HollyW

Bzzzt, bzzzt, bzzzt. You are out of the game. Not only have you cheated (I had originally spelled it 'focussed') but both spellings are correct.
I didn't bother to read any more in your post. I've spent way too much time on your drivel already.

I think there's been new understanding about this, JWs are to obey the elders even if they are wrong:
[wt 4/1/2007 p.28, par.8-9] 8 We obey the elders not only because we are directed to do so in God’s Word but also because we are persuaded that they have Kingdom interests and our best interests at heart. We will certainly be happy if we willingly accept their leadership.

9 What, though, if we are not convinced that in a certain case the elders’ direction is the best way of doing things? That is where submission comes into play. It is easy to obey when everything is clear and we agree, but we will show that we are truly submissive if we yield even when we do not personally understand the direction provided.

Your math is off. The abuse of 'A' was about 25 years ago. Anyway the point remains about how to best safeguard children and address abuse allegations in the here-and-now.
That is your personal opinion of my personal opinion, but it is not my personal opinion. 
The courts' and ARC's findings, based on the evidence presented by all parties (and not on my personal opinion, btw), is that the Org. has had a woefully inadequate set of child abuse policies and procedures which, in practical terms, has focussed on protecting the Org's image, on protecting the alleged abuser's 'right to confidentiality' at the expense of the victim's welfare, enabled abuse to continue, and victims who disclosed to be further traumatized. The Org. needed to improve its attitude and approach, which it has to a limited extent over the years, but it still fails in key areas.
Is not the Organization spirit-directed? 
If the holy spirit directs, does it direct imperfectly? I.e. is it the holy spirit's (God's) fault when the spirit-directed Org. gets things wrong?
If it isn't the holy spirit's fault that the Org. has made mistakes, and if the holy spirit directs perfectly, has the Org. been ignoring the spirit's direction?
If the Org. has been ignoring spirit-direction, it wasn't being directed by holy spirit.
Sure, the Org. is made up of imperfect people, but those imperfect people make grand claims about how wonderful they are and how they are the only ones being directed by God's holy spirit to act and teach a certain way.
I think you are confusing the Commission with civil court.
(Give me strength. Talk about delusional.) So you do believe Watchtower inflated its own figures and included other sexual 'sins' in its list of child sexual abuse cases? Lolol. Smh.
Isn't this what you originally claimed in the second post of this thread?
"No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem." - AllenSmith, 8/12/16
So which argument are you going with? Do you think the Org. is better than other religions at safeguarding children, or 'no different from any other religion'?
 I'm glad to see you've finally dropped the 'JWT is my brother' charade.
This is why you should follow your own counsel about not searching through legal websites for a quick response to win an argument. You have completely misunderstood its content. 
 (6)     A person ceases to be a registrable offender if—
... (c)     he or she is a registrable offender only because he or she is subject to a sex offender registration order and that order is quashed on appeal.
In other words, if a person who, due to having been convicted and sentenced for a registrable offense was court ordered to be on the register, later has that court order overturned on appeal, s/he ceases to be a registrable offender. 
*Sigh*

Even though it would mark a turning away from what they had said was the truth, I don't think the men on the WTS GB would consider their actions to be apostasy, even though that IS their definition of it.  More likely it will read something similar to the presentation of changed beliefs used in the 11/15/2016 WT:
For many years, this journal suggested that the times of the Gentiles ended in 1914 and "the one who has the legal right" to the Davidic crown, Jesus Christ, became King in that year. However, for reasons that we shall outline in this article and in the one following, a re-examination of the subject was necessary.  
The scripture this puts me in mind of is not found in Hebrews.....it's in 2 Timothy 3:7 "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
 

Well, I'd be among the last one to tell you to keep clinging to an incorrect teaching such as the Gentile times ending in 1914, and it's good that you're open to changing your belief about it, even expecting to do so from the sounds of things.  That's the thing to do, isn't it, when a teaching you believed was based on the Bible turns out to be based instead on the speculations and expectations of men.
So, the Gentile times did not end in 1914, Jesus did not become King in 1914, the Messianic kingdom was not born in 1914, the presence of Jesus did not begin in 1914, and no inspection took place between 1914 and 1919, therefore no appointment of a faithful slave took place in 1919.
You can see the domino effect dropping 1914 would have, which might be why it hasn't been changed yet.

