Evacuated

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.
Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.
One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".
Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.
So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.
This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph.
It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here.
This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning.
I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching.
Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider:
24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal.
The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this:
John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ==================
So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled:
(Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.
(Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.
The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd."
Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications:
The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.
Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.
One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".
Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.
So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.
This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.
Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.
One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".
Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.
So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.
This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

Fairly factual document, disregarding the mild journalistic sensationalism.
Actual quotations from elder's procedural guidance show their scriptural basis, so any disputing will clearly be over the interpretation and application of scripture. Such arguments generally deteriorate into an assault on the validity of Biblical directive, attacking if not authenticity, then asserting antiquity as grounds for obsolescence. Once again, the fact that behaviour that is legislated as criminal by the state is handled from a spritual standpoint by the congregation is presented as if it had some significance.
Case studies.
No 1 presents a woman subject to domestic violence. For some reason, she married a man who had already subjected her to abuse.The catalogue of abuse that she and her children eventually brought before secular authorities was denied by the perpetrator. However he was found guilty despite his denial in the face of witnesses. The matter was handled from a spiritual standpoint by the congregation. However the approach was too lenient from the victim's standpoint, and she feels her testimony and that of her children was discounted by those who handled the case. Although eventually the abuser was disfellowshipped, his apparent reinstatement seems to have taken place rather quickly, and the unresolved issue of his continued denial of abuse in the face of his conviction on evidence remains. The case is presented as being mishandled against the congregational procedures which is unusual. The article states that the victim: "has nothing against the church itself. Yet she contributes to Fædrelandsvennens article. Her most important motive is a hope that change of internal procedures, guidelines and attitudes in her church may be possible". It is difficult to comment on  the case as only one side of the matter is presented. An ARC type investigation on video would be necessary to make a judgement. Any opinions outside of that would just be prejudiced.
No 2 presents a couple who decide on aborting a child due to the mother's mental state. In the ensuing judicial case within the congregation, they successfully feigned repentance in order to avoid disfellowshipping. Probably this is presented to illustrate the fact that the determining of repentance is a flawed process? In any event, the couple are now experiencing spiritual difficulties as a result, but apprently attribute this to some sort of perceived 'mind control' by the religious system rather than guilt over their terminating of the life of the foetus.
No 3 presents the case of a woman who embarks on a course involving fornication on a number of occasions with more than one partner. She objected to the fact a confidant informed the elders of her conduct. She understandably did not enjoy her experiences before the resulting  judicial committees, and although not disfellowshipped the first time, she was on a subsequent occasion after repeating the violation and on the grounds that she did not demonstrate a sufficient level of repentance. (This is the normal grounds for disfellowshpping). She finds her experience of being disfellowshipped as most unpleasant.
No 4 presents a woman subject to sexual abuse within the marriage. Lack of suitable testimony  meant her complaints to the police were dismissed. It seems (apparently) her complaints were sympathetically viewed by the elders, but their advice for her to try and resolve the matter was not satisfactory. Although she had grounds for a separation, there was no scripturural basis for divorce. She decided to divorce on secular grounds and remarried out of the religion. This scripturally constituted an adulterous marriage,  and she was subsequently disfellowshipped for this violation.
The agenda of the publishers of this article seems to revolve around the assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses have a "legal" system to circumvent that of the state. There is also an undertone of disapproval of the effects of the disfellowshipping arrangement.
The citing of the instructions to elders and the scriptural basis for them is actually very helpful in evaluating what is presented in the article, although it  is not clear if that was the publisher's intention.

Is that what you did?

I KNOW THAT !  PLEASE STOP THESE  WRONG  THINKING....
EOIN IS OK !!

Oh I see, so you are one of these vigilante brothers/sisters who thinks that no one else can see or understand anything as well as they can. Well you are actually completely wrong about Eoin. Please get your facts right before you judge someone adversely. I can private message you a list of who are the apostates or have apostate leanings on this forum, and Eoin Joyce isn't one of them.
Proverbs 13:18

Do you think this made him more accountable?

You have a higher % of sextalk in your postings than WT material though.

You have a higher % of sextalk in your postings than WT material though.

