It is a shame it has all been politicised.

The public would be aware of the cynicism of politicians and the commentariat with their secondary political agendas, who are making political capital out of the victims.

By way of example, from the papers,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-03/top-private-school-xavier-college-admits-extent-of-sex-abuse/6439942

<Xavier College, top Melbourne private school, admits extent of historical child sex abuse
By Jessica Longbottom

The principal at one of Melbourne's top private schools has, for the first time, admitted the extent of child sex abuse that took place on college grounds.

Nine Xavier College students were sexually abused at the school in the 1960s and 70s, according to principal Chris Hayes...>.

Any federal parliamentarians, journalists and members of the commentariat who are old boys, parents too and may even have attended that school around that time?

-They might be saying that they 'never knew' and never heard any complaints and there was no smoke.

Otherwise they might have some explaining to do.

“failing in its duty of care”

Who gives out these duties? Is there some authority that says you have a duty to care for these kids? No there is not. The only ones who can give others the responsibility of caring for their children are parents. It is a responsibility that is given and not a duty. Individuals in the church may have failed in their responsibility but the church has not failed their duty of care since they do not have one to begin with because there is no one above them to give it to them.

The question is for parents – why did they give such a responsibility to members of the church? Parents have to take responsibility just like they would if the babysitter turned out to be a child sex abuser. It is no good saying after the event that they did not know the babysitter would abuse their children. It was their choice and they have to take responsibilities for their choices.

“It is fair to say when children were sent to church or school it was to receive religious instruction or education, not sexual abuse.”

It is fair to say also that they only wanted the babysitter to babysit and not abuse – it is still their choice. They chose wrongly when they chose to send their kids to a church school. They have to send them to school but they do not have to send them to a church school.

“You could extend you logic to say, catching a taxi, if you are attacked in someway by the driver without cause then you are some what responsible for catching the taxi in the first place.”

Well of course you are because where there is choice you have to take responsibility for your choices. Every adult has to take responsibility for every choice they make in life. Some turn out to be bad choices. There is a choice for parents between state schools and church ones.

phanto,

Your musings are becoming weirder and weirder.

What do we make of statements like these?:

"...It is parents who make the decision to send their kids to church schools or who put them in a position where they could be abused by priests. No one forces them to be religious but they can surely force their kids to be religious and in doing so they are responsible for putting them into a dangerous position. The paedophiles are responsible for their behaviour but they could not have got away with such behaviour if parents had not sent their kids to churches and church schools in the first place. Many parents of abused kids know this but try to shift the blame for their part in such soul-destroying events."

"The government is not responsible or ‘incompetent’ because there is nothing they could have done to stop parents from ‘religionising’ their kids. Any parent who does that to their kid must accept the responsibility for any outcomes that occur because the parents do not have to be religious."

"Individuals in the church may have failed in their responsibility but the church has not failed their duty of care since they do not have one to begin with because there is no one above them to give it to them."

Etc,

Of course, what you say is complete and utter bollocks. If the advertising hoardings outside religious schools advertised sexual abuse as part of the curriculum, then your inane proposition might hold water.

What sort of odd mentality states that it's the parent's fault because some deviant was lurking in an institution and targeted their child?

There are tens of thousands of children attending religious schools in this country right now - schools partially funded by state and federal govts....you appear to be saying that the parents of these children are knowingly putting these kids in danger.

And of course schools have a duty of care. It's law in this country for children to be educated - most in schools. Claiming their is no duty of care for educational institutions is pure rubbish.

Transgender regrets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It_fDOCuT2g&feature=em-subs_digest