
> Fancy, ACC shouldn't be allowed to check whether the mental illness
> diagnosed by unqualified counselors, is real or not.
Thay could always do that. But DSMIV is a diagnosis of psychiatric
illness. We are talking about real people outside the psychiatric
ward. It is wrong to insiste they be locked into a psychiatric
diagnosis just to receive SOME funding for short term counselling
This is punitive and wrong.
>
> "They will be very likely to find some pre-existing condition or other
> contributing factors such as stress at work, not getting on with a
> partner or depression, and will therefore conclude that there is not a
> clear clinical link between the rape and the mental injury," she said."
Very true. Exactly what ACC is doing to everyone at the present time.
You think on that when they come to you and deny you care after all
the years you paid contributions.
They came for the seuxal abuse victims...
> Good God! The sexual abuse industry is deeply distressed that experts in
> the field will find out the *real* reason for the mental illness and cut
> off the gravy train.
>
> JC
I think you'll find that most people working within the sexual abuse
'industry', psychologists, doctors, counsellors, lawyers, see people
for sexual abuse work at much lower than their usual rates, because
they care.
People can care you know.
WorkHard
> On Sep 2, 3:31 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>> Ted wrote:
>>> On Sep 2, 12:32 pm, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 2, 12:25 pm, "WorkHard" <w...@workhard.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Shouting and trying to ram things down peoples' throats only make
>>>>> you look like an idiot and won't get you anywhere.- Hide quoted
>>>>> text -
>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>> Oh and name calling doesn't make you look the same WorkHard?
>>
>>> I see that you are agreeing with WorkHard here. In this instance, so
>>> do I.
>>
>>>> I'm not trying to 'get anywhere' ..... I am already here....
>>
>>> Your agenda is obvious.
>>
>> Yes, it is. But what concerns me is that the subject claims to work
>> in the health sector. Must be the psych ward.
>>
>> Seems to me the subject needs all the help it can get.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh how sad that when your arguements fail you try attacking people.
Really? Are you saying you are a person?
I don't think you are. I think you're just another faceless troll.
> Oh let me guess, the public 'psych system' is also in on this
> "conspiracy theory" of yours?
What conspiracy theory? You're clearly deluded.
> LOL You people totally crack me up.
Yeah right. Take your fake laughter and shove it you disingenuous nobody.
> Are you for real?
Well, I know you aren't.
WorkHard
You haven't presented any 'arguments'. But you have made a big deal about
shouting to JC that you are "employed".
> But it's good you recognise how people with
> "associations" could possibly have other motives. This is actually
> the arguement presented. That being if EVERYONE knows about FGS
> assoications with the sexual offending community how does that make
> her the best person to research for the counselling needs of
> survivers. So thanks for bringing us back to the issue at hand :)
I don't care what you think. Go push your hobby horse and spit your dummy
somewhere else.
WorkHard
> If you disliked her, you'd say it was a bit like asking a ferret to
> give advice on the care of chickens.
Funny that, that's exactly how I see you.
How many of your obese, diabetic patients died because you steered them
into high-carb low-fat diets?
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well I don't know why you are on this thread workhard. We are trying
to have a debate and discussion about the title of the thread. You
have contributed no inforamtion for either case, maybe you are the one
who need not be here on the thread. At least JC is making the effort
to engage. But people can clearly see you for what ou are you are
also.
Ted
> On Sep 2, 9:37 pm, Friar Scooter <5cÖÔ7...@gomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On , , Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> > Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
>
> > >On Sep 1, 4:40 pm, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
> > >> On Aug 31, 11:51 am, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >In other words, you made that up and are trying to justify it through
> > >word play. I would prefer to see some evidence.
>
> > He is prepared to defame someone from the safety of anonymity.
> > That reeks of physical, moral and intellectual cowardice.
> > And he claims to be a registered professional.
> > No wonder he won't publically identify himself.
> > --
> > "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> > to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> > Anatole France.
>
Just to be clear, are you asking us to prove that Felicity Goodyear-
Smith doesn't support child sexual abuse?
