Evacuated

Of course they are, but their meaning (dare I say...) overlaps.
The key to understanding is to consider against who the crime or sin is committed. The word sin is traditionally viewed by those of the soulical world as relating to the violating of God's laws or standards, whereas the word crime is understood by many of that same designation as referencing a violation of the requirements or laws of the secular state.
Really, in the spiritual world there is no difference between a crime and a sin as any violation of God's laws or principles constitues a crime or sin. To sin is a criminal act.
But we have no problem in speaking the language of the world if that is what they understand.

More complicated stuff!
I presume you are trying to make a case for the need to speed up action in the case of Child Abuse crimes??? If that is the case, then it is a worthy cause, regardless of context. And one I agree with wholeheartedly, across the board.
However, I don't think I could really comment on your hypothetical generalities unfortunately.  Specific cases from a host of backgrounds where they have been brought to light in a legal context, appear to have been commented on extensively in the public domain by those qualified to do so. Where there are genuine reasons for criticising the handling of such cases and these have been dealt with, then presumably these instances have then been handled as appropriately as possible by the correct authorities? Any exposure of mishandling in specific cases then serves to inform all parties presumably.
Quite how you have managed to morph a discussion on baptism questions into one on handling of Child Abuse allegations would be an interesting study in itself, but not one I have the inclination to unravel at this point of time.
Anyway, if the topic manages to get back on track and any further points meriting discussion appear, I will be back. But for now, excuse me if I turn to other areas of interest. 

More complicated stuff!
I presume you are trying to make a case for the need to speed up action in the case of Child Abuse crimes??? If that is the case, then it is a worthy cause, regardless of context. And one I agree with wholeheartedly, across the board.
However, I don't think I could really comment on your hypothetical generalities unfortunately.  Specific cases from a host of backgrounds where they have been brought to light in a legal context, appear to have been commented on extensively in the public domain by those qualified to do so. Where there are genuine reasons for criticising the handling of such cases and these have been dealt with, then presumably these instances have then been handled as appropriately as possible by the correct authorities? Any exposure of mishandling in specific cases then serves to inform all parties presumably.
Quite how you have managed to morph a discussion on baptism questions into one on handling of Child Abuse allegations would be an interesting study in itself, but not one I have the inclination to unravel at this point of time.
Anyway, if the topic manages to get back on track and any further points meriting discussion appear, I will be back. But for now, excuse me if I turn to other areas of interest. 

They were " in the right place but it must have been the wrong time"  Malcolm John Rebennack Jr.
As for the billionaire illustration, we are not suggesting that Jehovah pays us to go to assemblies are we?

We have to pray, meditate and make out minds over - not just when we are at meetings, all the time. Earnest effort is required at all times.
 

All under your "inspired" topics and threads.

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 
If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 
If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

Isn't the scripture clear? They would banish, treat as tax collector, avoid, hand to Satan, stop keeping company, not even eating with, remove, neither greet nor receive into their homes or say a greeting to. Do you need more?
Ezra 10:8."he would be banished from the congregation of the exiled people." (For comparison).
Matthew 18:17 "let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector"
Rom.16:17 "keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them."
1Cor.5:5 "hand such a man over to Satan"
1Cor.5:9, 11 "stop keeping company", "not even eating with such a man."
1Cor.5:13 "Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”"
1Tim.1:18 "Hy·me·naeʹus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught by discipline not to blaspheme."
As stated above: 2John v11
So work it out and apply it, if you are a Christian that is. It doesn't have any application to those who are not.
Oh, and remember though,  there is a purpose in it as alluded to by Jesus at Matt.18:11 "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother", and directed by Paul at 2Cor.5:6-7  "This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him".
You should be able to work an application process from this.
 

