Andrew your make your points well and in a reasonable fashion. The Samaritan relationship is very much like that of a priest in that we agree to the rules in as much as we agree not to do anything with information we are given over the telephone.
This ethos, as you rightly call it, is one of the founding principles of the Samaritan organisation. Agree or disagree, as a Sams volunteer we have to abide by it. As with most things in life it isn't simple or cut and dried and people leave because they have calls which cause conflict with their principles. I believe that the organisation has done more good than harm, and in the beginning this thread by its very title seemed to call into question much of what our organisation stands for, that is why I posted on this thread. I didn't call anybody a fool, although I did suggest that they piss in the wind lol.
>> ...one of the founding principles of the Samaritan organisation. Agree or disagree, as a Sams volunteer we have to abide by it... <<
My point was, do your 'principles' take precedence over the law of the land? So far no one has given me a reasonable answer. And I don't piss in the wind anymore than a 'sam' does when they take a call from a killer. Your bloody arrogance is beyond belief.
>>I thought anon Sam was Karl...?<<
Christ on a bike! Just imagine ...
Karl: Hello, Samaritans.
Caller: I think I might have killed someone
Karl: That's nothing mate, some bloke got banged up for 8 yrs for vat fraud, you'll get at least 20
Caller: I'm not sure I can go on knowing what I have done
Karl: Pull yourself together man, Millwall supporters get up and go to work with a clear conscience every Monday
Caller: But I need advice, I need help to move on
Karl: Ahhh, you are clearly a staller. I'm the same, life gets in the way of your dreams, constricts you within a societical box. Me? Yes, I'd love to break out but, you know, life, kids, mortgage, daily mail letters page, ginger spice's arse, christ, there are times when I think of ending it all ...
Background noise: BANG
Karl: ... Have I told you about me wanting to be a beach bum?
Karl: Hello?
Not being a lawyer Mississippi I can't answer that question about what does or doesn't take precedence over the law of the land. It's not me who is arrogant. I am not the one calling into question an organisation with 203 branches and 50 years of experience. I think you are the arrogant one, very, very arrogant. I have seen by reactions of others on this forum that many others think so. Perhaps you should call the Sams maybe to discuss why you feel the need to be so confrontational? Do you feel inadequate? Do have trouble relating to others? Tell us mississippi why do you think that you always know best, is a cleverer, handsomer sibling to blame? Are you rebelling against your parents on this forum? Maybe you are just always right and the rest of the world is wrong. Go demand your answers from someone else you arrogant little man. I will put my opinion when and how I see fit on this PUBLIC forum.
Anon sam, you are doing our organisation NO GOOD by portraying us all as being as bullish as you. As it happens mississippi has every right to question the legality of the samaritans. Please stop your unpleasant behaviour. On the other hand. have you nothing better to do than keep stirring the pot.
Anon, having stated that you don't know whether the samaritans code is legal or not I find it amazing that you defend their right to silence in cases of murder. It's people like myself that question authority that keep it in check and make the country a safer place to live in. That isn't arrogance, neither is it confrontational in the sense you mean. Furthermore I don't always think I know best, unlike yourself, in fact I rarely believe I KNOW best, I just feel obliged to challenge the status quo. The fact that others here may dislike me forwhatever reasons, only reinforces my belief that I must be doing SOMETHING right. At least my name and email is available on site to anyone that really wants it. Suffice it to say I have received not one email of criticism over this thread. Your claim to anonymity as a sam is bullshit, I know several and none of them bother about secrecy, you are just using that as an excuse to hide whilst you abuse me. If your recent posts on this thread are an indication of your responses to strangers, perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you are the right material to be on the end of a phone when someone needs some help. I notice even one of your own is embarrassed by your behaviour. As to your childish ramblings about MY state of mind, your insults are water off a ducks back to me, I've been insulted by professionals to no effect, so you don't stand a chance.
On the other hand is right. Confidentiality has to be observed. When you join you agree to stand by those principles & practices. We get calls from child abusers, paedophiles the lot. How could we help them unless we tried to remain non judgemental? Before making snap judgements try reading upon the service so that you may get a better understanding on how it works.
http://www.samaritans.org.uk/
It is a difficult role taking this standpoint and we all have times when we agonise about what we do. It is very easy to condemn from outside of an organisation. I suggets you go along to one of their information evenings then maybe you will learn more about how the service works. I expect one of your usual flippant replies mississippi, please feel free to not disappoint me.
I've got to say I'm inclined to agree with George. What do you say then to someone who has just confessed to murdering someone?
"Never mind. Why not do something nice to take your mind off it. Treat yourself. Book a holiday. Join an evening class. Meet new people..." etc.
[%sig%]
Andrea much appreciate your comments.
I do have health wise good days and bad days now and never really know
how I will be feeling until I have started my day thats not unusual in the
elderly and as such we have to live with it but at the same time things
could be a lot worse and even through I would like to get out more making
me feel more among the living I do consider myself lucky to be able to
speak to people via my computer so all is not entirely lost...
I agree it couldn't have been easy. The Sams has been around for 50 years this now offering emotional support to those in the depths of despair.
One of the first questions people ask us is "Is this in confidence?". The organisation does have flexibilty with regards to bomb warnings etc, but one the founding principles is that the confidentiality is rock solid. We all agree to that when we join.
We also get one hell of a lot of crank calls. So it is at times difficult to swallow 100% of what every caller tells us, try as we do. Another thing to understand is that with 203 branches the organisation has only 70 paid staff. In other before you knock them remeber that the organistaion is staffed by volunteers. People giving their time to help others for free, a commitment of 15 hours a month on the phones plus a variety of other roles.
