A charity is closing its doors, as it had to make large payments to the National Redress Scheme.

The charity supports people on low incomes, those needing food and language support, refugees, the financially poor and those from other continents overseas.

These people are now going to be left worse off, all because of the National Redress Scheme being in place.

Whilst someone else is getting a payment here, other people are being left worse off. So why is life all about finance and compensation?

Nathan J, I did not experience institutional sexual abuse as a small child but I have never-the-less experienced being 'fiddled' with as a young boy.
I must admit, I am disappointed in what I read and here on the subject today.
I do not recall any, (and I mean none) trauma regarding my experience/s.
I am however pissed off with those who have admitted to having been fiddled with.
I refuse to believe that, so called men, can be such piss weak 'girls'.
Whinging, whining lot of pansies, the lot em'.
The truth is if you were fiddled with as a very young child, you would not have the smarts or maturity to know what was going on, so apart from being temporarily confused by it all, you accept it as just another part of growing up or of being a boy.
But essentially you carry on, because the experience did you no physical harm and at that age, as I have said, would not have registered as anything bad or even psychologically detrimental.
You only find out that what happened to you as a small child, is socially un-acceptable, and any victim is shamed and pitied, thereby planting the seed of guilt and shame, as you get older into manhood.
Now a normal mature, healthy, (mentally) person would just shrug it off as just another of life's experiences, I did.
I consider myself as such a person.
I believe that those MEN who have decided to complain about such an innocuous event or act, are anything but men.
If they are so affected by the event of decades ago, they have mental and emotional issues.
Now I understand that the jelly brains amongst us will come out and pander to his shortcomings.
I say, NO, leave him alone and if he raises the incident in discussion himself, play it down as part of growing up and it is happening everywhere, as it is/was.
By doing this you will not be adding to his anxiety and stress on the issue, and eventually will see it for what it was, NOTHING!

Well done ALTRAV, classic example of a person who blames the victim. The victim is the guilty party, and the perpetrator should be given a citation for performing his civic duty. I suppose in your mind the likes of the notorious paedophile Gerald Ridsdale should have had a medal pinned to his chest, and given a knighthood, whilst his victims should have been locked up for whinging.

Nathan j we have no choice but to see the victims first
You point out other victims but surely that is secondary to the evil done to victims
I could never ever think other than the two issues are separate and the scheme must come first always
In fact if it bankrupt some it will reenforce the fact such things should never ever happen again

In a list published in February 49 organisation were named as not signing up to the National Redress Scheme for victims of paedophiles. The majority of those trying to dodge their responsibility to compensate victims were church organisations, the majority of those Catholic, the worlds largest paedophile organisation!

I think everyone has the right (or a duty to themselves even) to rise above things that happened to them as kids that wasn't their fault.

And this isn't so much in a context of victim and perpetrator;
Nor is it really about blame or compensation.
It's simply about that persons own emotional well-being within themselves.
You can't change the past, you need to try to accept it look forward and think about the future.

'Everyone has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't affect others in an adverse manner.'

If someone does something which has a negative or detrimental impact upon your life you have every right to speak your mind and hold those accountable for actions that harmed you.
And some things are hard to accept, especially when others can't see your point of view.

It can be a double edged sword to 'proclaim your victimhood'.
The real aim should be to try to rise above it for ones own wellbeing.
To somehow 'build a bridge and get over it'.

Which charity is it that is closing down?

If it is a church sponsored institution then the blame
rests with the organisation not the Redress scheme.
It appears again that it's a question of finance not
of doing what's morally right for the victims.

Only the perfect may have a perfect childhood.

Victimhood involves the superstition as if we live in a chaotic world, where shît just happens. We do however live in an ordered cosmos where nothing happens for no reason and anything that comes our way, good or bad, is a result of our own previous actions.

Are we similarly expected to pay back for all the warmth and love, fun and laughter that we received in our childhood?

What is the name of the charity that "is closing its doors, as it had to make large payments to the National Redress Scheme"? I have tried to find a strory it, to no avail. Nathan does a nice line in very odd, very obscure posts. He has to expect that people will wonder why he hasn't named the charity, surely? I don't see by this unnamed organisation, which seems to 'helping' every second person living on Earth, should be contributing to a rip off charity for people who might be victims of sexual abuse - or not; just who can we believe these days?

While I was searching, I did see some drack, fruitcake of a woman pronouncing that charities who don't contribute to this NRS slop chest should have their charitable status revoked.

