Bluecoats, BD, and SA (TW: Sexual Assault)

[MikeN]

1 hour ago, Mello Dude said:

Welcome to the modern USA nanny state.  I honestly don't get holding organizations, when they take prudent measures, need to be lambasted over adult individuals that do bad things that, it the world of reality, no one can stop 100% of the time.  It would be like chasing a fart in a whirlwind.  I mean even BEYOND any contract you sign you (the adult individual) are still held to the letter of the law regardless.

As a risk manager, I am absolutely professionally convinced the only thing preventing the end of the touring model as we know it is that there hasn't been a court case requiring its examination.

Mike

[Toby]

9 minutes ago, MikeN said:

As a risk manager, I am absolutely professionally convinced the only thing preventing the end of the touring model as we know it is that there hasn't been a court case requiring its examination.

Mike

Ain’t that the truth.  

[KVG_DC]

6 minutes ago, MikeN said:

As a risk manager, I am absolutely professionally convinced the only thing preventing the end of the touring model as we know it is that there hasn't been a court case requiring its examination.

Mike

So yeah. At what point does liability insurance be come a thing here?  Do corps carry it?  I'm thinking of about the kind of liability insurance churches and religious orgs carry for these reasons.  That, as has been shared by a number of us in these conversations with familiarity with church workings, has been THE driver of church orgs reviewing and implementing better practices.  

if a corps has no insurance being carried regarding the tour, that corps is a lawsuit from from going poof faster than SCV.  (sorry, its just the most recent model of a corps going poof for the nonce).  

If they are carrying insurance what point do the insurance companies look more deeply into the touring model and go, uh...if you want this covered your premium is gonna be WAAAAAY up here.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, Cappybara said:

This goes both ways. 

Oh I agree. I wasn’t brigade specific for a reason 

[Den8uml]

Has BD released a statement? Seems like the accused has left the corps but I didn’t see an official statement. 

[Toby]

10 minutes ago, KVG_DC said:

So yeah. At what point does liability insurance be come a thing here?  Do corps carry it?  I'm thinking of about the kind of liability insurance churches and religious orgs carry for these reasons.  That, as has been shared by a number of us in these conversations with familiarity with church workings, has been THE driver of church orgs reviewing and implementing better practices.  

if a corps has no insurance being carried regarding the tour, that corps is a lawsuit from from going poof faster than SCV.  (sorry, its just the most recent model of a corps going poof for the nonce).  

If they are carrying insurance what point do the insurance companies look more deeply into the touring model and go, uh...if you want this covered your premium is gonna be WAAAAAY up here.

Insurance premiums have killed many things that would be considered enjoyable. A lot of tourist train excursions got real expensive real fast at the turn of the 21st century. 

[DWW11]

2 minutes ago, Den8uml said:

Has BD released a statement? Seems like the accused has left the corps but I didn’t see an official statement. 

Why do they need to make any statement?  Completely unnecessary, IMHO. 

[GraysonHarris]

3 minutes ago, Den8uml said:

Has BD released a statement? Seems like the accused has left the corps but I didn’t see an official statement. 

They don't need to release a statement.  The accused person leaving the organization is statement enough. 

[PamahoNow]

5 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I never said I was fair or neutral. I said I'm on the side of victims because I am one and I actively witness their stories, a new one every month pretty much.

I'm not sure that this is true.  I think you are on the side of a person who claims to be a victim. That is your first thought.  At that point you do not know if the claim is valid or not.  I think a better approach is it be initially neutral, and begin investigating if this claim is valid or not.  If after finding evidence that the claim is valid, being on the side of the victim is appropriate, and I would think that if after finding evidence that the claim is not valid, being on the side of the accused would be appropriate.  

At the claim of victimhood, it certainly is appropriate to provide help, succor and comfort.  And I am sure you do this.  And advocating for ways to help victims and those who claim victimhood is also appropriate and I am sure you do this as well.  

You should never be anything other than being "on the side of victims".  I just don't know how you can decide so quickly that a person who claims victimhood, is in fact a victim.  Maybe you don't.  And maybe you are right more often than not.  But seeking that funny thing we call "justice", seems to require more than hearing one side of any issue.  

I have always been a skeptic in most all things.  First question is always "why is that so". "What evidence is there that that is true?  "How can see that that is true?"  And I think that we should do so with claims of victimhood.

[LabMaster]

13 minutes ago, KVG_DC said:

So yeah. At what point does liability insurance be come a thing here?  Do corps carry it?  I'm thinking of about the kind of liability insurance churches and religious orgs carry for these reasons.  That, as has been shared by a number of us in these conversations with familiarity with church workings, has been THE driver of church orgs reviewing and implementing better practices.  

if a corps has no insurance being carried regarding the tour, that corps is a lawsuit from from going poof faster than SCV.  (sorry, its just the most recent model of a corps going poof for the nonce).  

If they are carrying insurance what point do the insurance companies look more deeply into the touring model and go, uh...if you want this covered your premium is gonna be WAAAAAY up here.

I’m curious; what liability coverage would cover sexual assault allegations, convictions?  Not even sure how it would be written.