Child Sexual Abuse UK

[Outta Here 2,167]

This subject is unlikely to subside.

@AnneOMaly has related that "there is a campaign to have the UK JWs' child abuse allegation procedures officially investigated due to failings that have come to light in high profile cases over the past few years." This thread was started. due to publicity around the issue.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

has reported on the campaign, (although a subscription is required to get the full account).

The campaign includes pressure to include the matter in the investigation, currently in the UK, of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which has commenced hearings despite an extremely shaky start.  

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

.

So with this backdrop, don't miss an enlightening BBC drama looking at a particular series of incidents in Rochdale, UK. This illustrates some context around this disgraceful crime, and provides insight regarding the failings of institutional response, highlighting something of the general social and institutional environment that all, including Jehovah's Witnesses, find themselves within, particularly in the UK.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

As these are time limited links, the drama is also available on youtube:

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

 

[TrueTomHarley 4,088]

It is a classic example of getting slammed for doing the right thing, and it should not be spun any other way.

The way to avoid such messy critiques is to preach to the congregation on Sunday and let that be the end of it. It's up to them what they do with it. That way, if somewhere down the line a member of a religion is busted for child abuse, leaders can truthfully say, like Sergeant Shultz, 'I know notttthhhhiiiiiiiinnnngg!' 

Let them come to consume religion, and no more. Give no thought to disciplining congregants who misbehave. Construct matters so that you never know about these ones.

Fail in your duty to God to produce for him a people spirituality and morally clean. Tell Him: "What you see is what you get. It's not my problem.'

Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out. Nobody else cares about Scriptural direction to maintain cleanliness as a congregation. Nobody else has a clue what their members are up to. When cops nab an abuser, their religion is never reported because few imagine that today's religions should result in clean people; it's not their job. Only Jehovah's Witnesses take it upon themselves to insist upon clean people.

For the most part, former Witnesses who are now enemies and who push this narrative for all it is worth were disciplined at one time for one thing or another, and are livid over it. It's no more complicated than that.

 

[JW Insider 5,396]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out.

I think your general sentiment is right, of course, but this idea reminds me that a couple weeks ago, I was sent a few newspaper articles from Australia (via Facebook) that were supposedly from a follow-up on the ARC cases. The majority of them had no religious affiliation so I had to take his word for it. I did a search on a few of the names, and was able to figure out that at least one of the accused abusers had been identified as a Witness.

It made me think that this probably happens a lot more often than I had thought, where a newspaper writer will often leave off the religious identity unless they think it's an important part of the story.

That made me think that what happens on forums like this is that there are always some persons, both for and against us, who have their news feeds set up to find any mention of Jehovah, Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower, Kingdom Hall, Watchtower, etc., as key words for their searches. So naturally, the news that gets talked about here is news where a Witness has been identified in the news article.

 

[Outta Here 2,167]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out.

Actually this is a valid point but is also an overstatement. The word "never" exaggerates. The Roman Catholic church, as an example, has received considerable publicity over this matter, albeit with a focus on clergy crime. 

This topic provokes strong reactions wherever it is raised, not least because it seems to be one of the final frontiers of morality left in this broken system. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have little detailed knowledge of the topic from a media perspective, both because of it's extreme distastefulness as well as the aforementioned negative media bias with it's apostate links.

It is difficult to get a rational grasp on the matter, even more so on the real facts behind what appears in the media. I have found the factual element of what has been posted on this forum to be very useful along with links to information sources. The various viewpoints expressed, including those I do not share, have been enlightening. 

In field ministry recently, I met the director of a national mental health organisation. He is known for having very strong and negative views on Jehovah's Witnesses in general, and particularly in the area of handling child abuse. He is not averse to loudly disputing with Witnesses on the street, hailing facts and figures to support his views to such an extent that most cannot engage with him. The information I had gleaned from postings here was very useful, and I was able have have a fact-driven conversation with this vociferous man, with an insight into his pattern of thinking. At least the level of emotion  and speech volume was reduced, and I think that being able to engage rationally and factually was a factor in that. A position held in ignorance of facts in an emotional exchange is guaranteed to fuel an angry reaction.

Hopefully, this topic will generate a useful contribution.

[TrueTomHarley 4,088]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually this is a valid point but is also an overstatement. The word "never" exaggerates. The Roman Catholic church, as an example, has received considerable publicity over this matter, albeit with a focus on clergy crime. 

