Cab Cam – Lutmer Farmers, Warren County

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest This “Cab Cam” took The Ohio Ag Net’s Ty Higgins to Lebanon, Ohio in Warren County where he joined Lutmer Farms. Chris and Mike Lutmer are just about wrapped up with corn planting and now getting soybean planting in full swing. Chris says things are coming along nicely so far this year, but a rain in the near term would  certainly be welcomed.last_img

What Encourages Disclosure of Childhood Sexual Abuse?

first_imgReferences[1] McElvaney, R.,  Greene, S. & Hogan, D. (2014). To tell or not to tell? Factors influencing young people’s informal disclosures of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(5), 928-947. doi: 10.1177/0886260513506281This post was written by Jay Morse & Heidi Radunovich, PhD, members of the MFLN Family Development (FD) team which aims to support the development of professionals working with military families. Find out more about the Military Families Learning Network FD concentration on our website, on Facebook, on Twitter, YouTube, and on LinkedIn. Jay Morse and Heidi Radunovich, PhDVictims of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) often struggle with whether or not to tell anyone about their sexual abuse, and sometimes delay disclosure for years, if they disclose at all. But what can be done to increase the likelihood of disclosing CSA? In a recent qualitative study in Ireland, McElvaney, Greene, and Hogan (2014) examined informal disclosure of CSA, considering events leading up to, during, and following disclosure.[Flickr, Sad by U.S. Fotografle, CC BY-ND 2.0] Retrieved on September 17, 2015The researchers interviewed 22 children and adolescents, and 14 of their parents. Responses to interview questions were divided into three categories: 1) General – related to all cases; 2) Typical – more than one-half the cases included the response; and 3) Variant – only two or three cases reported.Five crucial areas related to disclosure were identified:1)      Being believed. Fear of not being believed was the reason most often cited for not disclosing the abuse.2)      Being asked. Respondents often stated that their disclosure was related to “being asked” whether directly, or indirectly. Parents or concerned observers, such as a teacher, often noted a change in behavior and asked if anything were wrong, which encouraged disclosure. In two cases, family members observed sexualized behaviors that were unusual for the victim of the abuse.3)      Shame and self-blame. Almost one-half of the participants reported feeling ashamed or blaming themselves as the reason for not disclosing. Children/adolescents reasoned that it was too embarrassing to tell a parent of the incident. Self-blame also played a role in not disclosing the abuse. In some cases, this self-blame extended beyond the event itself and focused on the consequences of talking about the event, hiding the abuse for fear of what might follow.4)      Fears and Concerns for Self and Others. Fear of the consequences of disclosing their abuse varied among participants, even though most of the fears were unfounded. Included in the responses were fears of the abuser hurting them again, as well as the impact on the family, and/or fear of going through the judicial process.5)      Peer Influence. In this study, peer influence encouraged the young person to disclose to an adult, with 15 of the 22 young people interviewed reporting that they had first disclosed their abuse to a friend or relative before disclosing to a parent.Clinicians who work with children and adolescents should be aware of the following in their practice:Shame and self-blame are issues for children and adolescents who consider disclosing their abuse. Practitioners can diminish the possible negative messages received by young people from people around them by encouraging an atmosphere of trust.Peers play an important role in disclosure, providing support to the victim and encouraging disclosure. Professionals working with victims of abuse can ask about available peer support.Some of the participants noted that “they had never been asked.” Often, just asking will elicit disclosure of CSA.last_img read more

Pune court acquits two for 2012 murder of suspected IM operative

first_imgThe Pune sessions court on Wednesday acquitted gangster Sharad Mohol and his aide Alok Bhalerao in connection with the murder of suspected Indian Mujahideen (IM) operative Mohammed Qateel Siddiqui. The court of additional sessions judge S.H. Gwalani acquitted the duo citing “lack of evidence”. Mohol, a dreaded history-sheeter and Bhalerao had allegedly strangled Siddiqui with the cord of the latter’s trousers inside the high-security cell in Pune’s Yerwada jail on June 8, 2012.At the time, the duo was serving time for the murder of gangster Kishore Marne, a member of the Ganesh Marne gang.Siddiqui, who was first arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police in November 2011, was alleged to be involved in the blasts at Chinnaswamy stadium and Jama Masjid in Bengaluru and Delhi respectively and was said to have close links with IM mastermind Yasin Bhatkal.At the time of his custody, Siddiqui, who hailed from Darbhanga in Bihar, was being probed by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad for his alleged role in a conspiracy to plant a bomb outside Pune’s famous Dagdusheth Ganpati temple.Conflicting reports emerged immediately after the murder, some suggesting that the killing was the consequence of a heated altercation between Mohol and Siddiqui. According to others, the gangster killed the terror suspect as the former was an ardent devotee of Lord Ganesha and was allegedly infuriated that Siddiqui was planning to bomb the temple. In November last year, with the case dragging on, six key prosecution witnesses turned hostile.“We have had our doubts in the conduct of this case from the beginning. Both Mohol and Bhalerao are city-based gangsters. Eyewitnesses turned hostile owing to fear of reprisal. Once we get the order, we will be moving Bombay High Court,” said Anjum Inamdar of the Moolnivasi Muslim Manch.In May 2016, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had directed the State government to pay a compensation of ₹5 lakh to Siddiqui’s family on grounds that he was in the custody of the State and his killing constituted violation of human rights.Mr. Inamdar, whose outfit has been fighting for justice for Siddiqui’s kin, also alleged that Mohol had committed the crime to get into the good books of fringe Hindutva outfits.last_img read more