Even though it would mark a turning away from what they had said was the truth, I don't think the men on the WTS GB would consider their actions to be apostasy, even though that IS their definition of it.  More likely it will read something similar to the presentation of changed beliefs used in the 11/15/2016 WT:
For many years, this journal suggested that the times of the Gentiles ended in 1914 and "the one who has the legal right" to the Davidic crown, Jesus Christ, became King in that year. However, for reasons that we shall outline in this article and in the one following, a re-examination of the subject was necessary.  
The scripture this puts me in mind of is not found in Hebrews.....it's in 2 Timothy 3:7 "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
 

It's nothing like what you said.
Bzzzt.   Aww and you'd done so well catching one in the other post. Never mind. Thanks for playing.
I suppose you think a display of ineptitude is virtuous.
I see that you, as 'Allen' have nothing more to further the discussion. It looks like your alter ego has submitted something worth addressing, however. ...
For heaven's sake, whatever 'God's government' is supposed to do in the future, we are talking about children's welfare in the here-and-now. Finding ways to better protect them or to better deal with allegations of abuse is not 'mindless.' 
James 4:17 . . .if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.
Besides, 'God's earthly organization' is representative of or an extension of 'God's heavenly government,' is it not? The spirit-directed Org. should be a trailblazer in children's safeguarding and its responses to abuse allegations, providing a shining example to 'worldly' institutions, right? Instead, it has been embarrassingly far below the higher 'worldly' standards.
I've asked (Allen) several times for suggestions on how the Org., and institutions in general, can improve their policies and procedures; or how to protect children in the congregation if the abuser doesn't get disfellowshipped and remains a member. No sensible answer is forthcoming from either of your identities so far. Responses such as 'God will sort it out' and 'Stop picking on us - we're not the only ones with a problem' aren't good enough. 
Allegations of child abuse are not 'frivolous,' and if Watchtower or its' agents reported a suspected incident of abuse to the appropriate secular authorities in good faith, there would be no legal cause for the accused to sue them for breach of confidentiality.
Your quotation, purportedly from a Watchtower letter about a query over confidentiality, was in regard to a JW insurance salesman revealing the urine test result of a fellow JW and prospective client which indicated he was a smoker. Nothing to do with the issue of reporting a crime to the police.
The court case you cite was to do with a lawsuit over being shunned - likewise irrelevant to the question about what should and shouldn't be divulged and to whom when suspected child abuse comes to light.

SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION ACT 2004 - SECT 6
Who is a registrable offender?
    (1)     Subject to subsections (3) to (6), a registrable offender is a person whom a court has at any time (whether before, on or after 1 October 2004) sentenced for a registrable offence.
- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sora2004292/s6.html (Bold emphasis mine.)
To be 'sentenced,' a person has to go through the judicial process and found (or pleaded) guilty, i.e. the authorities have taken action. Your (Allen's) statement remains erroneous.
... like you have, for example. 

Well, I'd be among the last one to tell you to keep clinging to an incorrect teaching such as the Gentile times ending in 1914, and it's good that you're open to changing your belief about it, even expecting to do so from the sounds of things.  That's the thing to do, isn't it, when a teaching you believed was based on the Bible turns out to be based instead on the speculations and expectations of men.
So, the Gentile times did not end in 1914, Jesus did not become King in 1914, the Messianic kingdom was not born in 1914, the presence of Jesus did not begin in 1914, and no inspection took place between 1914 and 1919, therefore no appointment of a faithful slave took place in 1919.
You can see the domino effect dropping 1914 would have, which might be why it hasn't been changed yet.