I always exaggerate. 'Never' in MySpeak means 'rarely.' 'All' means 'most.'

But in this case, I hold to the never. It is membership I am speaking of. Everybody's clergy gets outed when they do wrong in this regard, but nobody's membership. It's because nobody has a clue as to what their membership is up to. Nobody feels the obligation to present to God a morally clean people, so they don't bother checking to see what members apply biblical morality and what do not. If a member gets blown in for child abuse, it's not their affair; in fact, they know nothing about it. They are not the 'middleman'  and thus cannot be called to account for whether or not they handled matters in the way deemed acceptable by abuse people today.

So with regard to members, how else are we to know an abuser's religious affiliation? Can we imagine the police or the judge will ask about it? Of course, they will not, so the only membership you will hear about is Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a 'vulnerability' in this regard, and it is vulnerability that stems from doing the right thing. If we ignored the conduct of our members, as others do, we would not have this vulnerability. We also, in time, would not have a congregation looking much different than the world in matters of morality. That is what infuriates former members who are now enemies: our attempt to do so, for many of them were once on the losing end of discipline. 

Our 'clergy' stack up pretty well with regard to abuse, and clergy is the only place where you can compare apples to apples - you can't do it with membership because no one else keeps track.

In 2007,  Watchtower settled a number of abuse cases. This statement was released to the media at that time: "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse....During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare..."

We have a missing puzzle piece here. We know the stats for abuse among our 'clergy.' We know the stats for abuse among the clergy of others. But when it comes to membership, we only know the stats for Jehovah's Witnesses. So as not to be comparing apples to oranges, we need to know the stats for the membership of other faiths. We will never get them because nobody keeps track. So people who know better (and many who don't) will continue to equate the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses with the clergy of other religions.

With a missing puzzle piece that will not be supplied, all we can do is extrapolate. If eleven Witness clergy were sued over 100 years, with only four of them stemming from any culpability from the organization, then I submit that the overall rate among the members will also be low. If it is seen to be high, then the overall rate among memberships elsewhere will be astronomical.  

Of course, we see that it is. Child sexual abuse everywhere is an absolutely out of control pandemic. Like nurturing a seedling plant through inclement weather, apostates promote the idea that the pedophilia problem is disproportionately a Witness problem. It is not. If stats are disproportionate, it is probably the other way, as it is with clergy.

[Outta Here 2,167]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I always exaggerate............................But in this case, I hold to the never.

Exaggeration is a feature of this area of debate and (for me) has no place in informed discussion on such a serious matter.

I haven't seen any analysis on the religious persuasion of child abusers and agree that some apostates contribute to fueling the biased reporting on the religious identity of child abusers who are or may have been connected at some time with Jehovah's Witnesses.

I recognise that the reporting on the religious identity of child abusers amongst religions other than Jehovah's Witnesses is biased toward "clergy" or other religious officials. However, in view of their imaginary office, I still view them just as members. Obviously, a cursory look at the vast numbers of reported child abuse cases indicates that the proportion of non-clerical membership of various religious groups engaging in this crime must be higher than commonly perceived.

And as you have now explained that your "never" means "rarely", I hold to my view.

 

21 Nov 2007 JW Press release.pdf

[TrueTomHarley 4,088]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

And as you have now explained that your "never" means "rarely",

When you come right down to it, do absolutes ever apply to entire populations? In any group consisting of millions, you will find many examples of anything. It is enough to focus on the preponderance of evidence, the overall pattern, the forest - even when discussing individual trees.

[bruceq 920]

    Unfortunately child abuse will likely only get worse as this system goes down as seen from 2 Tim 3:1-5, 13.. It is found  everywhere in the world not just among religious groups.  In the First Century the Christians also had a problem with "such immorality as is not even among the nations" 1 Cor. 5:1 [also chp 5, 6 and 7 also deal with this incident]. The incident in this case was "incest" which CAN be child abuse if the victim is a child. Of course in the Corinthian congregation the APOSTLE  Paul  was counseling them because they were not handling it correctly {making excuses instead of removing him from association]. Yes Christians including those in authority do make mistakes but eventually as noted in this Scripture it was handled "properly"{remove the wicked man} although many in satans world may have handled it "differently".