I wouldn't knock any of the volunteers or the work they're doing. Just that in a case of life or death I would imagine that the seriousness of the confession would have to over-ride any confidentiality clause.
same problem with catholic confessional. Catholic schools have stopped using priests as chaplains because they are bound to keep silent if a child says they are being abused or are contemplating suicide. My sister is a chaplain at school for the reason
I have some sympathy for that Jeff, common sense dictates that you are right, but at Sams they are inflexible about it. I can understand why, but I would hate to have been in the position that volunteer was put in.
What would you have said if Dr. Shipman had called in?
No really, what do you say then in that position, if you can't tell the authorities? How do they justify it?
I have some idea - in cases like that - the person
sends in anonymous evidence - as much
evidence as they can to authorities
(I mean, I think this happens)
Not wishing to disappoint you oh nameless one. Just who do you think you are? Playing god with other peoples lives isn't even an option for 'god', whoever he is. Your sanctimonious statements about what 'you' agree makes me sick.
Having not disappointed you I would like to qualify my view by saying i only hold these views with regard to the safety of others whom I feel overides your ethics. I think there should be an act of parliament making it against the law to withhold information regarding serious crime. I also have no doubt you will give me some more of your holier than thou platitudes.
I'm also not ignorant of the Samaritans, a very good friend of mine held a senior position for many years.
They justify it by saying that that is the service we offer and that we would
not get the calls if people cannot trust in having complete confidence. Try the link further up this thread. That will explain the principles and practices better than I can.
Hwo di the Misisipi post come out wit the wrongk name den?
Did some one knotty go to his horse and get ina winder and change it?
signed: looks like he rote to imself but y not if hes that lonely an hotcrossbuns one a pinny two a pinny hot crossed buns
Local authorities confidentiality policy stipulates, that you must inform the client that you can not with hold any admission of abuse, if a client ask to be taken into you're confidence's.
A client has a right to confidentiality, in terms of the public, but not in terms of any legal proceedings that may be deemed necessary to protect a child.
In principal this works OK, but in practices?
The point I keep making, Missi, is that the Samaritans have to enforce the confidentiality because the confessor has to believe that their call is confidential or they would not call in the first place. If they just wanted to confess they could call the police. At least if they confess to a Samaritan there is a chance of useful information getting to the authorities as well as helping the confessor face up to their problems and giving themselves up.
oooooo lookie at what google produced as the first result:
UKAuthors - Hidden Voices - Hey, Let's be careful out there..
... Author: Michel (---.41.228.006.VIE-MC.inode.at) Date: 03-07-04 19:59
OK NOW LET ME ASK YOU ONE THING - DO YOU WRITE POETRY????
hahaha. an anti-troll caught trolling. tsk tsk
Not my morals mate, the organisations rules. Have you read any of the above? So don't get on your high horse. It is so easy to knock peolple isn't it? Read the above before making your usual ill considered comments. Learn about your subject and you try doing some as hard as Sams work yourself. Go to training and then maybe you will have a greater insight into why things are done the way they are done. Alternatively just piss in the wind like you always do. Anyone can be a critic mate.
I'm not tying to justify local authority's internal polices missi. I am Marley trying to point out that, as far as Social services, youth justices etc, are concerned.
Confidentiality is not extended to abusers, murderers. Which is you're point i believe?
I also say'd in theory it works, but in Practice?
OK, how does the 'useful information' you mention get to the authorities if you keep your mouths shut? The point I'm making is who gives anyone the right to protect serious criminals? I suggest that whilst you try to 'help' the offender, it does nothing to help the victims, actual or potential.
You don't keep you're mouth shut missi. You try to prosecute an almost impossible task, because the family courts make it almost impossible to prosecute the offender.
A breech of confidentiality is exactly what an abuser wants and believe me, you will lose a case on that Alon.
yes I cma a goopd poet
tskit a tasket lost my yeller baskit (poetry)
I went inner horse winder las night and changjed the name
(this and that annon.surfer address from the internet in case you want one!
you get thim from looking use one eye you can find them) there is a list)
anyone got rope? I broot chewing gum and lemmingade
Firstly I'm not your 'mate' and secondly are the 'rules' of the samaritans enshrined in the law of the land? John says that confidentiality is NOT extended to serious offenders in local authority law, so why should you be different? It's obvious from your comments that you have made up your mind about 'me'. Well I have no need of your approval, and going to your meetings may shed some light on 'your' beliefs but hey are not necessarily right or even the only ones. I accept I may be wrong but I still don't see how being a do-gooder can help a potential victim. Lastly the fact that the samaritans is an 'organisation' means little, the world is full of organisations, some good, some bad. I'm not actually knocking them as a whole, just this blind stupidity with regards a murder confession. Thank christ Ray Osbourne had more sense than you appear to be displaying.
It's only a couple of threads ago you were maintaining that nothing mattered, Missi. Now you are forcefully arguing that people who make a vow of confidentiality in an effort to help troubled individuals are immoral - but of course it doesn't really matter to you.
As for how information can reach the authorities there are many different ways the most obvious being that the individual does what Ray Osbourne did - something he could not have done had he not made the vow of confidentiality in the first place!
It seems there are two opposing views going on between you John, and our good samaritan who doesn't have the honesty to use his name. HE says mouths are kept shut, YOU say they aren't. I'm not arguing with you, I'm querying who has the right to say 'nothing'.
If you had bothered to take in what I was saying rather than just looking for something to slag me for, you would have seen that what I said was nothing matters in the grand scheme of things, and I stand by that.
You also appear to be suggesting that all samaritans keep their code of confidentiality until something like this occurs then go public. Perhaps you and sam should go public and say who you are, but then that would breach your code wouldn't it?
Pages