Hi Holly, I thought you might be interested in this article concerning new changes outlined in the 11/2016 Watchtower.
here
Jesus is barely mentioned throughout the magazine.  There are quotes such as this one, which is particularly troubling:

Love for God and neighbor and the urgency of the Kingdom-preaching work move God’s people “to come forward . . . with a gift in hand for Jehovah” by making voluntary donations. How thrilling it is to “honor Jehovah with [our] valuable things” and to see how such resources are used faithfully and discreetly to do the greatest work in human history!—Prov. 3:9

Besides guilting one into thinking we show love to our neighbor by supporting a corporation supposedly leading one to life, holding out one’s full palm of earthly valuable things toward the “faithful and discreet slave” contradicts the teachings of Christ.  Didn’t he overturn the tables of the money changers?  Money changers were basically bankers. Obviously, Jesus was not convinced they were faithful or discreet with the people’s money. 

 “And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business.  When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.  And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”  Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten[a] Me up.”  John 2:14-17

Matt 21:12-13 - Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 3 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves. ‘”

The use of Prov 3:9 to promote the giving of one’s “valuable things” to the organization is ironic.  The chapter goes on to say,

Happy is the man who finds wisdom,
And the man who gains understanding;
 For her proceeds are better than the profits of silver,
And her gain than fine gold.
 She is more precious than rubies,
And all the things you may desire cannot compare with her.
Length of days is in her right hand,
In her left hand riches and honor.
 Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
And all her paths are peace.
 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her,
And happy are all who retain her.  Prov 3:13-18

Wisdom is found in the Word, Jesus Christ, and will further be found in his complete Bride in God’s Kingdom.  This leads us back to where our faith should lie, and where we store our “treasure”, our “valuable things”.

 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;  but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.  Matt 6:19-21

Jesus also said,  “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”  John 6:27

I hope this becomes clear to JWs.  Our heart’s motivation can be either in the faith, in Christ; or we can have faith in an organization already filled with earthly treasures.  We can’t have it both ways.  Matt 6:24

By giving money to the organization, the “money changers” then “sell” their spiritual goods to the hearer.  A spiritual corrupt commerce is evident.  It is an alarming fact that the beasts of Revelation, work together to support such a spiritual fornication.  Rev 13: 11,15,17

Testing whether we are in the faith, in Christ, can be determined by the source of our spiritual sustenance.  Do we procure it free from Christ, or must it be purchased through the organization?

“I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see” Rev 3:18

And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.  Rev 21:6

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.  Rev 22:17

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts,
Come to the waters;
And you who have no money,
Come, buy and eat.
Yes, come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without price.
Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And let your soul delight itself in abundance.  Isa 55:1,2

Christ is the bread of life given freely to those who listen.  The Watchtower sells tainted teachings, otherwise known in the bible as wormwood.  Amos 5:7; Jer 23:15; Rev 8:11 
http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/12/wormwood-armageddon-false-prophet.html

 

 

I agree, Ann,  The car group definitely missed a witnessing opportunity. If the other fellow in the van who ducked down and put his hands over his ears is the elder who is supposed to accompany convicted sex offenders, he could have come 'round and explained the WT policies and assured Vargas that this man was being carefully monitored by him while out representing the WTS in field service.  Could have had it all on camera, but they shut their car doors and left the neighborhood.

I'm still not sure he's allowed by law to visit homes of minor children even if it is with others.  I'm sure it can be startling to have someone all of a sudden with a camera in your face being loud, but he should have known that having that record in his past and being out in public someone was bound to confront him.  So yes, being prepared with an answer ahead of time would have been adequate, instead of total denial.  If everyone is in denial, nothing will change.  There should be an ongoing restriction against anyone underage being left alone with individuals accused of sexual abuse.  This would be added protection for everyone, while understanding everyone should be treated with love and respect.