   Jehovah's way is always the best way even if we do not understand why Jehovah may do certain things in certain unusual ways [expect the unexpected]. After all someone could conclude on principle that Jehovah was guilty of child abuse when he told Abraham to "tie up the boy" and then hold a knife to him to kill him? {Quality of Loyalty? obviously not just a prophetic drama}. From that day on, Jehovah called Abraham his friend. Do you know why? Abraham did whatever Jehovah wanted him to do, evenwhen he didn’t understand why Jehovah had asked him to do it 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Cor. 10:11.

   And Jesus said to eat his flesh and blood so was that "misleading false information" was it "right or wrong"? {Loyalty}  Who dares tell Jehovah that his way or his representatives are WRONG in how Jehovah handles things or finds "fault" except of course Satan and other DISLOYAL ones {Korah-like apostates}. Genesis 22! {. Ez 18:25. Isa. 55:8,9}.

   These fundamental principles from God's Word are as relevant today as when they were first written even if today's society says otherwise. It is not up to US to "reform" Jehovah's Organization. Christ is the HEAD of the Congregation - our commander and chief.

   "Whether good OR BAD, we will obey the voice of Jehovah". And who was that "voice" that instructed them? "To Jeremiah [an imperfect human]...do exactly as Jehovah your God instructs us THROUGH YOU" Jer. 42:5,6. Humble LOYALTY is the point, to Jehovah and his organization. Heb. 13:17.

[JW Insider 5,396]

5 hours ago, bruceq said:

Unfortunately child abuse will only get worse as this system goes down. It is found  everywhere in the world.  In the First Century the Christians also had a problem with "such immorality as is not even among the nations" 1 Cor. 5:1 [also chp 5, 6 and 7 also deal with this incident]. The incident in this case was "incest" which can be child abuse if the victim is a child. Of course in the Corinthian congregation Paul was counseling them because they were not handling it correctly. Yes Christians including those in authority do make mistakes but eventually as noted in this Scripture it was handled properly although many in the world may have handled it differently.

Not every problem needs to get worse as the system goes down. Plagues and flu that have killed millions of people may have seen their worst days from the Middle Ages until about 1919. Soap and a better understanding of germs and cleanliness (clean water, etc) has likely been the reason that the population of the world has grown so rapidly especially in the last two or three generations since 1919.

The Watch Tower publications were not the only sources of bad (false) information about germs, up until as recently as 1931. Note:

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.

Of course, we have had multiple plagues in the world from the even before Jesus predicted that these things would continue to occur. And we could be hit with something unexpected and terrible in the near future, but plagues are no longer the kind of worry they were during the days of exploration from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Lack of plagues results in rising populations and therefore food shortages, however.

Child abuse might actually be another matter that gets better, not worse, as the system heads towards the end. More public awareness (including families of course), and more education, and more alert institutions (religious, educational/academic, health, government services) can make a huge difference, especially as children are made aware of the potential problem at younger ages. Although there is still scrutiny and a lot of news about the problem, I think the situation might already be improving. The circuit overseer in my parent's congregation, Kent K*rr*s.,  in private conversation, claims that the problem is much rarer in the past few years than it was 10 years ago. I suspect the same is, or will soon be true with better vetting in the Catholic churches, too. My aunt is a lapsed Witness who attended a funeral for a friend in a Catholic Church about 4 years ago, and picked up a letter from the archbishop to all members in the back "foyer" of the church that announced that their new priest was on leave for an investigation into such a scandal, and that this was especially difficult on all church members since their bishop had just been removed indefinitely although he claimed innocence of similar charges. The archbishop promises that great care will be taken to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

I understand your point about bringing the incest problem from 1 Cor 5 into the mix, although that was not at all about child abuse. The idea that even the world might have handled this particular problem better than the Corinthian congregation was handling it is an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. 

But the real point I wanted to make was that it seems like a real non sequitur when you add this:

5 hours ago, bruceq said:

Jehovah's way is always the best way even if we do not understand why Jehovah may do certain things in certain unusual ways. After all was Jehovah guilty of child abuse when he told Abraham to "tie up the boy" and then hold a knife to him to kill him?  Who dares tell Jehovah that his way was wrong except of course Satan and his minions. Genesis 22!

