Sign the Petition

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Nice try. I guess Garfield is right. Reading comprehension is not your thing. What I am trivializing is your posts. "George didn't answer me. George didn't answer me. George didn't answer me."  

But that is between! me and George, nobody is forcing you to read it. And oh, by the way, he still has not answered.

[Stu]

11 minutes ago, afd said:

Change.org is nothing but a waste of time. Have you read some of the petitions they have on there?

For me, I do not sign them. What I find funny is that if you do a search on the web for articles that report on the impact of change.org the journalists cite the claims of of that company as their source for the documented impact.

[skevinp]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

But that is between! me and George, nobody is forcing you to read it. And oh, by the way, he still has not answered.

Actually you are pretty much forcing all of us to read it by posting it in a public forum, and it is kind of creeping me out a little.  

I have no reason to believe anyone here is pro-sexual harassment.  People may simply disagree about how to best deal with such matters.  People may also find the motivations of the oddly surnamed Mr. Petitioner to be suspect and, based on what I have seen on DCP, I understand how they could. 

This discussion has taken place among people I find to be both likable and intelligent, you and George among them.  Let's be respectful and who knows what good might come out of it.  

[BRASSO]

4 hours ago, skevinp said:

Pushing this and maybe some other changes could lead to an eventual decision that no one under 18 can participate in DCI.  

 I seriously doubt it. Unless you believe that the thousands of  Girls Softball All Star teams ( aged 13-18) that travel on buses, take showers, or stay overnite on travel tournaments, etc will similarly have " no one under 18" participating in the future. I see no value in overreacting to a simple petition for DCI to be vigilant here either. I think this all gets its proper airing now, and then proactive measures adopted  by both Corps and DCI itself that will limit any future reoccurances of problems. But maybe I'm being too optimistic, naive with this too.. who knows. But I see little to no harm with this petition drive, frankly.

[Stu]

25 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Actually you are pretty much forcing all of us to read it by posting it in a public forum, and it is kind of creeping me out a little.  

I have no reason to believe anyone here is pro-sexual harassment.  People may simply disagree about how to best deal with such matters.  People may also find the motivations of the oddly surnamed Mr. Petitioner to be suspect and, based on what I have seen on DCP, I understand how they could. 

This discussion has taken place among people I find to be both likable and intelligent, you and George among them.  Let's be respectful and who knows what good might come out of it.  

Thanks for the compliment; and your posts as well as others are also insightful.  It is in discussions like these which really indicate where a person truly stands.

[Stu]

5 hours ago, garfield said:

... IMO, once an offender has done the time for the crime, he/she is entitled to a second chance...

I missed this particular statement before.  The thing is that a convicted sexual offender only completes his/her full sentence at the time of death.  The time served in prison or probation is not completing the full sentence; the full sentence includes being on the registry list 'for life' and also includes mandatory checking in with authorities every time an address change or job change occurs.  So, if you are for sex offenders having a second chance being around kids after they have completed their time, well that time will only be after they are dead.

[George Dixon]

44 minutes ago, skevinp said:

Actually you are pretty much forcing all of us to read it by posting it in a public forum, and it is kind of creeping me out a little.  

I have no reason to believe anyone here is pro-sexual harassment.  People may simply disagree about how to best deal with such matters.  People may also find the motivations of the oddly surnamed Mr. Petitioner to be suspect and, based on what I have seen on DCP, I understand how they could. 

This discussion has taken place among people I find to be both likable and intelligent, you and George among them.  Let's be respectful and who knows what good might come out of it.  

amen!

[George Dixon]

2 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Nice try. I guess Garfield is right. Reading comprehension is not your thing. What I am trivializing is your posts. "George didn't answer me. George didn't answer me. George didn't answer me."  

and I'm not going to - Stu is on my ignore and will remain there lol

[skevinp]

45 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 I seriously doubt it. Unless you believe that the thousands of  Girls Softball All Star teams ( aged 13-18) that travel on buses, take showers, or stay overnite on travel tournaments, etc will similarly have " no one under 18" participating in the future. I see no value in overreacting to a simple petition for DCI to be vigilant here either. I think this all gets its proper airing now, and then proactive measures adopted  by both Corps and DCI itself that will limit any future reoccurances of problems. But maybe I'm being too optimistic, naive with this too.. who knows. But I see little to no harm with this petition drive, frankly.

I didn't mean to suggest such as a reaction to the petition, just that some of the things people were saying DCI could be liable for or should be accountable for, in addition to other complexities associated with minors in addition to this one issue, could lead to consideration of such in the future.    It could be class specific or and/or corps-specific (by their own choice).  And unlike your girls softball example, I think minors are a pretty small minority at least in some corps.

[BRASSO]

3 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

. GH hired a guy who had been convicted in CA of malfeasance of a bad sort with the kinder. Yes. We all know. And if it we're to happen again GH would open himself up to negligence. Yes. Obviously he made the decision the reward is worth the risk. Yes. Others would not make that choice. 

... and " others ( who ) would not make that choice " more than likely involves the Insurance Carrier for this Corps too. Corps Directors can and do take " risks ". Often times, those " risks " are transferred to an Insurance Co for an agreed premium charge to the Corps in case something goes wrong. Insurance Companies annually evaluate such " risks " and assign a premium for talking on that " risk " transferred to them with the premium payments. Sometimes Insurance Companies do not want to take on the " risks " and alert the Insured they will no longer insure them for that new"  risk ". In the case of a person with a sexual offender conviction in their background, there is the natural and legal requirement on the part of the employer ( the Corps ) to inform their Insurance Carrier that they have this person now in their employ. That legal obligation to notify the Insurance Carrier one assumes has been made by the Corps in question here, and the person solely responsible for hiring him and as you said... " take on the risk " with the hire. One does not want to find out what typically happens when a sexual offender hired by a Corps fails to inform its current Insurance Co, that it has knowingly decided to hire a convicted sex offender, but the first time the Insurance carrier finds out about this is when an Insurance Claim is filed should this hire have a reoccurrance, and  the Corps wants the Insurance Carrier to pay their Legal costs, Court costs, legal damages. etc to the victim(s). Sure, Corps Directors can take on new " risks ". And of course too, Insurance Carriers need to know what those new risks are that they've decided to take on for themselves, and by extension, their Corps.

Edited November 1, 2017 by BRASSO