What bugged me was that Ivery said the cameraman/neighbor "had it all wrong" when he was asked if he was a convict and on the register.
I would have preferred something along the lines of, "Yes, that's me. I committed this terrible crime and I'm on the sex offender's register for life. I served my time, I repented and became one of Jehovah's Witness. Nevertheless, to allay your and the neighborhood's concerns, not only am I monitored by the authorities, but I have certain restrictions within the congregation, and an elder who knows my background has to accompany me whenever I'm out in field service sharing my faith. If you wish to check with the police, please be my guest. Good day to you, sir." Then with voice lowered, "Psst, and by the way, the more recent allegations against those sisters were never proven." 

The sister and brother didn't seem as though they knew anything about it.  They could be allowing their children or grandchildren to be alone with him.  Yet, I'm sure some in the congregation know his background and afraid to speak up about their concerns.  The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem, so stronger measures are put in place.  Maybe background checks should be standard for all the churches or organizations for any new members or door to door publishers.  That should not be too difficult since everything is computerized now and flags will show for anyone that is arrested or convicted.  Definitely, we want to do our best to protect those that can't protect themselves in this plague upon society and the whole world.

Very well said, Ann!  

My my, Allen. I'm going to need a license to fish out all the red herrings swimming in your post.
Only in your imagination. 
Yes. Conti, Campos, Karen Morgan, 'A' (the one referred to in the OP), several more. 
Which cases have you followed? Seeing as I have asked you this a number of times now, I can only conclude that you haven't really followed any.
Was this a JW case? If so, who was it and where? I'd like to check it out. 
Do you think the cases I just mentioned above were ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Or were they 'legitimate'?
So you didn't read them ... otherwise you wouldn't have written such twaddle. But for the sake of argument, what protocols in your opinion does the government need to recommend to improve institutions' responses to child abuse allegations? Do you have any concrete ideas? Or are you going to continue to blow smoke?
Was this a JW case? If so, who was it? I'd like to check it out.  
You asserted that the WTS was sued for breach of confidentiality when elders reported crimes to the authorities. You haven't backed up your assertion, and the evidence from Watchtower's own documentation and elders' own testimonies in court reveal that elders did not routinely notify the authorities about child abuse during the '80s and '90s. 
We've been over this, doofus. You are wrong. I have shown you why you are wrong. All 1006 cases were classified as Child Sexual Abuse. The commission is only interested in child sexual abuse incidents hence it being called (see if you can spot the clue in the title) 'The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.' 
Do you really think Watchtower Australia inflated its own figures by including adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper contact' in its child sexual abuse stats? Lolol.
Um, no. That's not how it happened. Watchtower didn't want to produce the necessary documents on some pretext that it wasn't practical because it would take a crazy amount of time (somewhere in the order of 20 years) to give the court what it wants. A computer expert testified that the needed info could be extracted in a couple of months so it became evident that Watchtower was talking BS. Although the default judgment (i.e. the terminating sanctions because Watchtower had violated the court's discovery order) was overturned on appeal, Watchtower is still ordered to produce the needed documents and will have monetary sanctions imposed for each day it doesn't.
http://dumaslawgroup.com/2016/06/28/jehovahs-witnesses-face-sanctions-withholding-documents-sex-abuse-case/
I should hope they are. That's JW publishers' dedicated funds they're wasting! 
Because it's not there in the ARC evidence.
Horse-hooey.  
Hahaha! Saying there were 2 testifying victims 'is a far cry' from my contention that there were 2 testifying victims? Brilliant. At least you've conceded on this point.
You have forgotten your own train of thought. The point I was responding to was your suggestion that Mr. Stewart was ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability.' I asked whether you really believed that. You then answered with something completely irrelevant about 'spiritual cleanliness' so I cut it from my post.
Ah, now you are trying to proof-read. (Psst, you bolded and italicized the wrong part.) 
Why did you quote UK law, then?
Not if the authorities have taken no action - which is contrary to what you stated.
Clap ... clap ... clap. You caught one. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of highlighting every punctuation and spelling mistake of yours that I've copied and pasted in this post. I may not have caught them all (there were so many) but I've found there is always room for improving our written presentations, don't you agree? 
I'll give you a hint. If you look through my previous post, you might just see it among the 2 transcript extracts I quoted. Now, don't pester me for more clues. I don't want to spoil all the fun for you. Good luck! 
As I said, both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help, so yes, they were willing to participate in exposing the wrongdoing.
 The 'flip-flop' confusion is because your brain is jumping around like a frog in a box. 
The UK has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. The U.S. does.
The main point is to do with the person (allegedly) responsible for sexually assaulting these women and calling him to account before a court of law. If there were others involved who had knowledge of and/or knowingly enabled the crimes to take place, hopefully they will be called to account too. But the only reason I mentioned Cosby was to make a connection in your head about the statute of limitations barring victims from initiating lawsuits after a set period of time since the crime, thereby countering your point about victims suing 40, 50 years later.

With only a few exceptions. I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure I could manage to get whatever is necessary reported to the proper authorities and also meet the obligations of the congregation.

I do not mean just eye-witness evidence; after all, eye-witness or video evidence is rare. I mean "direct" in the sense that the case, or a confession, or complaint, were brought directly to my attention.
Having spoken at some length with a couple of abuse victims, I also know that behavior and trust characteristics on the part of the victim can also be evidence, but I am no expert in such difficulties. I'm talking about persons who suspect that a child has been abused, or when parents, guardians, or the child himself/herself makes the claim, or an adult makes a claim about a past case of abuse (or series of abuses) when they were a child.
At this point, the suspicion may not even deal with who is suspected of being the perpetrator (although this is usually part of the accusation). Parents don't want to believe a relative or spouse can be guilty, and often refuse to suspect the right person, or even provide evidence that they suppress psychologically or purposefully. The remaining evidence is often just the claim of a victim, and it often comes to light many years after the abuse occurred -- and by this time memories and projections and confusion will often need to be factored in. There are cases when an abused person, years later, will even blame the wrong person, sometimes a parent who was only indirectly responsible through negligence or suppression of obvious clues. Also, victims often go through stages of behavior after abuse that make them vulnerable to multiple abusers through their lives, and dealing with the painful memories of multiple abusers is often a factor that leads to mistaken memories. And sometimes it's a very simple matter, even if it happened years ago. Sometimes there is a diary, or letters to a parent, relative, or friend. Often there is the evidence that shows up when an accused perpetrator moves to another congregation, and new accusations come to light in the next congregation,  or a search into his background shows up previously unreported accusations from a prior congregation.
These complexities just point out that we need all the help we can get in such situations. Whether the evidence is recent or from years ago, we still need to inform the authorities as quickly as possible. We need all the help we can get from persons trained to investigate such matters. (Romans 13) 

Did you mean 'cue' word? Anyway, despite your latest round of diatribes, the moderator's axe hasn't fallen on you yet. 
Much of your post is off-the-point invective (as usual) so I'll only home in on what is pertinent to the topic.
Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?
Governments have done so already. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?
Oh you didn't specify that they were wrongfully accused. 
If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 
Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 
It is a matter of public record how many of the 1000+ allegations were reported by the elders in Australia, so you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.
But they weren't - not by the Org, anyway.
Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.
 On what?
Actually, Mr. Stewart wiped the floor with him. 
You refer to (not 'my evidence' but) Watchtower Australia's list of 1006 Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) incidences that was submitted as evidence to the ARC. The title of the tabulated document is, "Jehovah's Witnesses - Incidence of CSA in Australia" so yes, they were all child sexual abuse cases.
You mention there are some convictions listed, but do you see the last column on the right of the table titled "Reported to authorities by JW"? Scroll down that column. Do you see any 'yes' entries there?
As I say, you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.
There you go again. 'We.' Are you using the 'royal we,' perhaps? 
By reading the BOE child abuse letters (including this month's which made some improvements but still nowhere near what's needed), the elders manual, and the UK's WTBTSB Child Safeguarding Policy.
The point is always safeguarding children and young people by having a robust and up-to-date set of policies and procedures that meet current best practice in line with the recommendations of the government and other advisory bodies with expertise in this area.
The Org's approach remains inadequate. It has to be dragged by external pressures into making any changes. 
After the Conti case in 2012, when a stark light shone on the Org's shameful failures in dealing with a known abuser in their midst, Watchtower issued new directives to the BOE. 
Recent high profile UK cases drawing the attention of the Charity Commission as well as the ARC hearing and findings, where the Org's handling of abuse was dissected and laid out on public view, have likewise prompted Watchtower's revision of its directives that were circulated earlier this month.
Therefore, the Org is exhibiting a reactive mindset rather than a proactive one - which is indicative of an institution that won't acknowledge how far it needs to change.
2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.
There's that 'we' again. Relay this message to the other voices in your head: 'Ann has never testified in court about Watchtower abuse issues; she has never claimed to have done so; quit making stuff up.'
You gave an example of a 'repentant' abuser who wasn't disfellowshipped and remained a member of the congregation? Did you also detail how the congregation's children were protected at the time? I must have missed that. Can you repost your example?
Good. We agree with each other here.
Are you one of the insane, then? For you are 'listening' to me and engaging with me. It looks like I was right about your mental state after all. 
How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?
Is that a 'no'?
I refer you back to previous answers.
 
I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:
You stated,
"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list"
You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution
If no action is taken by the authorities, the accused's name would NOT be placed on a mandatory sex offenders list!
If the WTS has been compliant, why have 'Caesar's laws' shown it to be otherwise?
Who should establish the validitiy of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?
Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?
Transcript Day 1:
MR STEWART: Your Honour, the first witness will be the
first survivor witness, [BCB]. Her name and address are
known to the Royal Commission, and she is accompanied by
her husband for support.
THE CHAIR: [BCB], it will be necessary for you to be
sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an
affirmation?
[BCB]: An oath on the Bible
<[BCB], sworn: [11.30am]
Transcript Day 2:
MR STEWART: The next witness, your Honour, will be [BCG].
THE CHAIR: [BCG], it's necessary for you to be sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an affirmation?
[BCG]: Affirmation.
<[BCG], sworn: [12.14pm]
Which victim? 'AB' or 'BG'? *snort*
Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.
Your statement: not even wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.
You are citing a UN resolution about conflict-related rape and applying it to Cosby's alleged crimes? Smh.
Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.

 

Great post, Ann.
If the WTS was really God's organization, it would have set the moral standard for all the other organizations to follow long ago. Instead it has reacted in such a way that protects itself and the predator, at the expense of the victim, the endangerment of the congregation, and abandonment of the elders who can be found individually culpable for not reporting this crime to the police.