Of course Jehovah's way is best! But your logic is hard to follow here. What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse? And how is handling child abuse in any way akin to telling Jehovah he was wrong in Genesis 22?

It comes across as a kind of defense of the long-standing way in which the Organization has handled child abuse cases just because, for example, we were trying to make excessive(?) use of the two-witness rule (which had the supposed advantage of keeping most of these cases quiet from both the rest of the congregation and the press). Even now there are very few Witnesses who know the identity of more than just a few of the 1,003 child abusers in Australia, for example. I happen to know for an absolute fact that just a very few of these were men that were regularly seen by tens of thousands of fellow Australian Witnesses due to their high positions. There had been an unofficial move-them-around policy similar to what happened in some Catholic dioceses. Something very similar came up in the UK Branch Office so that a few people at the very top lost their positions (a couple years ago) so that the branch in the UK would be in a better position to save their threatened status as a charitable organization. By the way, if you happen to know the three or four top persons who lost their positions, I am not referring to whether or not any or some had been personally accused of crimes, I'm also referring to a claim of undeniable knowledge of crimes that were not handled correctly, ethically, or even according to law in some cases.

Also, I should mention that it is now the Governing Body's position that certain things must be done by the law of the land even if we know that the Bible itself recommended a different process under the nation of Israel. This is why Brother Jackson refused to admit that the Bible supports corporal punishment of children and focused on only one scripture in that regard that could be said to have a non-literal meaning. The rights that Jehovah has to create a prophetic drama by having a specific situation played out is not relevant at all to how we handle matters of abuse today. (When Jehovah asks a prophet marry a prostitute, or cook his food with excrement, or even see just how far a person will go when asked to kill their son: none of these have anything to do with how we should handle child abuse or defend processes just because Jehovah may do certain things in unusual ways.)

[Anna 2,402]

"What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse?"

This was the thinking also of a certain other poster on a similar thread, and I hate saying this, but perhaps this kind of mentality has been the reason for non reporting and other inefficiencies regarding the handling of child sexual abuse. Yes, it is true that Jehovah should figure in our trying to solve problems, since being a JW is a way of life, but when it comes to handling of child sexual abuse, "waiting on Jehovah" and other perceived theocratic sensibilities just don't seem appropriate in this situation.

[TrueTomHarley 4,088]

The President of the Philippines was interviewed recently by the Russian Times.And boy oh boy, did he ever unload:

MF: Can I ask you a personal question, please? Two years ago, you shocked the media by revealing that you had been molested by a priest when you were 14 or 15 years old. And later, you even identified that priest. He was an American national.

RD: Yes. Not only I – the whole class. Two generations up and two generations down. All of us.

MF: You were 70 years old at that time. Why would you make that confession more than 50 years later?

RD: I said this because of the penchant to keep silent. The abuses of the priests had been filmed everywhere. There was an Italian underground film – I’m sure you saw that – priests were running naked there. And they don’t really bother to investigate. There is no condemnation. Nothing. They show the priests and the religious people doing shenanigans, but it is seen just as part of the show of the night. Is it liberality? Is it because you don’t want to condemn your own countrymen? Or is it because the victims were just natives? Never mind about them. We were considered natives. And sometimes pictured as apes.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I am not referring to whether or not any or some had been personally accused of crimes, I'm also referring to a claim of undeniable knowledge of crimes that were not handled correctly, ethically, or even according to law in some cases.

In view of the above interview, it is obscene to even include Jehovah's Witnesses in the same discussion of rank pedophilia. It is obscene not to continually slap down persons who would attempt to equate the two. 

Knowing of a case that was not handled 'correctly' is poles apart from being the predator of that case. They would not even have that knowledge if they were like the churches that make no effort to keep themselves clean morally in God's eyes.

[bruceq 920]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

In view of the above interview, it is obscene to even include Jehovah's Witnesses in the same discussion of rank pedophilia. It is obscene not to continually slap down persons who would attempt to equate the two. 

Knowing of a case that was not handled 'correctly' is poles apart from being the predator of that case. They would not even have that knowledge if they were like the churches that make no effort to keep themselves clean morally in God's eyes.

"Since all these things {including child abuse} are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion,   as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,  through which the heavens will be destroyed  in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!   But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise,  and in these righteousness is to dwell. Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace".—2 Pet. 3:11-14.