In the Hebrew scriptures it was necessary to discuss things relating to sex fairly graphically.  No beating around the bush. Jehovah wanted his people to be holy so he had to say in detail what he wanted and didn't want. Jehovah is not shy.
"(Leviticus 20:10-21) . . .who commits adultery with another man’s wife: The one who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow man should be put to death without fail, the adulterer and the adulteress. 11 A man who lies down with his father’s wife has exposed his father to shame. Both of them should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies down with his daughter-in-law, both of them should be put to death without fail. They have violated what is natural. Their own blood is upon them. 13 “‘If a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 14 “‘If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is an obscene act. They should burn him and them in the fire, so that obscene conduct may not continue among you. 15 “‘If a man has intercourse with a beast, he should be put to death without fail, and you should kill the beast. 16 If a woman approaches any beast to have intercourse with it, you must kill the woman and the beast. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 17 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of the sons of their people. He has exposed his sister to shame. He should answer for his error. 18 “‘If a man lies down with a menstruating woman and has sexual relations with her, both he and she have exposed her flow of blood. Both of them must be cut off from among their people. 19 “‘You must not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister or your father’s sister, because that would be exposing a blood relative to shame. They should answer for their error. 20 A man who lies down with his uncle’s wife has exposed his uncle to shame. They should answer for their sin. They should die childless. 21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is something abhorrent. He has exposed his brother to shame. They should become childless."
People are doing all these things now to a greater degree, so it needs to be discussed. In first century the Bible said fornication was being practised by a member in the congregation which was not heard of in the pagan community. Imagine all the perverted things being practised with all the latest technology (sex dolls etc.) and depraved standards.)
(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
 

You need to use the complete phrase: "sexual immorality requiring judicial action"

adjective: permissive
1. allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior. "the permissive society of the 60s and 70s" synonyms: liberal, broad-minded, open-minded, nonrestrictive, free, free and easy, easygoing, live-and-let-live, latitudinarian, laissez-faire, libertarian, unprescriptive, unrestricted, tolerant, forbearing, indulgent, lenient; More  
No, Jehovah Witnesses have never been permissive or tolerant towards immorality of any kind. Anyone practicing these things is disfellowshipped.
 
 
 
 

I think you must have missed my post about that.
Lett didn't say child abuse was apostate lies and propaganda, he wasn't denying there was a problem. What he said was that us denying there is a problem, and ignoring child abuse, is apostate lies.
I will reply to the rest of your post later. I can't right now.

Yes indeed...., but not wisely (unless I am mistaken)...."But Peter, in response, said to him: “Although all the others are stumbled in connection with you, I will never be stumbled!”" Matt.26:33

The problem I see you have with this kind of information is that you are only reinforcing the perception that we are approaching the end of "the last days"
You really need to be more specific about why you think this has any other significance.  🤔???

Looks more like a Crisis of Parking!! 

Looks more like a Crisis of Parking!! 

It is surely horses for courses?
I know of pioneers who did it whilst at Uni, (the grant paid more than a part time job). JW college lecturers etc.
" Avoid dogmatic viewpoints or quick decisions based on personal preferences" is the counsel..... and jealousy I would add.

Actually, I condemn the action (or inaction) of every single last one of you who hide the facts of child abuse from the relevant authorities. I don't differentiate on the basis of any perceived status in or out of any organisation. You are all in the same bag to me.

It's not about the issue around who is on what side or the other.
It's primarily about the safety of children and the failure of adults, whoever they are, to discharge their responsibility to ensure that safety. And it's also about the moral responsibility of those both inside and outside of organisations who cover up detailed allegations out of cowardice and misplaced loyalties.
These responsibilities are not removed by the opinions of others.

Actually, I condemn the action (or inaction) of every single last one of you who hide the facts of child abuse from the relevant authorities. I don't differentiate on the basis of any perceived status in or out of any organisation. You are all in the same bag to me.

The problem with that reasoning is that what has to happen for time to tell? Another child is molested? Do we "sacrifice" another child so when that happens we then know for 'sure' this person is a danger and needs to be constrained in a more effective way? (i.e. prison and counseling etc.).
In cases of child sexual molestation, unlike other judicial cases (adultery, fornication etc.)  the congregation will be informed according to the new guidelines:
par. 11. If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. In addition, elders will inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with the individual.
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/
 

This is a quote from the original poster who subsequently asks for the opinion of others.. The opinion of others can only be Yes, No, or Maybe. As this is a UK issue, there is a moral, not legal, duty, for an informed third party to report such matters to a suitable authority. In view of the intimate knowledge this alleger claims to have,  the option was suggested that they discuss the matter anonymously with Childline on a Freephone number 0800 1111.
What is particularly odious about the whole exchange is that the party in question is vociferously complaining and making allegations about others who, in their opinion, "cover up" such cases.
Consider:
An allegation has been made.The accuser has given their opinion as above. Others have expressed their varied opinions.  An option that would report the matter to a suitable authority, anonymously, has been given. Yet the alleger continues to dither, continues to accuse others of the same moral hypocrisy.  The alleged potential for further harm remains. This person, regardless of status, is appearing to behave like an active part of the problem they are continually complaining about. Why is there even a discussion on the matter?