Was this the 1st Century?
1 Cor.5:11: "stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man"
2John 10-11:"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

" For she keeps saying in her heart: 'I sit as a queen and am no widow, and I will never see mourning' " Rev. 18:7
"The U.S.-headquartered Jehovah’s Witnesses have been under pressure for years in Russia, where the dominant Orthodox Church is championed by President Vladimir Putin. Orthodox scholars have cast them as a dangerous foreign sect that erodes state institutions and traditional values, allegations they reject." Reuters
The activity of Alexander Dvorkin is well documented. In 1993, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, he established a Russian anti-cult organization currently called Association of Centres for the Study of Religions and Sects (RATsIRS). From that time on he has been extremely active in opposing cults and new religious movements through his publications. (Wikipedia)
Finally, in making an appearance at the 1999 trial hearings, which aimed at eliminating the Moscow community of Jehovah's Witnesses, this Alexander Dvorkin recounted stories about a Jehovah's Witness known to him personally, who allegedly dreamed of taking a machine gun to kill everyone who disagreed with him. However, Dvorkin was unable to answer a single specific question about the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
Anyone who underestimates the guile, malice, and influence of the "man of lawlessness", despite its spectacular fall from grace in the eyes of many who were formerly dominated by it's intrigues is, sadly, under it's spell. 2Thess.2:9-11

" For she keeps saying in her heart: 'I sit as a queen and am no widow, and I will never see mourning' " Rev. 18:7
"The U.S.-headquartered Jehovah’s Witnesses have been under pressure for years in Russia, where the dominant Orthodox Church is championed by President Vladimir Putin. Orthodox scholars have cast them as a dangerous foreign sect that erodes state institutions and traditional values, allegations they reject." Reuters
The activity of Alexander Dvorkin is well documented. In 1993, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, he established a Russian anti-cult organization currently called Association of Centres for the Study of Religions and Sects (RATsIRS). From that time on he has been extremely active in opposing cults and new religious movements through his publications. (Wikipedia)
Finally, in making an appearance at the 1999 trial hearings, which aimed at eliminating the Moscow community of Jehovah's Witnesses, this Alexander Dvorkin recounted stories about a Jehovah's Witness known to him personally, who allegedly dreamed of taking a machine gun to kill everyone who disagreed with him. However, Dvorkin was unable to answer a single specific question about the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
Anyone who underestimates the guile, malice, and influence of the "man of lawlessness", despite its spectacular fall from grace in the eyes of many who were formerly dominated by it's intrigues is, sadly, under it's spell. 2Thess.2:9-11

" For she keeps saying in her heart: 'I sit as a queen and am no widow, and I will never see mourning' " Rev. 18:7
"The U.S.-headquartered Jehovah’s Witnesses have been under pressure for years in Russia, where the dominant Orthodox Church is championed by President Vladimir Putin. Orthodox scholars have cast them as a dangerous foreign sect that erodes state institutions and traditional values, allegations they reject." Reuters
The activity of Alexander Dvorkin is well documented. In 1993, with the blessing of Patriarch Alexy II, he established a Russian anti-cult organization currently called Association of Centres for the Study of Religions and Sects (RATsIRS). From that time on he has been extremely active in opposing cults and new religious movements through his publications. (Wikipedia)
Finally, in making an appearance at the 1999 trial hearings, which aimed at eliminating the Moscow community of Jehovah's Witnesses, this Alexander Dvorkin recounted stories about a Jehovah's Witness known to him personally, who allegedly dreamed of taking a machine gun to kill everyone who disagreed with him. However, Dvorkin was unable to answer a single specific question about the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. 
Anyone who underestimates the guile, malice, and influence of the "man of lawlessness", despite its spectacular fall from grace in the eyes of many who were formerly dominated by it's intrigues is, sadly, under it's spell. 2Thess.2:9-11