Oh, and by the way, can you prove to us that you aren't a shoplifter?
>
As I think the newspaper article
> is very clear as is her book etc.
Ted
You have been in receipt of a communication from Universe WorkHard.
Residents of this universe are at a disadvantage here. Don't worry
your head about it.
WorkHard
Who is? I see no 'debate' at all. I do see you hand-wringing and shouting a
lot, though.
> You
> have contributed no inforamtion for either case, maybe you are the one
> who need not be here on the thread. At least JC is making the effort
> to engage. But people can clearly see you for what ou are you are
> also.
Cool. I'm an 'outer' of twits that come here thinking their rantings and
shouting will make ione iota of difference to anything.
You are completely and utterly wasting your time here. If you were half
objective you'd realize that. But no, you choose to stay and rant on
achieveing nothing.
WorkHard
ROFL You do, though, obviously.
castorgirl
> On , , Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
>
>
>
> suggested?, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
> >On Sep 2, 9:37 pm, Friar Scooter <5cÖÔ7...@gomail.com> wrote:
> >> On , , Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> >> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
>
> >> suggested?, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 4:40 pm, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 31, 11:51 am, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> So she 'supports' child sexual abuse as fair as I'm concerned.
>
> >> >In other words, you made that up and are trying to justify it through
> >> >word play. I would prefer to see some evidence.
>
> >> He is prepared to defame someone from the safety of anonymity.
> >> That reeks of physical, moral and intellectual cowardice.
> >> And he claims to be a registered professional.
> >> No wonder he won't publically identify himself.
> >> --
> >> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> >> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> >> Anatole France.
>
> >is very clear as is her book etc.
>
> and stand behind your assertions.
> I can't prove a negative or don't you know that?
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
As a clarification, her book and other research states that not all
child-adult sexual contact is damaging... can you agree with that?
Some quotes from reviews of her book include...
First Do No Harm: The Sexual Abuse Industry
Albert Wong. Archives of Sexual Behavior. New York: Jun 1999. Vol. 28,
Iss. 3; pg. 279, 3 pgs
"Although not intended for an academic audience, the book is
inconsistent in the rigor and depth of the treatment of a complex
topic. The myriad forces affecting this phenomenon require an analysis
utilizing the different approaches of psychology, sociology,
anthropology, and political analysis. As well, the disciplines of
medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and social work have interrelated
roles, perspectives, and agendas within and without the sexual abuse
industry. This network of overlapping paradigms is confusing and
complicated and would be a challenge in even a more extensive book.
Goodyear-Smith's analysis can be simplistic, as in the half-page
discussion of the pretechnological role of women in the second chapter
entitled "Sex in the 20th Century." Her quoting of Paglia in this
chapter supports her critique of the "ideology of victimology," but
her discussions of contemporary perceptions of sexuality omit other
relevant references to Paglia."
"The book falters in chapter 7, "Some Specific Directions the Sexual
Abuse Industry is Taking Us." Here is a disorienting mix of
contradictory ideology and unsupported dogma mingled with more
developed ideas. Examples of incidents in which overreaction to sexual
abuse allegations have led to ridiculous and sometimes tragic
consequences are presented with good effect, but these inherently
emotional and unjust incidents require more rigorous support to be
able to make generalizations."
"The author's many astute and frank observations are often limited by
the organization of this book as well as the writing itself. Several
concepts and even actual sentences are repeated verbatim in different
chapters. The sequence of chapters is straightforward but the
disparate ideological, scientific, political, and cultural conclusions
are not synthesized adequately. The writing is passionate but at times
unclear. Some points seem diffuse and are spread out over several
sections or chapters. This book might benefit from more careful
development of some of her core ideas."
This was from a "mixed review", there was another more damning one.