I was was recently reading a book (fiction) wherein the the victim was a key player in bringing "a whole conspiracy to light. Even now now the whole truth isn't known." In response, the villain replies: "Buried. Because the truth would embarrass important people. It's always been that way."  I retained that quote as salient because of what I had seen and experienced within the organization. An expression in my country is: "Don't expect justice from Bethel." The reason behind that expression isn't that justice is never served, but rather it appears at times to be a matter of who you are or are connected to - who you friends are, what position you have. I would like to emphasize - as always - that not everyone is like that and it would be unfair to present it that way. But there does (at times) seem to be a different standard for those in authority compared to to rest. Those who use their authority to insulate themselves from scriptural accountability are manifesting a lack of faith in their accountability to God. ("Jehovah is not seeing...") It is a manifestly political view of matters that should be viewed from a spiritual, faith-based point of view.  So the idea that people should keep quiet to "protect Jehovah's reputation and his organization" is well, (fill in the blank). The Bible shows that when needed discipline was required for his people, Jehovah didn't hold back because he was afraid of what the neighbors think. That surrounding nations would conclude that their gods were greater after taking his people into captivity, didn't stop Jehovah from being true to himself and his standards. In my experience, keeping quiet (even under threat) only enables and emboldens those who have the most to hide. I've seen whole vicious, lying campaigns launched to discredit individuals who have exposed wrongdoing of the privileged. Still on the other hand, it's important to respect authority - especially within the organization, but not to the point of blind, worshipful obedience. The principle of "relative subjection" applies within the organization as well. Not everyone who has authority are what they may appear to be and even apostates have been able to get away with being such for years. (Should anyone become one simply because someone in authority leads them in that direction? Is that what "obedience" is?)
I was aware of your other references, and there is more than innuendo regarding Greenlees. I thought the sauna/pool incidents you mentioned you had previously attibuted to someone else you had described as "the oracle." Percy Chapman perhaps?  Maybe I remember your previous post from last year incorrectly. 

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to ad hominem and deflection. I think our conversation must soon come to an end if you continue to be incapable of rational discussion.
My questions resulted from your own words where you said the WTS and other institutions are getting hammered and negative publicity, not because of their failings but, because of "ambulance chasing lawyers." 
Do you think the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits in recent times are down to "ambulance chasing lawyers" and are not 'legitimate' cases? Which 'legitimate' cases have you followed?
What are you babbling on about? Which disgruntled witnesses? The abusers? When did the WTS or congregation elders notify the authorities about allegations of child abuse in the '80s and '90s? In Australia, according to the evidence brought out at the Royal Commission, the elders did not notify the police about the crime once in all 1000+ cases in the past 50 years.
Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.
I asked you a question. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question? You stated that the WTS will make changes through the Branches to comply with new government legislation. This prompted my question to you about whether you believe governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?
So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?
Again, you are wanting to bend the discussion away from the issues and make it about me or other institutions. To steer you back on track, a reminder: the article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Court case after court case after public inquiry after court case has shown there is a pattern in how disclosure of abuse has been mishandled by the Org. The directives to the BOE as well as JW culture explain why this pattern exists. There are huge flaws in the Org's approach that desperately need addressing.
 In general. Now you have that clarified, 
What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?
Your suggestions please.
Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 
And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'? 
Historically, the Org's elders have already been 'taking the law into their own hands' by investigating and passing judgment on child abuse allegations internally within the congregation. This is why so many cases have been grossly mishandled, pedophiles had opportunity to abuse more JW children, and victims were further harmed and traumatized.
Regarding your nonsensical objection about 'forcing' - reporting to the police or child protection services is forcing a criminal act to be exposed and stopped, and the perpetrator of that crime to be called to account and punished. 
What should the elder do if he suspects child abuse and/or neglect?
"If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services (CPS), in the State where the child resides. Each State has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most States have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), provides a list of State child abuse and neglect reporting numbers and information on how to make a report in each State.
"Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp® National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp® can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number, 1.800.4-A-CHILD® (1.800.422.4453)." - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6
"Anyone can report suspected child abuse or neglect. Reporting abuse or neglect can protect a child and get help for a family it may even save a child's life." - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/reporting/how/
"Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 
What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"?
The article in the OP is not discussing this type of scenario but that of adults abusing minors. Besides, the latest August 2016 BOE letter clarifies what the Org. means by 'child abuse' on p.3:
10. Congregation Considerations: When discussing child sexual abuse from a congregation standpoint, we are not discussing a situation in which a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood is involved in sexual activity with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved. (See paragraphs 24-25.) Rather, we are referring to an adult guilty of sexually abusing a minor who is a young child, or an adult guilty of sexual involvement with a minor who is approaching adulthood but was not a willing participant.
Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list.
Elders are required to follow the Org's instructions. No mind-reading was involved. 
Exactly. The governmental authorities have those processes and powers. This is why they have to be called on to act when crimes have been committed. As the apostle Paul said,
"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.  For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.  The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.  So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." - Rom. 13:1-5 (NLT)
And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?
Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?
Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry. 
It means that the UK WTS have been unsuccessful in blocking the Charity Commission from investigating how the UK congregations deal with child abuse allegations. The Commission can now go ahead with their inquiries. Read the article.
Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 
"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"
... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself.
You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous. 
Well duh. And your point is ...? 
Aaaand another senseless ad hominem rant. Your trademark. To repeat:
The article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Do you get how topical sections in a discussion forum work?
So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 
Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?
Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?
This is the most sensible thing you have said in the whole discussion. However, evidence gathering is done by the police and forensic teams, and the legal system decides whether there is enough to potentially secure a conviction in criminal court and/or a favorable judgment in civil court.
Huh? What does that even mean?
Yeah whatever. This scripture has no bearing on how best to safeguard children now.

