British LDS Successfully Lobbied for Background Checks

[Marcus]

But you still didn't answer my question, how does instituting background checks translate into 'the joke's on him'?

I thought I did answer your question. The guy wasn't expecting anything to happen, which would have allowed him to use this situation as endless fodder in his personal crusade for recognition at any cost.

And how did you determine that? You really need better sources than the gossip you've been posting.

In the event, the wind was taken from his sails. If his supporter had been on the same page, she would have rejected the invitation to serve. Whereas now, she even needs to comply with the requirements for a temple recommend to act in that role. He won't like that at all. He will consider her to have sold out.

Really? Her interview sounded pretty positive. Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertion here? Besides gossip, I mean?

And you're right, it took a long time to introduce because the UK's attitude to safeguarding eclipses that of American society it seems. America's the best at everything, right? So they weren't about to make changes for little ol' Britain. The changes were needed; the Church needed to allow the UK to act unilaterally.

That's just utter nonsense. Those safeguards are not in place in the lds congregations in the US. THE LDS church is woefully behind in this arena, across the globe. It doesn't take "a long time to introduce" something that needs to be done to protect children. That's just an excuse to justify why the lds church waited so long in England, and is still waiting elsewhere. There are still not background checks required in most lds congregations across the US, even though most other organizations dealing with children instituted them more than well over a decade ago.

[French Toast]

Once you at least understand that arguement, further amicable exchanges await you.

No thanks. And did you not notice the squiggly red line below "arguement"?

[Marcus]

You'll need to support your gossipy posts with some factual evidence, please.

Calling my comments gossip is lazy on your part.

No, presenting gossip as though it were factual is the lazy part.

I could equally dismiss you as a troll for being argumentative without being in possession of any facts to the contrary.

There is so very much to unpack in that statement!!!! (hint: Gossip and third hand hearsay are not facts.)

I am being careful to avoid disclosing the particulars of my relationship with him. I do not need anyone using that information against me or my family.

but you are willing to gossip about another person, and apparently are hoping that information will be used against them.

Pour scorn on my comments if you wish. They have served their purpose.

You mean, they have served your purpose. Gossip is treated as gossip. What purpose you choose to attach to the act of gossiping without supporting your statements is your issue.

[French Toast]

It doesn't take "a long time to introduce" something that needs to be done to protect children. That's just an excuse to justify why the LDS church waited so long in England, and is still waiting elsewhere.

You give the impression of posturing for intellectual superiority. Whatever. I am left wondering whether you are more interested in the challenge than the outcome.

For your information, England is but one nation out of four that together make up the United Kingdom — the names are not interchangeable.

A little nugget of information about which you are likely to be unaware unless you live in the UK is that the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) — which is responsible for the background checks — is expensive, and checks must be undertaken annually. Performing background checks for all individuals who engage with children, youth, and vulnerable adults (in all forms that takes), will be a significant financial undertaking. An organisation would be foolish to rush into something with major financial implications without due diligence.

[French Toast]

You mean, they have served your purpose. Gossip is treated as gossip. What purpose you choose to attach to the act of gossiping without supporting your statements is your issue.

If you say so. I know the individual, and I am aware of circumstances that aren't presented in the media. If you say that's worthless gossip, I'm fine with that. You can't unread what I have shared, even if you choose to disregard it. And should his name pop up in conversation in respect of some other attention-seeking venture, you may just wonder in the back of your mind whether there was some merit to my comments after all. Maybe you will; maybe you won't. Either way, I'm fine with it.

[Marcus]

It doesn't take "a long time to introduce" something that needs to be done to protect children. That's just an excuse to justify why the LDS church waited so long in England, and is still waiting elsewhere.

You give the impression of posturing for intellectual superiority. Whatever. I am left wondering whether you are more interested in the challenge than the outcome.

I've posted about background checks and safeguards for children many, many MANY times here in the past. Do some research before you accuse.

...A little nugget of information about which you are likely to be unaware unless you live in the UK is that the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) — which is responsible for the background checks — is expensive, and checks must be undertaken annually. Performing background checks for all individuals who engage with children, youth, and adults (in all forms that takes), will be a significant financial undertaking.

Surprise, surprise, it costs money to undergo background checks in the US as well. It IS a significant financial undertaking, and most institutions here have absorbed that cost for decades now, as well as other costs that have been documented as necessary to protect children.

An organisation would be foolish to rush into something with major financial implications without due diligence.

Such as background checks for volunteers who will be working with children under the auspices of your organization?

How many years do you anticipate it will take the lds church to reinvent that wheel and decide in favor of basic safeguards that virtually every other organization dealing with children has implemented? How many years does it take to read the research that is unanimously and overwhelmingly in favor of such safeguards?

Come on. Your arguments are meritless.

[Marcus]

You mean, they have served your purpose. Gossip is treated as gossip. What purpose you choose to attach to the act of gossiping without supporting your statements is your issue.

If you say so. I know the individual, and I am aware of circumstances that aren't presented in the media. If you say that's worthless gossip, I'm fine with that. You can't unread what I have shared, even if you choose to disregard it. And should his name pop up in conversation in respect of some other attention-seeking venture, you may just wonder in the back of your mind whether there was some merit to my comments after all. Maybe you will; maybe you won't. Either way, I'm fine with it.

Oh good. Because in my experience, gossip reflects on the gossiper. For you to argue that people will give your gossip credence because you've whispered innuendo trashing a person tells me far more about you than anyone else. People will remember how you posted here; your gossip? Not so much.

[Dwight]

I am going to agree with Marcus and while you think you are having a laugh at Nemo my guess is it’s mostly only in your head. Any ally worth having that would compromise themselves for a stake calling is not worth one having, though my guess is that she won’t be asked to no longer associate with Nemo and Nemo will see it as good to have someone his message has gotten to in that calling. So if anyone the laugh is on you, Nemo won some and then some more.

[French Toast]

So if anyone the laugh is on you, Nemo won some and then some more.

This is nothing if not entertaining. A guy from my ward gets international recognition based on skewed facts — and I'm just a sour-grapes gossip. OK. Whatever.

[Marcus]

So if anyone the laugh is on you, Nemo won some and then some more.

This is nothing if not entertaining. A guy from my ward gets international recognition based on skewed facts — and I'm just a sour-grapes gossip. OK. Whatever.

Yes.

...A guy from my ward gets international recognition...and I'm just a sour-grapes gossip...

Those excerpts are exactly what it sounds like.