Also from the "Accuracy about Abuse" site - http://www.accuracyaboutabuse.org/article.asp?id=390
"The British False Memory Society continue to defend Felicity Goodyear
Smith's book First Do No Harm which argues strongly that child abuse
is a problem grossly exaggerated by mental health professionals and
that there is little scientific evidence to support the view that
sexual activity between adults and children is inevitably harmful. The
author suggests that the banning of pro-paedophilia organisations is a
result of our "sexually repressive" attitudes. She thinks the age of
consent should be abandoned as unenforceable and trails the argument
that an older man may be a better "sexual initiator" for a young women
than a boy of her own age."
This seems to sum up much of the work.
It seems that FGS is coming at the counselling or "sex abuse industry"
with the attitude that they are on a gravy train with causes damage to
otherwise healthy (if confused individuals). The indicates an
ideology that is not supportive of counselling. With this view stated
in books and other research, why was there not a conflict of interest
identified with her working for ACC SCU?
Just as I would expect a fanactical supportor of counselling to excuse
themselves from the research, because they would find it difficult to
be objective, so should FGS.
As for asking for people to give their creditionals on an open forum,
that is just poor internet safety practices. It would make the person
involved a prime target for identity theft. So it's a moot point
asking for that information unless you are willing to put your
information up first.
castorgirl
> > > >> the police of the many, many times they have to deal with false rape and
> > > >> abuse accusations. Thats further supported by the cases that get
> > > >> reported to police, only about 40% meet a standard for prosecution and
> > > >> of these the majority get thrown out.
>
> > > >> Further confirmation of this comes from the big studies in the US, and
> > > >> the individual cases where DNA is showing many so called rapists could
> > > >> not have committed the particular crime.
>
> > > >> > Show us the stats that say 15-50%.....or do you assume that a not
> > > >> > guilty verdict means it was a false complaint? In NZ in case you have
> > > >> > forgotton, not gulity doesn't mean 'innocent' just not enough evidence
> > > >> > to convict. Just ask David Bain about that!!
It needs to be pointed out that a 40% standard for prosecution, with a
majority of those being thrown out (if that figure is correct, as no
source is cited), does not mean that assaults didn't occur. It could
mean that the perpetrator has successfully intimidated the victim into
not going forward with the complaint; that the victim showered before
reporting the assault, thereby eliminating much of the potential
evidence; or that the victim is unable to go through with the
brutality of the court procedures.
As for the DNA cases in the US, that indicates that an assault
occurred, but that the wrong person was convicted. There has to be an
assault to have a conviction. Thankfully advances in DNA have meant
that the risk of such false convictions are lowered, still not
infallible, but greatly lowered. Again though, the point is still
that there was an assault to start with, so it's not relevant to the
argument that the victims are laying false complaints. If anything,
policework should be under the spotlight for those instances.
What about the numbers of assaults that go unreported? What about the
latest study which indicate that nearly 40% of women who ask for help
after physical or sexual violence from a partner, don't receive any
help? (see http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/abused-women-ask-help-don-t-get-3744819).
How do those figures count into your tallies about false complaints?
Are these women also making it all up? They don't even get
assistance, so how can they lay a false complaint.
Violence and abuse is part of the New Zealand culture.
WorkHard
> On Sep 3, 11:11 am, Friar Scooter <5c衷7...@gomail.com> wrote:
>> On , , Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
>> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what
>> she
>>
>>
>>
>> suggested?, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> On , , Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor
>>>> Felicity Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did
>>>> ACC do what she
>>
>>>> suggested?, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 1, 4:40 pm, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 31, 11:51 am, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So she 'supports' child sexual abuse as fair as I'm concerned.
>>
>>>>> In other words, you made that up and are trying to justify it
>>>>> through word play. I would prefer to see some evidence.
>>
>>>> He is prepared to defame someone from the safety of anonymity.
>>>> That reeks of physical, moral and intellectual cowardice.
>>>> And he claims to be a registered professional.
>>>> No wonder he won't publically identify himself.
>>> Maybe you could prove she doesn't!! As I think the newspaper article
>>> is very clear as is her book etc.
>> I don't have to prove that, you have to prove why she is wrong in
>> your opinion, and stand behind your assertions.
>> I can't prove a negative or don't you know that?