    

LOL! Hilarious response to AllenSmith (and JWTheologian).
I was thinking about the reasons for the use of duplicate accounts by Allen. Anyone here who has the IP address displayed already knows for a fact that AllenSmith and JWTheologian are the same person. Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc.
But what actually ties them together even more clearly is the fact that he regularly resorts to using the language of abuse and bullying. On the jw-archive forum, in fact, his new names were used specifically so he could continue his abusive behavior when prior user names had reached the limits of the abuse allowed by moderators.
I did a little experiment with Allen that might seem either funny, revealing or embarrassing. I'll explain below:
As many people know, Allen's prime use of the two names on this forum is not so much to allow him to hide his abusive behavior. After all, both names are still in use, both have been equally abusive, and I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him.
In fact (and this may be the primary use) both names: AllenSmith and JWTheologian have been used to bolster the reputation of each other. AllenSmith very often give "likes" or a "reputations" to his own posts of both names. And JWTheologian has also given "likes" or "reputations" to his own posts of both names. In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.
Knowing this, I wondered how important that self-made reputation was to Allen. I decided to give a "Down-vote" as a "reputation" which hurts AllenSmith's and JWTheologian's overall numerical "reputation." But I only gave that "down-vote" to a small number of his posts. (In fact there have been a couple of posts in the past where I have given a "like".) I only down-voted a few of the posts where AllenSmith and/or JWTheologian had already boosted his own reputation by giving himself an up-vote AND where he was being nasty, abusive, or was clearly using an ad hominem.
The experiment worked. Both AllenSmith and JWTheologian quickly came back at past posts of mine under several topic areas. He left some with a "minus one" reputation and some where he just knocked a point off the overall count where others had already up-voted my post.
It seemed a bit ironic in topics like this one where one of the sub-topics is a discussion of how and why a society or entity will cover up abuse for the sake of "reputation." My own view has always been that I should do my best, where possible, to expose this kind of problem, whether I would learn of evidence of it in a local high school, or a sleazy photographer surreptitiously taking pictures of children in our local park, or even our own Organization. Exposure is the best solution that most of us can help with.
And now, I've also done my small part to expose the abuses of an individual perpetrating abuse, ad hominem and bullying on this forum while simultaneously trying to boost his own reputation.

I'll take that as a 'no.' 
... asks somebody with two or more accounts and whose handle picture is of Wyatt Earp. 
Anyway, moving back more in line to the topic at hand, you criticize those who criticize the Org's mishandling of child abuse. I ask again - as we do not want to lose sight of the important central issue that children need to be protected and victims of abuse need redress and to see their abusers stopped and punished - with regard to the specific inadequacies of the JW Org, what in your opinion will help address their child safeguarding failures? Can you offer any possible improvements to the Org's child protection policies and its procedures after disclosure?

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.