Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Another bad case for the Scouts

By johnboy - 15 October 2008 68

The ABC has a bad story for the local Scouting movement with a 21 year old Banks man fronting the court “facing a number of charges including five counts of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 and two of possessing child pornography”

Apparently he met the girls through a scouts group.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
68 Responses to
Another bad case for the Scouts
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
zephyr9673 9:19 pm 19 Oct 08

I was in the cubs then scouts. I think it is great the gender boundary is gone, sad to see it being so badly abused.

It would be interesting to hear from the scouting movement, what if any sort of response it has come up with.

Reading through, there is more than this story of abuse. Catholic church, Hari Krishna etc have had similar though worse scaled activities.

I think scouts should take the initiative here and lead the way with some protective strategies and working towards an Amber Alert system, it could easily couple with existing search and rescue operations

There is plenty of resources, and this discussion shows there is some concern.

I hate watching bad slide to worse, you know what I mean? Megan then Jessica, when you look at the sophistication of organized crime and opportunistic offenders, as this individual would appear to be, something has to be done, has RiotACT sort ACT Scouts response to this case?

Overheard 3:52 pm 17 Oct 08

Madman said :

Overheard said :

Madman, as per other posts, I don’t judge on poor English on this site but for you I’ll make an exception. How many more years do you have in high school before college?

Hey Overheard, that’s not very nice…

Hi Madman. Some days I figure I should have a lock on my keyboard that doesn’t let me comment, because I do it in haste and that can be a blessing a burden. I’m super-reactive which means it can comes across as harsh when it’s really just my fingers flying over the keyboard at 220kmh without the brain being in gear.

So the key (G sharp, I think on the song I’m just trying to imprint) is to not take what I say too literally, but do give me an uppercut as you have.

The thing is that my surname is a verb. “To heard”. It has five meanings and one is to asiduously check and correct people’s grammar, punctuation, spelling and grammar without their asking. I do it professionally, privately, personally and everywhere.

Does it give me a world of hurt? Yep. Is it done to big up myself? Abso-farking-tively not. I only use my powers for good, and I’ll spare you the comms/marketing/PR 101 on why it’s important.

And as I’ve said elsewhere, I mostly switch that chip off when I’m on RiotACT because context is everytyhing and not — I’m deliberately NOT going to go back and fix that typo I just created — typically here to write serious conference style papers or news articles, though I’ve started dabbling.

To summarise. Sorry if I caused offence, but do see my other comments on topic on the site.

Sh!te: beer o’clock minus nine minutes and I have to find my sheet music!

Madman 3:37 pm 17 Oct 08

mmmm pretty disgusting story…

Skidbladnir 2:25 pm 16 Oct 08

(In some circles, I think his art is crap in general and haven’t paid his latest one much attention, but he seems to be winning friends amongst art crowds).
The OFLC determined his photographs were “mild and justified” in the circumstances portrayed, and they were not pornographic, despite containing naked children.

Back Ontopic:
Canberra Times article
Having just checked the Supreme Court lists: yes it is the same person as I have previously mentioned, it is just the one case. Multiple offenses, seperate victims.

Gerry-Built 2:23 pm 16 Oct 08

Skidbladnir said :

Bill Henson has shown that non-pornographic images may contain naked children.

was of course supposed to be a quote

Gerry-Built 2:17 pm 16 Oct 08

@ Skidbladnir:

Bill Henson has shown that non-pornographic images may contain naked children.

No. He absolutely has not…

jakez 1:52 pm 16 Oct 08

I should not have forgotten that ‘hypothetical’ is not a word that appears in RiotACTs dictionary.

swissbignose 1:25 pm 16 Oct 08

p1 said :

You’ve quoted it all wrong – it’s a 21 year old with a 15 year old. Of course it would be legal if the minor was 16 in the case of consensual sex, and is illegal to posses pornography of anyone under 18… So you’re wrong on both statements

I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the law, and it appears you lot too, determines things differently if there is still a six year age difference, but where the younger party is of legal age to be able to consent.

I admit I was wrong about the age that child pornography kicks in.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site