> As a clarification, her book and other research states that not all
> child-adult sexual contact is damaging... can you agree with that?
Who are *you* to 'disagree' with it? Do you have suitable qualifications,
experience, and some other knowledge that makes you and your opinions
superior to hers?
As Sc said, prove she is wrong.
castorgirl
> > As a clarification, her book and other research states that not all
> > child-adult sexual contact is damaging... can you agree with that?
>
> Who are *you* to 'disagree' with it? Do you have suitable qualifications,
> experience, and some other knowledge that makes you and your opinions
> superior to hers?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you referring to my last line here WorkHard?
If you keep reading, you'll see the negative review of her work.
These reviews are not my words, but those of a book reviewer and then
a direct quote from a website which indicates that FGS doesn't
consider child-adult sexual encounters as harmful, and possibly
positive.
As these are not my opinions, my qualifications are hardly relevant.
It's a case of my finding research, and presenting it.
My question was asking whether we can agree that FGS is saying that
child-adult sexual encounters are not harmful. I was trying to
clarify a point, not refute it. Although I'm happy to gather a
bibliography of research that does indicate that child-adult sexual
encounters are harmful, if you would like. It would have to wait
until tomorrow, as there is quite a body of work around the subject.
g...@inspire.net.nz
> On , , Thu, 2 Sep 2010 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
>
>
>
>
>
> suggested?, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
> >> On , , Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:18:00 -0700 (PDT), Re: ACC advisor Felicity
> >> Goodyear-Smith not an unbiased commentator - so why did ACC do what she
>
> >> suggested?, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 4:40 pm, "g...@inspire.net.nz" <g...@inspire.net.nz> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 31, 11:51 am, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> So she 'supports' child sexual abuse as fair as I'm concerned.
>
> >> >In other words, you made that up and are trying to justify it through
> >> >word play. I would prefer to see some evidence.
>
> >> He is prepared to defame someone from the safety of anonymity.
> >> That reeks of physical, moral and intellectual cowardice.
> >> And he claims to be a registered professional.
> >> No wonder he won't publically identify himself.
> >> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> >> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> >> Anatole France.
>
> >is very clear as is her book etc.
>
> I don't have to prove that, you have to prove why she is wrong in your opinion,
> and stand behind your assertions.
> I can't prove a negative or don't you know that?
>
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neither do I have to prove anything to you. Weather she does or
doesn't support it is not the issue that was raised in the first
place. That being, why is she researching in the area of sex abuse
counselling when she has such strong ties to the offending community
and her ideologies and views on ACC are SO WELL KNOWN? Try and stick
to topic! We all know about FGS views, no one need prove it to you!
castorgirl
> Neither do I have to prove anything to you. Weather she does or
> doesn't support it is not the issue that was raised in the first
> place. That being, why is she researching in the area of sex abuse
> counselling when she has such strong ties to the offending community
> and her ideologies and views on ACC are SO WELL KNOWN? Try and stick
Exactly grm... her ideologies are not in dispute. The question is why
she did this research when she has such strong views. It is almost
impossible to be impartial when you hold such strong views. As I said
earlier, I would expect someone who was a strong positive views on
counselling to excuse themselves from doing the research. FGS should
have also shown the same awareness about potential conflicts of
interest.
WorkHard
It certainly is not. It's part of a 'culture' that doesn't have any
respect for anyone, themselves included. Not typical of NZ culture at all.
WorkHard
>>> As a clarification, her book and other research states that not all
>>> child-adult sexual contact is damaging... can you agree with that?
>>
>> Who are *you* to 'disagree' with it? Do you have suitable
>> qualifications, experience, and some other knowledge that makes you
>> and your opinions superior to hers?
>>
>> As Sc said, prove she is wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you referring to my last line here WorkHard?
>
> If you keep reading, you'll see the negative review of her work.
Of course there will be 'negative' reviews. Still, you are not proving
anything other than some people disagree with her. As you do... but you
have yet to prove she is wrong.
