Evacuated

Is this a mistype?

?? The info you have provided???
You feel condemned? The problem is that you are presenting the same charcteristics as those you condemn others within the congregation for having. You may not actually intend this, but you seem to be doing the same thing as those you yourself condemn . So, that would lead to the conclusion that you are self-condemning. But I don't think that is what you are aiming at, is it?
??? I thought you said:
 

The official line on this in the UK is:   "You don’t need to be sure that a child or young person has been abused - it’s OK to report a suspicion."  https://www.gov.uk/report-child-abuse
and this reassurance if you report to Childline on 0800 1111: "The ChildLine number won’t show up on your phone bill if you call from a landline or from most mobile networks."
Your reticence to get involved is understandable, but you have revealed such a lot about the matter in this, a public forum, along with your various allegations against "elders" whom, you say, have more responsibility than you do, that it would seem that the reticence "horse" has actually bolted.
As made clear, the UK police line on this matter is "there is a moral duty on everyone of us to report to the police any crime or anything we suspect may be a crime".
Your concern regarding evidence is unfounded, as the police have a duty to investigate any report of "suspicion". It is up to them to decide if there is evidence or not to substantiate it.
It is all so easy to do, and can even be done anonymously. I don't understand your shrinking back from what is your moral responsibility, regardless of that of anyone else.  I would have thought, given the tone of your allegations against others, that you would proudly proclaim your "doing the right thing" in the matter of reporting allegations of child sexual abuse.
But, so far, all these reasons and justifications you list seem like more of the mealy-mouthed excuses of others on non-reporting  to which you attribute your withdrawal from the Witnesses. I am sure that wasn't your intention?
To stay (rather tenuously ) on topic, this kind of discussion would seem to be a pretty good reason why  those who wish to debate such matters in a congregational setting would be better shunned.

This beggars belief. Has anyone heard of other cases where prosecution has factored religious belief on the condition of the dead as a component of a "guilty" verdict? I mean are all the Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim,  etc. folk who get accused of murder said to be emboldened because they believed their alleged victims are actually alive after death?

OK......So what if one day it was discovered that the accused has molested again. How would you feel if you could have perhaps prevented it? They would be talking about you on apostate forums saying this John Butler knew about it and didn't say anything. How would you defend yourself? Excuses? You ARE starting to sound as bad as the elders. 

By the way, did you get that child abuse issue you were talking about sorted? The Childline suggestion seemed to be a way you could keep personally out of the frame and still get some practical advice on the matter remembering that there could be children at risk. How did you get on with that? You did get on with that didn't you?
 

If you are using a PC and you want to see the intended caption for the picture rather than the speculative interpretations commonly voiced at KHalls, then Right Click on the picture and choose Inspect from the menu. The caption will appear in the code window on the right, highlighted. Like this:

Although from the January 2019 study edition, these captions will will appear as footnotes for each study article, the method holds good for most illustrations in recent electronic publications.

By the way, did you get that child abuse issue you were talking about sorted? The Childline suggestion seemed to be a way you could keep personally out of the frame and still get some practical advice on the matter remembering that there could be children at risk. How did you get on with that? You did get on with that didn't you?
 

In terms of the Christian congregation, compare 2Cor.5:20.
Or: 
deputy (noun): a person who is appointed to undertake the duties of a superior in the superior's absence

This workflow still works on my iPad. But it is just for Apple devices.
http://appchasers.com/2015/03/17/video-optimize-your-theocratic-activity-using-workflow-for-iphone-and-ipad/

If you are using a PC and you want to see the intended caption for the picture rather than the speculative interpretations commonly voiced at KHalls, then Right Click on the picture and choose Inspect from the menu. The caption will appear in the code window on the right, highlighted. Like this:

Although from the January 2019 study edition, these captions will will appear as footnotes for each study article, the method holds good for most illustrations in recent electronic publications.

This the subject for a different thread. Why not start it off?

Diapers? and Babygrows? You might want to add food and love if you are the parent?

Source

If you are using a PC and you want to see the intended caption for the picture rather than the speculative interpretations commonly voiced at KHalls, then Right Click on the picture and choose Inspect from the menu. The caption will appear in the code window on the right, highlighted. Like this:

Although from the January 2019 study edition, these captions will will appear as footnotes for each study article, the method holds good for most illustrations in recent electronic publications.

Don't you give the staff a chance too?

Yes. I spoke about him in one of TTH's threads, too:
 

Not a joke and not the point.
The options presented are simply that...options. The MAIN issue about moral responsibility, which remains, is not offset by others who perhaps fail to meet thiers.
It does do and I can see you have a bit of a dilemna, but you seem to be second guessing what you think elders may or may not do. Also you seem to be doing the same regarding the competence of the authorities. You have understandable misgivings on the basis of what you say your experience has been, but in no way do they obviate moral responsibility in this case. Child safety is the issue here.
Given your particular difficulties, the Childline number is available to anyone in Devon UK wanting to discuss problems of this nature: 0800 1111. Ambivalence in such matters seeems to be at the crux of your complaints against Jehovah's Witnesses way of doing things anyway, so why not bite the bullet?

Isn't he?

I found this for you @JOHN BUTLER
Watchtower 1987/ 8/15, page: 29
"We do know that his hands or arms were not simply bound, for Thomas later said: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails.” (John 20:25) That could have meant a nail through each hand, or the plural “nails” might have reference to nail prints in ‘his hands and his feet.’ (See Luke 24:39.) We cannot know precisely where the nails pierced him, though it obviously was in the area of his hands. The Scriptural account simply does not provide exact details, nor does it need to. And if scholars who have directly examined the bones found near Jerusalem in 1968 cannot even be sure how that corpse was positioned, it certainly does not prove how Jesus was positioned.
We thus recognize that depictions of Jesus’ death in our publications, such as you see on page 24, are merely reasonable artistic renderings of the scene, not statements of anatomic absolutes. Such depictions need not reflect the changing and conflicting opinions of scholars, and the drawings definitely avoid religious symbols that stem from ancient paganism.
 

Well that is a good spirit to display. And bang on target. I certainly do understand your position now.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q514.htm

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q514.htm

Ehm? How about...

If that is the extent of your understanding of God's word.......then I understand your position at last.