I see your point Tom, but I incline more to the view that the modern day "atheist class" is more a result of the activity of the same old "man of lawlessness" that appeared over the 1st-3rd centuries. This class is just an inevitable expression of the "lovers of self" characteristic, spawned by the modern day reaction to apostate religion, particularly (but not exclusively) in Christendom.  I wouldn't honour it with the status even of "man of lawlessness".
The application of the term "man of lawlessness" to Christendom's clergy, as you have described that we make, is quite sufficient for me. Jesus warned of the weeds sown in with the wheat in secret, and a subsequent revelation of their activity and presence in the last days. Matt.13:36-43. Also Paul and Peter warned about their springing from within the congregation, from among those entrusted with the care of the flock. Acts 20:29-30;  2Pet.2:1-3. Paul's reference to a restraint that would get "out of the way", (2Thess.2:7), fits well with the notion of the passing in death of the original apostles.The state of affairs during the time of the last remaining one, John substantiates this development both in the Revelation report by the head of the congregation (Rev. Chap.2-3), and in his letter (1John 2:18-19). 
The current pusilanimous state of the clergy of Christendom in many (not all) parts of the world is no indicator of the need for an emergence of a "new" man of lawlessness. The effects on society of the degraded belief system, practices, and results on laity of the apostate parasitic fungus known as "Christendom's clergy class" are well described by Paul at 2Tim 3:1-7 as a sign of the "last days". This is clear both historically and currently to all who care and, albeit without spiritual significance, equally to those who do not. The power of the clergy is broken, the" man of lawlessness" has been revealed, and much to "his" chagrin, it is true Christians, now known as Jehovah's Witnesses, that have been instrumental in setting in motion this exposure and subsequent withering of power, particularly since 1914CE. (Comp. 2Thess.2:8). But we cannot overlook the fact that the now defunct and exposed clergy class still rears its ugly sting to inflict vindictive damage on true servants of God if possible (See the Russian affair). The foul scorpion has been trampled, but is not yet dead!
The chorus of wailing accompanying your suggestions on this forum reminds me of the "goat songs" of ancient Greece, and I suppose are a rather fitting accompaniment to the inevitable demise of this apostate, self-promotIng demigod of Christendom's clergy in the tradition of the culture "he" so greatly admired.
As for the "temple" reference in v4, this fits well with the application to a false Christian congregation  in view of the illustration of the true anointed Christian congregation as a "temple" Eph.2:20-22. Rather like the Pharisees and scribes who sat themselves in the "seat of Moses"(Matt.23:2), the apostate clergy of Christendom are a counterfeit light to the world.
In my opinion, of course. 

This is a statement implying uncertainty in the accuracy of what follows. This is no way to present the accusatory remarks that you make. It shows that at best they are only your opinion and that you yourself have doubt in their validity.
How different from the example we have been set. 

Years ago, I was at a Drop Zone in Tallequah, Oklahoma, in an airplane hanger with many long tables, where the skydivers would lay out their parachutes to repack them after a jump, and there on the wall, above the packing tables ... was a six foot tall poster of Superman, in flight ... right hand on his chest, and the other fist in front of him ... and words of wisdom to smokers of tobacco products who disregarded their health ... but BETTER NOT drop a burning ash on someones' parachute ......
"ONE SHOULD NOT SMOKE ... UNLESS ONE IS ON FIRE!"
 
 

What I saw in the Insight book vol 1 p454 is:
The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy's canon but by other sources as well.
Is that the reference you meant @Shiwii?
 

WT has been pretty clear on the requirement to comply with reporting regulations in these matters for a number of years. (1988 is the earliest reference I could find, relating to the situation in Canada). Where there is legal clarity, the obligation is clearly ststed. Where there is legal inconsistency, the branch office will direct. 
Individual elders confuse matters by not following direction, the whole matter is complicated further by allegations made by victims regarding mishandling. Reporting is still not generally mandatory in Britain although the JW policy stipulates that victims and their families are clearly informed of their right to unrestricted reporting. The whole matter is surrounded by fear which impedes proper care of the victims. 
The IICSA had it's preliminary hearing on child protection in religious organisations including Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday (23/07/2019).
An organisation called Ex-JW Advocates Opposing Crimes Against Children is represented there with Jehovah's Witnesses's representatives providing a response. Hopefully, further legal clarity will ensue. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/12997/view/preliminary-hearing-transcript-23-july-2019-.pdf

@Jack Ryan said:How do you feel about being told that you MUST wear your badge even when out to dinner at night with your family after a convention?
Never happened yet. But if it did, I would take it off.

@Jack Ryan said:How do you feel about being told that you MUST wear your badge even when out to dinner at night with your family after a convention?
Never happened yet. But if it did, I would take it off.

@Jack Ryan said:How do you feel about being told that you MUST wear your badge even when out to dinner at night with your family after a convention?
Never happened yet. But if it did, I would take it off.

Glurp! And I thought the British were "conservative"! (In their views).

"That is if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again have food debris in my beard"

SOME congregations. We don't have a beard restriction. Neat, tidy, well-groomed, free of food debris, vermin etc. is important, but having one is personal.

SOME congregations. We don't have a beard restriction. Neat, tidy, well-groomed, free of food debris, vermin etc. is important, but having one is personal.