> These reviews are not my words, but those of a book reviewer and then
> a direct quote from a website which indicates that FGS doesn't
> consider child-adult sexual encounters as harmful, and possibly
> positive.
A 'book reviewer'? ROFL
> As these are not my opinions, my qualifications are hardly relevant.
> It's a case of my finding research, and presenting it.
Why?
Why not argue against her and provide proof that *your* are right rather
then she?
> My question was asking whether we can agree that FGS is saying that
> child-adult sexual encounters are not harmful.
Liar! That's not what you asked at all. Such a broad-sweeping
generalisation just doesn't cut it. She never stated any such thing.
Do try to at least be honest.
> I was trying to
> clarify a point, not refute it. Although I'm happy to gather a
> bibliography of research that does indicate that child-adult sexual
> encounters are harmful, if you would like.
What's the point? That is not at issue.
You are being dishonest, I think that's important to realize.
> It would have to wait
> until tomorrow, as there is quite a body of work around the subject.
I'm only interested in you providing proof she is wrong. No good k\just
posting other peoples' 'opinions'. Not good enough.
WorkHard
>> Neither do I have to prove anything to you. Weather she does or
>> doesn't support it is not the issue that was raised in the first
>> place. That being, why is she researching in the area of sex abuse
>> counselling when she has such strong ties to the offending community
>> and her ideologies and views on ACC are SO WELL KNOWN? Try and stick
>> to topic! We all know about FGS views, no one need prove it to you!-
>> Hide quoted text -
>
> Exactly grm... her ideologies are not in dispute. The question is why
> she did this research when she has such strong views.
Why are you here, then, with your 'strong' views... surekt that also
precludes you from any rational discussion?
> It is almost
> impossible to be impartial when you hold such strong views.
So go away. You are obviously NOT impartial.
g...@inspire.net.nz
Yes, Rosemary McLeod asked a similar question in The Press yesterday:
"Not the most useful view to have on record when contemplating
research destined to impact on policy in that very area. How odd - and
perhaps revealing - that Goodyear-Smith didn't see that for herself."
People wonder why Clinicians and Survivors are up in arms about this
FGS issue but I wonder if MENZ would like 'woman's groups' researching
or making recommendations on how they run their mens groups or
parenting classes? Everyone would see that as being inappropriate and
counter-productive.
WorkHard
> On Sep 3, 4:42 pm, castorgirl <castorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Neither do I have to prove anything to you. Weather she does or
>>> doesn't support it is not the issue that was raised in the first
>>> place. That being, why is she researching in the area of sex abuse
>>> counselling when she has such strong ties to the offending community
>>> and her ideologies and views on ACC are SO WELL KNOWN? Try and stick
>>> to topic! We all know about FGS views, no one need prove it to
>>> you!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Exactly grm... her ideologies are not in dispute. The question is why
>> she did this research when she has such strong views. It is almost
>> impossible to be impartial when you hold such strong views. As I said
>> earlier, I would expect someone who was a strong positive views on
>> counselling to excuse themselves from doing the research. FGS should
>> have also shown the same awareness about potential conflicts of
>> interest.
>
> Yes, Rosemary McLeod asked a similar question in The Press yesterday:
>
> "Not the most useful view to have on record when contemplating
> research destined to impact on policy in that very area. How odd - and
> perhaps revealing - that Goodyear-Smith didn't see that for herself."
>
> People wonder why Clinicians and Survivors are up in arms about this
> FGS issue
Really, all half a dozen of them?
castorgirl
Exactly... all stakeholders would see the conflict of interest. So
why did ACC allow FGS to do research when her views were well known
and polarising?
castorgirl
Workhard, you're missing the point of this conversation, and trying to
divert it elsewhere...
It's not up to me to prove FGS wrong, although there is plenty of peer-
reviewed research which indicates that she is, so it's not "other
people's opinions".
This is an open forum for discussion, therefore it tends to attract
people with opinions on the matter - you yourself have proven to have
strong views, yet I don't see you leaving :)
The book review you dismiss, comes from a journal with an impact
factor of 3.239 and is ranked 21 of 88 in it's subject category... so
it's not exactly a Christchurch Press review.
