Jeff Ream Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 3 hours ago, camel lips said: It might not be enough but its a start. Clearly in the case of Larson everyone knew his history and turned a blind eye to it. I think other cases people turned a blind eye to things. Disclosure of Background checks to DCI and DCA would wave red flags in any case. Larson is an outlier. Yes a records check would have caught him, but until schools stop sweeping stuff under the rug, the legal systems stops allowing actions to be expunged, and most importantly people learn to stop ####### kids, background checks will never be enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 12 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: Larson is an outlier. Yes a records check would have caught him, but until schools stop sweeping stuff under the rug, the legal systems stops allowing actions to be expunged, and most importantly people learn to stop ####### kids, background checks will never be enough This is a good point - unfortunately the only way to enter the legal system's offenders list is to, well, commit an offense. Note the singular - one offence should be all it takes to get listed (one & done). But, this still means that an offence leading to a conviction is committed against someone. However, I don't think we should be putting individuals on a list just because they are "creepy" or make someone uncomfortable -IMHO there has to be a legal conviction. Another thought - there should be some way for offender lists to cross State (or other jurisdictional) boundaries. If I go to my local Home Depot in Virginia, there warning label that says 'this product contains something State of California says can cause cancer'. Under this paradigm a search would say 'This individual has been put on a sex offender list by the State of New Jersey' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said: This is a good point - unfortunately the only way to enter the legal system's offenders list is to, well, commit an offense. Note the singular - one offence should be all it takes to get listed (one & done). But, this still means that an offence leading to a conviction is committed against someone. However, I don't think we should be putting individuals on a list just because they are "creepy" or make someone uncomfortable -IMHO there has to be a legal conviction. Another thought - there should be some way for offender lists to cross State (or other jurisdictional) boundaries. If I go to my local Home Depot in Virginia, there warning label that says 'this product contains something State of California says can cause cancer'. Under this paradigm a search would say 'This individual has been put on a sex offender list by the State of New Jersey' i have the same complaint about the medical industry. if I am in a car accident in Texas and I am unable to communicate, they have no way of knowing my medical history. Hell a month ago with a kidney stone as they asked me the same questions 7 times in one trip in, i couldn't even remember my entire history. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: i have the same complaint about the medical industry. if I am in a car accident in Texas and I am unable to communicate, they have no way of knowing my medical history. Hell a month ago with a kidney stone as they asked me the same questions 7 times in one trip in, i couldn't even remember my entire history. On that point had eye doc appt yesterday and couldn’t understand how they knew a medicine change made since my last visit. Was told they had a hook up to what ever database my pharmacy uses. Yeah technology is there is legalities worked out and effort is given. And medication is considered private info unlike predator lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Erchamion Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 On 12/16/2018 at 8:54 AM, Weaklefthand4ever said: I think you hit the nail on the head. The question in my mind is "why?" For years and years, companies avoided the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace for a multitude of reasons. To protect "talented" executives who were making the company money, to protect themselves from potential backlash if investors did not prescribe to the 'ole boy "circle the wagons mentality, and to keep one type of investigation to leading to other investigations. Not to mention the possibility that they were just raging turds who didn't see anything wrong with it in the first place. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Erchamion Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 On 12/16/2018 at 11:46 AM, HockeyDad said: Dan needs to be fired. Yes. The message must be sent both inside and outside the activity that this is never tolerated. His replacement needs to be someone with a nonprofit management background; a drum corps background should be a secondary, "nice-to-have" consideration. According to Acheson's LinkedIn, his only formal management training is an undergraduate business degree (undergraduate business degrees are just degrees in schmoozing, tbh) that he didn't even begin work on until several years after he took the DCI job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: i have the same complaint about the medical industry. if I am in a car accident in Texas and I am unable to communicate, they have no way of knowing my medical history. Hell a month ago with a kidney stone as they asked me the same questions 7 times in one trip in, i couldn't even remember my entire history. When I had my gall bladder removed, they kept asking me the same questions over and over in prep. The light bulb went on. I then asked them if they kept asking them to judge my mental state and see if I was coherent, aware, and not going crazy or panicing. I got a nod, grin and a 'yessssssss'..... Prolly what they were doing with you in part, thought I hear those stones are enough to drive you off the cliff. I feel bad you got 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted December 19, 2018 Author Share Posted December 19, 2018 57 minutes ago, Beren Erchamion said: Not to mention the possibility that they were just raging turds who didn't see anything wrong with it in the first place. 👏👏👏👏👏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Beren Erchamion said: Not to mention the possibility that they were just raging turds who didn't see anything wrong with it in the first place. If I were to start a band...this would be our name. Ladies and gentlemen please welcome to the stage...."THE RAGING TURDS!!!!" <and downbeat> ...ok, carry on.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, BigW said: I then asked them if they kept asking them to judge my mental state and see if I was coherent, aware, and not going crazy... Prolly what they were doing with you in part We should probably continue to do that where Jeff is concerned. :D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts