A victim who ends up with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and is placed on the pension will end up costing the taxpayer a fair sum. Some people would resent this burden on their taxes, and be likely to somehow blame the victim. This would be most unfair. It is the abusers’ organisations which should carry this cost, not the taxpayer.

When it has been established that a person has been affected to this extent, the government should have the means to recoup the cost from the responsible organisation. This is not the same as personal recompense for the victim for loss of income and continuing suffering. That should be a matter for separate consideration, as has been pointed out in earlier postings.

The above may seem to be self-evident, but here have been situations which have indicated that the government does not really get the message. For example, if a person receives a payout from a church, and has previously had therapy for the effects of the abuse, the Australian government demands a 10% cut for its contributions through Medicare. This cost should not come from the victim. It should come separately from the abuser’s organisation. Otherwise there is a disincentive for the victim to seek professional help.

While it would be fairly easy for economists to advise on the welfare, medical, and health costs associated with victims’ symptoms, there is one other factor which should concern all members of society. It involves a cost to the community in the loss of the benefits of the victims’ skills. For example, a person may have become a scientist and contributed to medical research, but, because of the damage, does not have that career. Such costs to the society are difficult to quantify, but are real nonetheless. It gives yet another incentive to the Australian community to put an end to the destruction of its members just to satisfy the lusts of institutional paedophiles.

TOMORROW: Proof of a theory: The Heiner Affair and the Carmody Inquiry latest

That’s all I can say

Lewis Blayse (né Lewin Blazevich)