Again, from the Accuracy about abuse website...
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
From the The Press, March 15, 2001
Auckland University senior lecturer Felicity Goodyear-Smith said she
was concerned that ACC's approach was not scientifically proven.
"As far as I know, there's no scientific evidence at all that says
sexual abuse counselling has any useful outcome."
She said those who were suffering ongoing problems as a result of
sexual abuse needed to have their current problems addressed, rather
than those that had occurred in the past.
Dr Goodyear-Smith said some people who had been sexually abused as
children needed help as adults. However, this was not always the
case.
"Clearly if you have suffered childhood sexual abuse, you're more
likely to suffer problems in adulthood," she said.
"However, if we can't show that sexual abuse counselling is effective,
I don't think we should be prescribing counselling for people."
She said was "absolutely convinced" that some people had made
deliberate false claims about sexual abuse in the past, but she did
not believe it happened so much now.
What is interesting is in 2001 even FGS did not believe that
deliberate false claims happened so much now. Yet, JC comes up with
some "made up" stats of 15-50% which we are still waiting for the
proof of thanks JC. I don't believe that false claims were big even
before 2001. Funny how she says she was "absolutely convinced"....
because her judgement has been so good in the past, what with being
"so convinced" that children weren't being sexually abused while she
was the GP or that kids and others weren't using illegal drugs. If
only her "conviction" was enough a?
Also, there was HEAPS of evidence (even in 2001) saying sexual abuse
counselling works including the Massey study that JC pointed us all
too. Strange how someone's OPINION is more important than the actual
stats and research!
WorkHard
Really?
> This is an open forum for discussion, therefore it tends to attract
> people with opinions on the matter
Tends to attract? LOL
> - you yourself have proven to have
> strong views, yet I don't see you leaving :)
> The book review you dismiss, comes from a journal with an impact
> factor of 3.239 and is ranked 21 of 88 in it's subject category... so
> it's not exactly a Christchurch Press review.
> Again, from the Accuracy about abuse website...
> "The British False Memory Society continue to defend Felicity Goodyear
> Smith's book First Do No Harm which argues strongly that child abuse
> is a problem grossly exaggerated by mental health professionals and
> that there is little scientific evidence to support the view that
> sexual activity between adults and children is inevitably harmful. The
> author suggests that the banning of pro-paedophilia organisations is a
> result of our "sexually repressive" attitudes. She thinks the age of
> consent should be abandoned as unenforceable and trails the argument
> that an older man may be a better "sexual initiator" for a young women
> than a boy of her own age."
And?
What are you trying to achieve here?
g...@inspire.net.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also the above statement makes it clear she doesn't think people
should be receiving sexual abuse counselling yet ACC fund her to
research in the area!
castorgirl
> sexual abuse needed to have their current problems addressed, rather
> than those that had occurred in the past.
Interesting assumption that therapy focuses on the past, and not how
to cope in the present - despite the past.
> She said was "absolutely convinced" that some people had made
> deliberate false claims about sexual abuse in the past, but she did
> not believe it happened so much now.
Interesting that this ties in with the end of COSA.
> What is interesting is in 2001 even FGS did not believe that
> deliberate false claims happened so much now. Yet, JC comes up with
> some "made up" stats of 15-50% which we are still waiting for the
> proof of thanks JC. I don't believe that false claims were big even
> before 2001. Funny how she says she was "absolutely convinced"....
> because her judgement has been so good in the past, what with being
> "so convinced" that children weren't being sexually abused while she
> was the GP or that kids and others weren't using illegal drugs. If
> only her "conviction" was enough a?
>
> Also, there was HEAPS of evidence (even in 2001) saying sexual abuse
> counselling works including the Massey study that JC pointed us all
> too. Strange how someone's OPINION is more important than the actual
> stats and research!
It apparently depends on who is giving the opinion and what it will
result in :)
castorgirl
Again, goes into what end results are wanted...