It's marvellous just how many people mixed up in 'charities' are, themselves, not very charitable at all. They heighten the belief held by an increasing number of people who have ceased giving to charities that, 'where there is a charity, there are people with sticky fingers'.

"If it is a church sponsored institution then the blame
rests with the organisation not the Redress scheme.
It appears again that it's a question of finance not
of doing what's morally right for the victims."

The Redress Scheme was imposed on the community by the Government. So one could argue any flow on effects from the Redress Scheme are the fault of the Government.

I don't know what's morally right for the victims, but many people immediately assume money, without suggesting anything else.

Maybe if some saw the people in question, who are supported by this particular (small) charity to close and talk to the people supported directly, whose lives are improving, they may out of good thought, reconsider a need to take money for compensation, and see the good from a move away from money, and a need to rest, relax and regenerate.

Money can't buy things like that.

Nathan no way around it no matter the help the victim was hurt by one of theirs
Nothing can bring me to blame the victim in this case
We once had such a victim post here, the wounds could be seen in every word
Nothing must be put as a reason lives destroyed should not at least see some payment

Why is the name of the charity that's closing down a secret? One could be forgiven for thinking that there is no such charity, and the whole thing is bulldust.

If the charity has to pay large amounts to the Redress
Scheme that means that there must have been large
numbers pf people who suffered child sexual abuse
while in the care of their institution. The Government
cannot be blamed for that.

Also it should be made clear that the National Redress
Scheme's establishment was recommended by the Royal
Commission into the Institutional Response to child
sexual abuse.

The National Redress Scheme provides support to people
who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse.
It helps people who have experienced institutional
child sexual abuse gain access to counseling and
psychological services.

The Australian government wants as many people as possible
to have access to this scheme and institutions must agree
to join so they can provide redress to people who suffered
while in their care.

The people to blame here are the institutions themselves.
At least now they have a chance to provide redress to
the people who suffered whilse in the care of their
institution.

Foxy, so you seriously reject the notion that if there was no money or restitution or compensation of any financial kind that people would still be keen to have their sordid past aired in the public arena?
On the other hand if these sad and sorry examples of a man just settled for psychological and emotional treatment would they still avail themselves of the chance to return to manhood status, but without any financial claims?

It's all about money !

Of course it's all about money, and that's why these #metoo females are deciding they were raped 40 years ago. John Jarrat is the latest to be cleared. The courts are waking up.

ttbn, thank GOD or whoever/whatever people believe in.
It does give us hope that the system is slowly 'grabbing a brain'.
How anyone could ever take a bunch of half-witted maggots in a continual state of PMS, is beyond me, but there you have it.
Those of us who are still in control of our faculties are beginning to take control again.
And those who are finally growing back a pair of stones after allowing them to be removed by these same maggots, are slowly rejoining the human race as men again.
We welcome them back.

The redress scheme can never compensate for the lives destroyed
It however has another reason to exist
To try to ensure it never happens again
If in fact innocent groups suffer because of the actions of some, it can not be helped
Remember rules in place in that group saw this take place, and to some extent they too hold some responsibility

I think Nathan made this up. Still no name for the doomed charity.

Sure Nathon made nothing up, just assure he wants to protect whatever group it was
And too he has every right to think and post,what he wants to

Nathan does have every right to post what ever he wants. But, how can you be sure that he hasn't made it up, Belly? Do you have some link to him that the rest of us don't have? Why would he have to protect the identity of a charity when it would receive sympathy from most people? Where did he get the story from? I have searched for a reference to it online, but found nothing. Have you been able to verify it? Please let me know how you did it.

If Nathan wanted to call into question the validity of this NRS thing, he could have done that without including an UNNAMED charity. I don't like people getting money for something that happened 50 years ago, even if the accusations are true, and we can't even be sure of the truth. Yes. Nathan can do what he likes, but he hasn't done his reputation as a reliable poster much good this time.

And, what are you doing reading my posts? You said that most people don't read them. I have also wondered how the people you say don't read my posts contacted you to tell you this. All of our posts - even yours - could be read by people who don't post themselves.

No answer from Belly. Probably not enough one syllable words.

ttbn I have a life away from here
Look honesty matters,you may well not be able to control it but you act like a grub
Today every post put someone down
Too while the advice just ignore you is well worth doing, you hurt new posters maybe even drive them away
MATE honestly, your second last post here is purely dumb
CONSIDER are you near as bright as you think you are, is there room for others views without your insults

lawyers picnic and another incentive for young people to study law instead of doing something useful for society.

Belly,

Stop whining and answer the questions. If you cannot answer these questions, you should stop making wild statements that you can't back up. And stop calling me a grub, it makes you sound like a 5 year old.

Try to answer, see I was not on site when you asked the question
Did so on returning
HOW did you come up with the insulting and somewhat weird thought Nathan made the whole thing up?
While well aware [your posts often confirm] your ability to be nice is limited, why are you so often so nasty?

Well, Belly. You just keep on making wild statements in pidgin English, demonstrating your total ignorance and inability. I won't be taking any notice of you.

I am concerned that at the Catholic primary school my granddaughter attends the old PP still wanders the grounds uncontrolled, supposedly giving "pastoral care", whatever that means! The term bill had a charge of $50 on it for this so called "pastoral care". I don't agree with some old geriatric PP wandering around the school grounds giving my eight year old granddaughter "pastoral care" whatever that is.

Unnamed charity! going broke, well as I said 40 of the 49 organisations that refused to sign up to the NRS were religious, and the majority of those were CATHOLIC! So it ain't the Catholics going broke.

May the Pope give you his blessing, Amen.

Anyway, I have finally found something that proves that this post is based on misunderstanding and bulldust.

"Many non-government institutions intend to participate in the Scheme to provide meaningful redress to those who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse".

Many institutions INTEND to participate. There is no compulsion as any sensible citizen would know. Government can't dictate to charities how they disperse funds, and Nathan's non-existent charity would have nothing to worry if it did exist.

Natham,
It would have been helpful if you had explained in your opening post what you were talking about.

I was one that had forgotten about it and it was not until Foxy outlined what it was that I remembered.

I have not seen any press articles about the problem you raise and will wait until I learn more, including the name of the charity you claim has had to close.

Nathan hope you are not put off by the questioning of your reason to post this
It takes little imagination to understand any group from free food distribution on to but not only a local opp shop may be the one here
Thousands of such things exist,I contribute fruit and veg to one in season
However too do not name the group if you still believe it would harm innocents in that group
Secretes do not stay secret on social media
Thanks for an interesting thread but as you have seen my sympathy is with the victim always, secondary victims may blame the perpetrator but not the first victim
regards

This discussion does seem rather odd, a mystery "charity", (not too charitable if its crawling with paedophiles, they could do a Flaou style cash grab, and run a PleasePayForMyCrimes account), to go bankrupt for voluntarily joining the NRS, all unreported. With the maximum payout capped at $150k for the most extreme cases of abuse, the vast majority of payments would be substantially less, and certainly far less for both parties by avoiding the court system with its expensive barristers etc.

As the Witch of the North would say "Please explain!"

<<"Many non-government institutions intend to participate in the Scheme to provide meaningful redress to those who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse".

Many institutions INTEND to participate. There is no compulsion as any sensible citizen would know. Government can't dictate to charities how they disperse funds, and Nathan's non-existent charity would have nothing to worry if it did exist.>>

If various charities wish to provide compensation of their own free will, then their is no need for the National Redress Scheme.

The reality is, the scheme was put in place as a way to make various charitable groups pay, and for those who choose not to, the social stigma put on these organisations is that they don't care etc.

The reality is the National Redress Scheme was put in place for a reason and it was done to see charitable groups pay up. It's not there to provide general advice.

For those charities who wish to pay, they've had a long time to compensate in any form. Some have and others have not and charities can can do so, without a government imposed system in place.

Finally, in terms of the charity in question it is real and as Belly has pointed out correctly, the aim is to protect its identity.

Nathan with all the respect in the world I still agree with you BUT
A lifetime of seeing these horrible crimes, even being related to a perpetrator, we need to be careful
Careful not to even look like we're taking the spotlight away from the crime and its victims
On another site, years before I arrived on this one.
A strong denyer of such assaults ever having taken place, was unmasked as a convicted offender
Your thread is about a secondary victim
Let us again feel bad but not ever take the focus away from the crime

Still no evidence from Nathan. What a waste of time this thread has been.

Nathan forget the child trying to taunt you, it is not worth bothering about
That is unless you think this site is worth defending
I do, and doubt any good comes out of the man's endless taunts and out right challenges to the truth of others posts

Belly,

" .... out right challenges to the truth of others posts ...".

What, you don't believe in the right to challenge people's claims, particularly if they seem to be dodgy? Someone refuses to name an organisation that has supposedly been put out of business; if there is no evidence to be found that there is any truth at all in the claim, and the the person claiming it will not produce the evidence?

Just swallow the tale? Is that what we are supposed to do? That might work for you, someone who often makes wild claims with no substance. But most of us are not like that, thankfully.